IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH

VS.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

aka

WESLEY COOK

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
January Term, 1982



No. 1357-1358

- - - - -

PCRA Hearing

- - - - -

Monday, August 14, 1995
Courtroom 653, City Hall
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

- - - - -

BEFORE:   THE HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J.

- - - - -

APPEARANCES:
  • ARLENE FISK, ESQUIRE
  • HUGH BURNS, ESQUIRE
    Assistant District Attorneys
    For the Commonwealth

  • LEONARD I. WEINGLASS, ESQUIRE
  • RACHEL WOLKENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
  • DANIEL R. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
    Councel for the Defendant

- - - - -

TRANSCRIBED BY: CHARLES M. GORGOL
Official Court Reporter of the Court of Common Pleas



Page 2.

ALSO PRESENT:

  • DAVID RUDOVSKY, ESQUIRE
    Councel for Leonard Weinglass



INDEX
COMMONWEALTH EVIDENCE
WITNESS DE CE RDE RCE
Officer Vernon Jones 15 22 45 46
Detective Edward Quinn 48 58 -- --



EXHIBITS

COMMONWEALTH EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
20 Interview record (Off. V. Jones) 17


Page 3.

- - - - -

(At 10:05 a.m. the hearing was convened in the
presence of the Court and attorneys.)

- - - - -

MR. RUDOVSKY: May I approach the bench, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sure.

MR. RUDOVSKY: David Rudovsky for Leonard Weinglass. Your Honor, I was here on Friday afternoon and asked the Court in the alternative to vacate the finding of contempt against Mr. Weinglass and to reconsider that matter, and or to refer the matter to another judge. In essence, we asked for a hearing on the contempt action. We have several witnesses who observed what happened. Mr. Weinglass has a right to have his side of that incident heard on the record. It was in front of Your Honor. And while under direct examination you could hear it, we think that you are embroiled in this affair and should not hear it. But be that as it may, we ask for a hearing on that matter. There are witnesses who will testify that the photographs were in hand, they were about to be

Page 4.

handed over to Court and the Court acted precipitously in holding Mr. Weinglass in contempt.

THE COURT: What I would suggest to You, Counselor, you were not here. I would suggest that you wait until all the notes have been transcribed. Then you will see what really happened, okay. This matter is not going to be over today. There is oral argument that has to go forward at a later time after the Court reporter has transcribed all the notes, everybody has had a chance to review them. And I think that's when you should bring it up: At that time.

I would refer to an article, an editorial in yesterday's Inquirer which reads as follows. And I have taken parts of it out. He, the Judge, has allowed himself to be drawn into petty fights with defense lawyer Leonard Weinglass, an attorney with a long career of baiting judges in trials he has orchestrated into causes celebres. Mr. Weinglass has fished far beyond the limits of what the law allows in such proceedings. He has had a heyday insulting the Judge in the press and sometimes to his

Page 5.

face.

And then the news article went on to blame me for this. They seem to blame the victim rather than the perpetrator.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Your Honor, let me state --

THE COURT: I'm speaking now, okay.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Yeah.

THE COURT: In the old days we lawyers had a saying: If you have the evidence on your side, argue the evidence. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. And if you have neither the evidence or the law, scream like hell.

Now the news media, specifically The Inquirer, has changed that to read as follows: If you don't have the evidence or the law, blame it on the Judge. Who else are you going to blame it on.

Now, I think -- and I am telling this to The Inquirer -- if you want to be fair to the people who read your newspaper, you should purchase the notes of testimony from the Court reporter, and in it's entirety, including sidebars, everything, purchase it and print it

Page 6.

for the people who could not be present in this Courtroom to hear this evidence. And you don't have to do it all at one time. You could run it as a series. You could probably make a lot of money selling it to the people, they may be interested in it. At any rate, it would be the only fair way to do it.

And I am not putting you off, Counselor, I am just saying I think you should wait. At the proper time, after all the notes are transcribed, I've had a chance to read it over, and everybody's had a chance to read it over, I would be glad to hear you at that time.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Your Honor, two problems. Number one, regardless of what the notes say, we have witnesses to testify.

THE COURT: Okay, okay.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Secondly, under the threat of incarcerating Mr. Weinglass, we paid the fine this morning. We will be taking an appeal this afternoon in that matter.

THE COURT: If you will take an appeal, go ahead. Unfortunately, they will have to wait until the notes are transcribed, but take your appeal.

Page 7.

MR. RUDOVSKY: I am asking the Court for a hearing. Is the Court denying us a hearing on contempt?

THE COURT: I don't think you are entitled to a hearing. Unless you could give me a case that says that you are. When the contempt is in front of the judge, he could hold him summarily in contempt, he doesn't have to hold a hearing.

MR. RUDOVSKY: I don't disagree with that proposition.

THE COURT: Is that the law?

Is that the law?

MR. RUDOVSKY: That is the law. If I could finish. If there are witnesses and facts to be adduced from the other side, the defense has a right to be heard with those witnesses. You may have seen one thing, you may have heard one thing, you may have been mistaken.

THE COURT: Well, it is what I saw and heard that is important.

MR. RUDOVSKY: If the Court is saying we have no right to present a defense to the contempt.

THE COURT: Unless you could show me

Page 8.

a case that says that you are.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Taylor versus Hayes, United States Supreme Court.

THE COURT: Xerox the case, give it to me. At my leisure I will read it and let you know where I am going.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Let me just say one final thing since you mentioned it. Mr. Weinglass has been held in contempt once before 25 years ago, a contempt that was summarily reversed. He has never, never been held in contempt any other time. He has been threatened with contempt --

THE COURT: Counselor, I didn't write the editorial.

MR. RUDOVSKY: I don't think that you did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you saying that Mr. Weinglass is saying the news media, specifically The Inquirer, is printing something that isn't true?

MR. RUDOVSKY: That's exactly right.

THE COURT: Is that what you are saying?

Well, Inquirer, there it is: You

Page 9.

don't print the truth. What you better start doing is buy the notes and print it in the paper. Okay.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Your Honor, we would join in that request because we think what would be printed would demonstrate and fortify exactly what the defense has been saying.

THE COURT: Okay, let's see. Let the public decide that.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't approve of the news media spoon feeding something to the people who read their paper. Let them print the entire proceedings, let the public decide. Particularly those people who are out in California, don't know anything about it. Those people over in Germany, those people in South American. Let them print the whole thing, everything that went on, all right.

Now let's proceed with your last witness. I hope.

MS. FISK: Good morning, Your Honor.

Your Honor, in light of the testimony which was presented, I have not provided prior notice to defense because these are witnesses in

Page 10.

direct rebuttal to the witness that was completed at 5:45 on Friday. There are two witnesses, Your Honor. The first will be Officer Vernon Jones, who was a police officer who had contact with Mr. Singletary on the morning of December 9th, 1991. The second witness will be a Detective Quinn, who is a detective who took the written statement from Mr. Singletary which Mr. Singletary was confronted with.

THE COURT: Well, do you have that to give to the defense Counsel now?

MS. FISK: Do I have which?

THE COURT: No, the --

MS. FISK: That's what I have just advised the Court I have not previously told --

THE COURT: Well, why don't you give it to them and I will take a short recess.

MS. FISK: The statements, Your Honor, are statements which were provided in discovery 14 years ago. Officer Jones gave a statement on December the 17th, 1981. Counsel has that. And obviously the statement of Mr. Singletary was marked and was fully discussed on Friday. So these are not new witnesses, recently

Page 11.

discovered. These are witnesses about whom the defense knew.

MR. WEINGLASS: With respect to witnesses, the Court has advised defense that the defense may not subpoena any further witnesses without the Court's first permission. And I'm applying at this time for permission to issue a subpoena to a witness who testified at the trial. His name is Robert Chobert. And our investigator, who is present in Court, Michael Newman, had a conversation recently with Mr. Chobert in which Mr. Chobert indicated for the first time that he received a promise of assistance from the District Attorney trying the case. His name is Joe McGill. And that promise was that Mr. McGill would help Mr. Chobert recover his chauffeur's license so he could go back to gainful employment as a school bus driver.

That promise was never turned over to the defense and so it constitutes another Brady ground. And in light of that we would like to bring Mr. Chobert in to testify to the fact that he received a promise of assistance from the District Attorney. And for that reason we would

Page 12.

like to subpoena him. If the Court will allow us to do so.

MS. FISK: Well, first, Your Honor, I assume that if Counsel has had an investigator speak to Mr. Chobert that they have an affidavit from Mr. Chobert asserting the representations that Counsel just presented to the Court.

THE COURT: Well, do you have an affidavit to give to her? Maybe she'll withdraw the objection she may have.

MR. WEINGLASS: We don't have an affidavit. I might say, Mr. Chobert has indicated quite clearly that he will only cooperate if he's subpoenaed. He will not cooperate with us. But he will respond to a subpoena and that's why I'm requesting one.

THE COURT: Well, sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, without any statement or affidavit all we have is Counsel's bald assertion and, frankly, that is not sufficient.

MR. WEINGLASS: He is a prosecution witness, he will not cooperate with us. We can not get affidavits from prosecution witnesses.

Page 13.

He will respond to a subpoena. And that's why I'm requesting one. I represent to the Court -- and Mr. Newman is here (indicating), you can put him on the stand.

THE COURT: I know, you represented a lot of things to me and they didn't turn out to be exactly as you said.

MR. WEINGLASS: You could take it from Mr. Newman too. Put Mr. Newman on the stand and he will testify to a conversation with Mr. Chobert wherein Mr. Chobert revealed that he had the promise of assistance from the District Attorney. And he testified under that promise.

THE COURT: Well, all I could say to you at this time: Get yourself some kind of an affidavit from him. Try. If not, dig up the law on the subject. Both sides. I will be glad to read it and make a decision at a later time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I am indicating --

THE COURT: In the meantime, in the meantime let me go forward with the two witnesses that we have here.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we cannot get that affidavit, I am representing that to

Page 14.

the Court.

THE COURT: Well, if you can't, look up the law, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, we would like permission to subpoena him.

THE COURT: Well, look up the law. I keep telling you the same thing over and over again. Look up the law.

MR. WEINGLASS: The law allows us to subpoena witnesses for this hearing. I'm asking for permission.

THE COURT: Well, the law also says that you should have an affidavit from that proposed witness to give to the other side.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, number one, that rule of providing affidavits was a rule we suggested on day one. Which the Court refused to follow.

THE COURT: Well, you have been doing it, you have been doing it since day one and they have been doing it since day one and all of a sudden you are telling me you can't do it. Counselor, I don't want to argue about it all day here. You are taking up too much of the Court's time on this argument. Look up the law,

Page 15.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

I will be glad to look it over, and if the law is on your side I will so rule.

Could we please proceed with your witnesses so we could finish.

MS. FISK: Certainly, Your Honor. Your Honor, I call Officer Vernon Jones.

- - - - -

Philadelphia Police Officer Vernon Jones, Badge 4758, Highway Patrol, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Good morning, Officer Jones.

A. Good morning.

Q. Officer Jones, how long have you been a Philadelphia Police Officer?

A. 18 years.

Q. And were you a police officer, then, back on December the 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. On that date, Officer Jones, were you a uniformed officer on duty?

Page 16.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And did you have occasion to respond to the area of 13th and Locust Street following the shooting of a police officer?

A. That's correct.

Q. How did you come to respond to that scene?

A. It was a radio call: Assist officer.

Q. Where were you, to the best of your recollection, when that radio call came out?

A. Broad and Vine.

Q. If you recall, how long did it take you to get to the vicinity of 13th and Locust Street after receiving the call?

A. Ahh, took me about two minutes.

Q. Do you, as you sit here today, have a complete recollection as to all the events that occurred when you arrived at 13th and Locust Street?

A. No, I don't.

Q. On December the 17th, 1981, did you have occasion to give a statement to a Homicide detective about the events that occurred the week before on December the 9th, 1981?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at the time you gave that statement to the Homicide detective, was your memory fresh with regard

Page 17.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

to what had occurred the week before?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And after you gave a statement to the Homicide detective, did you have an opportunity to review that statement and check it for accuracy?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And was it accurate?

A. Yes, it was.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would ask, please, that this statement be marked as Commonwealth Exhibit...

THE COURT OFFICER: 20. 20.

MS. FISK: It needs to be stapled as well.

Thank you.

It is a three-page document to be shown to Counsel.

(Pause.)

(Investigation interview record was marked Commonwealth
Exhibit C-20 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Officer Jones, do you recognize what has been marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 20?

Page 18.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you recognize that as a statement given by you to Detective C. Brown on December the 15th, 1981 regarding the events of December the 9th, 1981?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now based on your review of that statement, can you tell this Court whether or not the information contained in this three-page statement was accurate at the time you provided it to Detective Brown?

A. That's correct.

Q. And was it?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now utilizing this statement, then, Officer Jones: When you arrived at the vicinity of 13th and Locust Street, did you have occasion to see anyone there that you knew?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that, sir?

A. Ahh, male by the name of Dales. I knew him by Dales.

Q. And do you know Dales to have another name?

A. Yes.

Q.Or did you know? Go ahead.

A. Singletary.

Page 19.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

Q. And how did you know this gentleman Dales Singletary?

A. From a gas station that his parents owned.

Q. And where was that gas station?

A. At Broad and Thompson. And at 38th and Girard.

Q. And utilizing a description -- did you on December the 17th, 1981, describe this male you knew as Dales?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And is it accurate that you said, I only know the male as Dales. I do know that he is a junior and that his father owns a Sunoco service station at Broad and Thompson Street. Dales is in his early thirties, five-eleven, medium build, around 180 pounds, dark brown skin, clean shaven with moustache. He wore dark clothing which possibly could have been his service station uniform. He drives a late-model 1980 or '81 light blue Cadillac.

Was that the description you provided on December 17th, 1981 of the male you had met that morning?

A. That is correct.

Q. And was that a correct description?

A. That's correct.

Page 20.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

Q. All right, where, as best you recall and utilizing the best recollection of you which is recorded, where is it that you first met Dales when you arrived at 13th and Locust Street?

A. I met him at a gas station.

Q. I'm sorry, on the morning of December the 9th, 1981 I am talking about.

A. At Broad and Locust.

Q. And do you recall where you were and where he was when you first met him that morning?

MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record reflect that the witness is reading the statement.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Well, let me ask you this. Is what is reflected in your statement what occurred?

A. That is correct.

Q. Do you have an independent memory as to what occurred that morning?

A. No, I don't. Only what I look at here (displaying C-20). It happened 14 years ago.

Q. All right. Well, would it be fair to say that in your statement to Detective Brown on the top of page 2, talking about after stopping your vehicle at 13th and Locust Street, you reported to Detective Brown I got out of my vehicle and was hailed or

Page 21.

Officer Vernon Jones - Direct

summoned by a Negro male known to me as Dales. This male had called my name, saying Jones, what's happening. I responded telling the male to wait and that I'd be right back. That's when I rushed over to the crime scene. From where I observed what appeared to be blood on the sidewalk and a policeman who stated that a police officer had been shot. At that time the police inspector came up to the scene and began seeking information of what had occurred from other officers at the scene. Not knowing the details of exactly what happened, I walked away from the scene and en route back to my squad car. At this point the male Dales walked up to me and asked me what happened. And I answered stating that a policeman had been shot. Dales stated, quote, I heard some shots but I thought they were firecrackers. Then that's when I started seeing all those police cars, close quote.

Dales also stated that after seeing all the police cars that he just stood there. I asked Dales if he had seen the shooting and he answered no. Dales stated that he was there with someone and I assumed he meant that he was with a woman. Afterwards I left the scene and continued patrolling my area of assignment.

Page 22.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Did I read that correctly, Officer Jones?

A. That is correct.

Q. And is that what you told Detective Brown on December the 17th, 1981 with regard to your contact with Dales on December the 9th, 1981?

A. That is correct.

Q. And was that correct when you gave that information to Detective Brown?

A. Yes, it was.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good morning, Officer Jones.

A. Good morning, sir.

Q. This statement that's been designated C-20, when did you first see that statement recently?

A. When I walked in here.

Q. This morning?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you sign that statement back in 1981?

(Pause.)

Page 23.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

A. No, I did not.

Q. So it's an unsigned statement; is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Was it the practice to your knowledge of Homicide not to have witnesses sign a statement?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the basis of your objection?

MS. FISK: Well, first of all, there is a difference between civilian witnesses and police witnesses.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. FISK: And second of all, I don't know that there is a basis for whether or not this officer would know what the practice was in Homicide.

THE COURT: Rephrase your question.

MR. WEINGLASS: All right.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Have you signed statements in the past that you give police?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't sign this statement?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Do you know why?

Page 24.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

A. No, I don't.

Q. And you weren't given a copy of it, either, were you?

A. Speaking about now? Earlier?

Q. No, back in 1981.

A. I don't recall.

Q. And the statement is not in your hand, is it? It's a typed statement?

A. This is a typed statement, that's correct.

Q. You didn't write out a statement?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Isn't it customary, Officer Jones, that when you're involved in a crime scene that you write out something in your own hand either in your own diary or in a report to the police?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, to what is customary.

THE COURT: Unless you could rephrase your question somehow, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. When you are a witness in a crime scene, do you usually make a writing of what you have experienced or observed?

A. Not all the time, sir.

Q. If you're a witness in a crime scene where a

Page 25.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

police officer has been shot, do you make any kind of entry anywhere as to what you've just done?

A. If I was involved in the crime scene, yes. But I wasn't involved in the crime scene, sir.

Q. You got there within two minutes?

A. Two minutes of the assist officer.

Q. All right. And you saw, did you see the officer laying on the ground?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you see a suspect on the ground?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You didn't see either one?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you talk to potential witnesses?

A. The only witness, potential witness I talked to was Dales.

Q. And did you write anything up in your own hand about your talking to Dales?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Were you keeping any kind of a log or diary at that time of your activities?

A. I kept a log.

Q. Did you consult your log today?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Do you know where your log is?

Page 26.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

A. So many years ago, it... it may be at my headquarters, I don't recall if they still have it after 14 years on that.

MR. WEINGLASS: We would request discovery of the log.

THE COURT: The discovery has been denied in the beginning, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, as I read C-20, you were interviewed by a detective named Brown?

A. That's correct.

Q. Could you describe Detective Brown for us?

A. No, I can not.

Q. You don't have any recollection of what he looks like?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Now, you told us a little something about Mr. Singletary. Do you know that he's five-eleven, medium build, dark skin, and in his thirties; is that right?

A. At that time, yes.

Q. And that his father owns two gas stations?

A. That is correct.

Q. And he works at the gas stations?

A. He did, that is correct.

Page 27.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Q. Do you know in what capacity? Was he manager?

A. He was a tow truck driver. He drove a tow truck with his name on it.

Q. But you don't know if he was the manager or not of the gas station?

A. At that time he was a manager. He was a manager, he was the son --

Q. Right?

A. -- of the owner.

Q. Son of the owner and manager?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And he was driving at that time a 1980 or '81 Cadillac, light blue in color?

A. That is correct.

Q. Is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you see the Cadillac out there that night?

A. No, I did not.

Q. That's of your own memory?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And you indicated you knew Mr. Singletary?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you know him socially or in the course of your work or how did you know him in 1981?

Page 28.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

A. In the course of my work.

Q. You were a highway patrolman and he would come frequently to the scene of accidents et cetera with a tow truck?

A. Vaguely, he would. Most of the time I would go up to the gas station at 38th and Girard, which he owned. Umm, that was right across from my assigned area.

Q. And you would go to that gas station to get gas or to have your car serviced, or were these in the nature of social visits?

A. Well, social visit or somebody breaks down I would push him up to that gas station for whatever services that he had at that gas station.

Q. So you got to know Mr. Singletary?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in knowing him at that time, 1981, did you know, did you note anything unusual about him?

A. Nothing unusual.

Q. He seemed to be what he held himself out to be: The manager of a gas station his father owned and a truck driver?

A. That is correct.

Q. Tow truck driver?

A. Right.

Page 29.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Q. He was not known to you as someone who didn't like the police?

A. No.

Q. Just the opposite?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, you have told us you have no independent recollection of this statement or what -- no, let me withdraw that. You have no independent recollection of this statement, but having read it today you adopt it as your statement; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Right. And you have no independent recollection of what happened out on the corner of 13th and Locust while you were there?

A. Repeat that, please.

Q. Yes. Do you have an independent recollection -- putting the statement aside -- of what happened on 13th and Locust when you were there in the early morning hours of December the 9th, 1981?

A. I do not have an independent recollection of what happened.

Q. Right. So things might have happened out there that you now just can't remember?

A. That's correct.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

Page 30.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

That calls for speculation.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I am not asking what, I am just saying the fact is he can't remember. I am not asking him to speculate about anything.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, you've been an active patrolman since 1981, for the last almost 14 years?

A. Since 1980.

Q. Since 1980. And I assume you've seen many crime scenes in the last 14 years?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this one doesn't stand out particularly in your mind because you've been working regularly since that period of time with all these other crime scenes?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, the event occurred on December 9th, as you point out, around 3:51 a.m. And you weren't interviewed until December 17th; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were interviewed at ten o'clock at night; is that correct?

(Pause.)

It is a notation on the right-hand

Page 31.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

side in a box.

A. That is correct.

Q. And if you can recall, did you receive some kind of a message to come to the Police Administration Building or the Roundhouse for this interview?

(Pause.)

A. That's correct.

Q. In other words, you're telling us you didn't go down there on your own, someone must have contacted you in an official capacity and asked you to come in?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And then you responded to that?

A. That's correct.

Q. This might be impossible for you, but do you remember who it was who contacted you?

A. No, I do not.

Q. And do you remember if you responded immediately to go down on December 17th or had you been contacted earlier and didn't go down until December 17th?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Now, was your shift a, were you on duty when you gave this statement?

Page 32.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

(Pause.)

A. I can't say because I might have been on a detail, I might not. I don't recall that day whether, what tour I was working at that time.

Q. But you can't reconstruct it, can you, by remembering that on December 9th you were working at 4:00 in the morning, and it appears that on December 17th you were giving a statement at l0:00? Does that help you recollect whether or not you were on duty at ten o'clock on December 17th?

A. Well, I was working 7:00 a.m. tour of duty on the 8th. So they might have called me in for this interview at a certain time. I don't know, they might have contacted me. I can't say because it's not documented here on what tour of duty I was working at the time of this statement (displaying).

Q. And I assume you remember, Officer Jones, like all interviews, there was some conversation between you and Detective Brown before Detective Brown started to type this statement; isn't that true?

A. What do you mean?

Q. When you came into the Homicide unit and you met with Detective Brown, I assume he didn't immediately start typing, I assume you and Detective Brown had an exchange of some sort and then at a

Page 33.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

certain point in time he started typing?

A. Well, we introduce ourselves. I introduced myself as Officer Jones, he introduced himself as Detective Brown. And I don't recall whether the statement was taken right away, five minutes, 10 minutes, I don't recall that.

Q. And when you went into Homicide that morning, you went in through the front door, if you can remember? I'm sorry, that evening.

A. I can only assume that I went in the front door of, of the PAB.

Q. And did you sign in in a logbook?

A. No.

Q. You did not?

A. No, I did not.

Q. I meant the logbook that's right near the front door?

A. No. Not if I was in uniform.

Q. Right. And did you sign in at any logbook at the Homicide unit?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Okay. Now, when you were called in that night, Officer Jones, and you met with Detective Brown, did he tell you that he wanted to question you about this witness named Singletary who came in and

Page 34.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

gave a statement on the night of the occurrence?

A. No.

Q. He didn't say that to you?

A. No.

Q. You have a clear recollection of that?

A. By what I'm reading here, the statement that I gave (displaying) is the first thing he asked me is what happened when I arrived at the scene.

Q. But did you, did you inquire as to how they knew you were at the scene?

A. Evidently I told them I was at the scene.

Q. But before you were called -- strike that. When you came in to see Detective Brown, did you say anything to him like why are you calling me in for a statement on this episode a week ago?

A. No.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No, I did not.

Q. But in reading your statement C-20, you see that most of your statement is taken up with a gentleman you describe as Dales?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that's Mr. Singletary?

A. That is correct.

Q. So you came in after a week had passed since

Page 35.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

the officer had been shot and you were questioned about a witness Dale Singletary who told you he didn't see the shooting?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Whatever is in the statement is in the statement.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the statement is subject to an attack on it's credibility, as is the witness' testimony. We can't just accept it at face value.

THE COURT: Well, he says that's all he remembers about it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I'm trying to refresh the witness' memory and to also go into questions of impeachment of the statement.

THE COURT: Impeachment of the statement?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. The witness has said that he has no recollection, he is relying on what's in the statement which he didn't sign and he didn't type and he doesn't remember. And I'm trying to get to the fact that this statement might not be an accurate statement.

THE COURT: Well, he says it's an

Page 36.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

accurate statement.

MR. WEINGLASS: But I am entitled to challenge that.

THE COURT: I don't know how you are going to challenge it when he says --

MR. WEINGLASS: By asking questions.

THE COURT: Counselor, do you have any objection to where he is going?

MS. FISK: Well, Counsel clearly is permitted to question. I objected to the last question because it misrepresented the testimony of this witness. This witness has not said that he was called in and questioned about the witness. He said he was called in and asked to answer the question which is in your own words describe what occurred, and that he then answered that question. That was the basis for my objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: On that basis it makes sense. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, there is no question in your mind now, Officer Jones, that you arrived within two minutes of receiving a call about an officer needing assistance and when you arrived you saw at the scene Mr.

Page 37.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Singletary.

A. That's correct.

Q. And there is no question in your mind he was there?

A. There is no question, there is no doubt in any mind that he was.

Q. Of your own knowledge you don't know when he arrived at that scene; isn't that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And are you the one, Officer Jones, who told Mr. Singletary that he should go down to the Roundhouse at 8th and Race and give a statement to the police? Do you recall doing that?

A. I read it in my statement, I said it.

Q. Well, I don't think it's in your statement. Do you have a recollection?, Well, take your time and read the statement, I'm sorry.

(Pause.)

I don't believe it is in your statement, Officer Jones. But Counsel could redirect you to it. If you don't see it immediately we could move on.

MS. FISK: I would agree that there is no reference to it in the statement, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay, then we could

Page 38.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

move on.

THE WITNESS: I don't see it in my statement.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, but then apart from the statement, do you have a recollection of whether or not you told Mr. Singletary he should go down to the Roundhouse?

A. No.

Q. You don't have a recollection?

A. No.

Q. Could be either way?

A. Yes.

Q. Now let's turn to page 2, which Counsel read at some length, of your statement which is C-20.

After you indicated what according to this statement you claim Mr. Singletary told you -- and in this statement you indicated that he didn't see the shooting -- Detective Brown then asked you a series of follow-up questions about Dale Singletary, did he not?

A. Yes.

Q. He asked you do you know Dale's full name, age and address. Or where he's employed. That was a follow-up question, right?

A. That's correct.

Page 39.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Q. This is after you told Detective Brown that you remember seeing Singletary there, and you allegedly told him that Singletary didn't see the shooting?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The statement refers to Dales, not Singletary. So the record is clear.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right, it does.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Do you understand my question?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So after you tell him well, I saw this fellow and he told me he didn't see the shooting, that's what the statement says, then they began to question you about this so-called non-witness Dales; isn't that right?

A. You got to repeat that one.

Q. Yeah. After you told him, according to this statement, that Dales told you that he didn't see the shooting, then they began to ask you more questions about this fellow Dales; isn't that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And they asked you -- I'm reading on page 2 -- Officer Jones, do you know Dales' full name, age and address, or where he is employed.

Page 40.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

And you said no, I only know the male as Dales. I do know that he is a junior and that his father owns a Sunoco service station at Broad and Thompson Street. Dales is in his early thirties, five-eleven, medium build, around 180, I think, he's dark skin, clean shaven with a moustache. He wore dark clothing which possibly could have been his service station uniform. He drives a late model 1980 or 1981 light blue Cadillac. I met him roughly around seven months ago when I first, when I was first assigned to the Expressway. Dales was a tow truck driver.

Right?

A. That is correct.

Q. So this non-witness, supposedly, they're asking you more about him, they're asking you his age, his height, his weight, his occupation, how you know him, what was he wearing, what is his car, they are asking you all these questions about him?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: Those are not the questions. The question stands for itself, as does the answer. That misrepresents the nature of the question which was asked.

THE COURT: Rephrase your question

Page 41.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

somehow.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Yeah, you gave them all that information; is that correct?

A. What I knew of Dales, yes.

Q. Right. And that was in response to their question?

A. That is correct.

Q. Right. And in your experience, Officer Jones, detectives who are investigating a homicide of a police officer want to know important details; isn't that right?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. You didn't have the impression that they were wasting your time that night, did you?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Then they go on and ask you more questions about Dales. Officer Jones -- I'm now reading from page 3 -- at the time of your conversation with Dales, was he with anyone or did you happen to see if he had been engaged in a conversation with anyone as

Page 42.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

you arrived or as you left the area.

And you said no, at the time I arrived at the scene Dales came up to me. I didn't see him talking to anyone. I do recall him saying that he was with someone.

Do you remember that, that question and that answer?

A. Yes.

Q. So they went on with still more questions about this fellow Dales. They wanted to know if he was with anyone; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. This man who supposedly didn't see anything; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Does it strike you as peculiar that all these questions are asked about someone who you supposedly reported didn't see anything?

A. No, it didn't.

Q. It didn't strike you as peculiar?

A. No.

Q. You saw Dales or Mr. Singletary after December 17th, 1981; isn't that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And did you ever have a conversation with him

Page 43.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

about that night?

A. I don't recall having a conversation about this (displaying), no.

Q. You saw Mr. Singletary after an officer is shot and you're there within two minutes and he's there, and you're brought down and questioned at Homicide about a week later, and you're telling us you never talked to him again about that?

A. I'm not saying that I never talked to him about it, I'm saying I don't recall talking to him about it, this case.

Q. Incidentally, that night that you were at Homicide, did the Detective Brown indicate to you that he had talked to Dale Singletary in the morning of the occurrence?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. He might have?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: He said he didn't recall.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did he indicate to you that in the early morning hours of December 9th a statement was taken from Dale Singletary?

A. No, he did not indicate it to me.

Page 44.

Officer Vernon Jones - Cross

Q. Did they show you the statement?

A. At which time are you talking about?

Q. When you were there on December 17th at 10:00 p.m.

A. No, I don't recall that, no.

Q. They didn't show you anything?

A. I don't recall whether they showed me that or not.

Q. They might have?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did they indicate to you that Mr. Singletary was a problem for them?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. It might have happened?

A. Not that I can recall.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain these might have beens.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, to your observation, Officer Jones, the detectives typed up everything you told them about Dales; is that correct?

Page 45.

Officer Vernon Jones - Redirect

A. To my knowledge, yes (displaying).

Q. And no one said to you Detective Brown -- by the way, was he the only one you were talking to, if you can remember?

A. Yes. That I can recall, yes.

Q. He was the only one?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he ever say to you words to the effect of Officer Jones, this fellow who you are telling us about, Dales, is kind of irrelevant because you're telling us he said he saw nothing?

A. No.

Q. They typed everything up that you told them about Dales, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And as you read your interview now, your memory 's refreshed about the only person you're talking about in your interview is this fellow Dales?

A. That's correct.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fine, thank you. I have nothing else.

MS. FISK: Just a couple questions.

- - - - -

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

Page 46.

Officer Vernon Jones - Recross

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Am I correct, Officer Jones, that on page 3 of your statement you were asked whether upon your arrival at the scene you observed the injured police officer and you answered that question?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were also asked whether at the scene, whether you performed any police duties, and you answered that question?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were asked whether while you were at the scene you obtained any information as to who shot the officer, and you answered that question; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. I have nothing further, Your Honor.

- - - - -

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Well, Officer, there were a lot of people there when you got there, were there not?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: That goes beyond the scope of redirect

Page 47.

Officer Vernon Jones - Recross

examination.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. She just asked him about the statement. Questions that were asked of the statement.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Well, in the statement, where does it indicate that you were questioned about any other people you saw there?

(Pause.)

A. In the statement it asked me about... the perpetrator. And who did I observe being there.

Q. But... but they didn't ask you in the statement, am I correct, if you saw any other witnesses there?

(Pause.)

A. If it's not on my statement here (displaying), they did not ask me that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fine. Thank you.

MS. FISK: Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Thank you.

MS. FISK: Thank you, Officer.

Page 48.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, the Commonwealth next calls Detective Quinn.

Philadelphia Police Detective Edward Quinn, Badge number 896, Major Crimes Division, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Good morning, Detective Quinn.

A. Good morning.

Q. Detective Quinn, how long have you been a member of the Philadelphia Police Department?

A. 24 years and eight months.

Q. And what is your current rank?

A. Detective.

Q. What is your current assignment?

A. The Major Crimes Division.

Q. Detective Quinn, back on December the 9th, 1981, what was your rank and your assignment?

A. I was a detective assigned to the North Central Detective Division.

Page 49.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

Q. Did there come a time in the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, that you as a member of the North Central Detective Division were detailed to some other place?

A. Yes.

Q. And where was that that you were detailed?

A. To the Homicide Division.

Q. And was that for any long term or for one day or what?

A. One night.

Q. And how did that come about?

A. I was, my lieutenant at North Central at the time, around 4:00 a.m., told me that there had been a police shooting, that I should go down to the Homicide unit.

Q. Were you the only detective from North Central who went down to the Homicide Division?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you arrived at the Homicide Division, were you given an assignment or what did you do?

A. Not immediately. I, it was pretty chaotic. I found a desk and I sat down and just waited for something to do or be assigned something to do.

Q. And did there come a time where you were

Page 50.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

assigned something to do?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that, sir?

A. I don't recall who it was but I was asked to do an interview.

Q. Do you recall now the person who you interviewed?

A. I recall now the name of the person.

Q. Was that because you were shown a statement earlier this morning?

A. Yes.

MS. FISK: Can the detective please be shown what has been marked Defense Exhibit -- what is the number, please?

THE COURT OFFICER: 29, Counsel (handing).

MS. FISK: Defense Exhibit 29.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Detective Quinn, you have been shown Defense Exhibit 29. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that a statement recorded by you of a witness named William Singletary?

A. Ahh, yes, it is.

Q. And was that taken by you of Mr. Singletary?

Page 51.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

A. Ahh, yes, it was.

Q. Now, you just told us you remembered sitting down. Can you tell us where that statement was taken?

A. Umm, in the rear of the Homicide unit. At the time it was the Fugitive Squad used to use that area.

Q. Was that a closed area or an open area, physically?

A. No, it was a completely open. Actually, cluttered with desks on one side of the wall. Desks, a few desks on the right-hand side (indicating).

Q. All right, now, could you tell us based upon your review of that statement what you remember about the manner in which your interview with Mr. Singletary was done and the statement of Mr. Singletary was recorded?

A. Umm, from my best recollection, I was asked to do the interview and I spoke to the gentleman briefly to find out what he was going to tell me or what he had to say.

And then I took out the form (displaying), placed it in the typewriter, did the heading. And then I started asking questions and recorded it directly onto the typewriter.

Q. Did you record in a verbatim fashion the

Page 52.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

questions you asked Mr. Singletary and the answers he gave you?

A. Ahh, yes, to the best that I could.

Q. Prior to taking this interview with Mr. Singletary did you ask him to hand write his account of what he had observed?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever in your 24 years and eight months on the police force ever asked any witness whom you were interviewing to hand write an account of what they had observed?

A. No.

Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Singletary he had to say certain things on this statement?

A. No.

Q. And let me ask you this: Were you the only detective who questioned Mr. Singletary?

A. I believe so.

Q. And so the record is clear: Is it accurate that as you sit here now and as you sat there in 1981, you are a Caucasian, you are a white man?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, could you read for us, please, the statement which you recorded which reflects your interview of Mr. Singletary, starting with the first

Page 53.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

question on the first page and the answers which Mr. Singletary gave you?

A. Okay. Question: Can you tell me what you saw this morning at 13th and Locust.

Answer: I was coming from my parents' bar at 15th and Catherine Street. I was driving north on 13th Street. When I got to Locust Street the light had just turned red for 13th. I stopped my car. I was sitting at the light for about 15, 20 seconds when I heard what I thought to be firecrackers. I heard about three or four pops. When I heard the pops I knew it wasn't firecrackers.

Q. I'm sorry, you missed a word. Is it when I heard the second pop?

A. When I heard the second pop I knew it wasn't firecrackers because they were going too fast. After the pops stopped I leaned forward in the car and looked east on Locust. I saw a police car parked at the curb. I think the number on the car was 610. At this time I backed the car up into a parking space on the corner of 13th and Locust. I got out of the car and went to the southwest corner of 13th and Locust. I looked east on Locust and saw two figures about 25, 30 feet away from me. One was standing facing the wall, the other was standing with his back to the

Page 54.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

wall. The one with his back to the wall was bent over at the waist. One hand was down by his waist, the other was -- and I really can't make out that word. This copy is not that --

MS. FISK: May I approach the witness, Your Honor, with the original? Perhaps if he read that that would be easier.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Detective Quinn, I have an original. First, so the record is clear: Utilizing the original make sure that the copy you have accurately copies the original. And then if it's easier to read the original for the completion of your testimony, go ahead.

A. I will back up to the other. The other was standing with his back to the wall. The one with his back to the wall was bent over at the waist. One hand was down by his waist and the other was up by his head. I started to walk towards the two figures. As I was walking, somebody yelled to me from my left. The male who yelled told me that a policeman was shot. I said where. I then looked around and saw -- page 2 -- a policeman sitting on the ground with his back against the wall. He had his right-hand up to

Page 55.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

his face. He had blood on his hand. The other person was sitting on the curb facing a dark blue VW. His left leg was stretched out in front of him, he was holding his leg. At this time a bunch of people showed up. The policemen who arrived picked up the policeman from the ground and put him into a police car and went up 13th Street.

Question: What did you do after the policemen left in the police car.

Answer: While I was standing there I saw X-l2 a police car. It was Officer Vernon Jones from the Highway unit. I knew Officer Jones. I told him what I saw. He told me to come down and tell what I saw. I then went to my gas station and gave the keys to one of the guys who worked there.

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry, I think that was downtown. He told me to come downtown. Downtown. If you could just read that sentence again.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Could you start with he told me to come downtown, about two lines above where you are. You just said down and --

A. I came downtown to 8th and Race.

Question: Besides the policeman, can

Page 56.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

you describe the other person who was lying on the ground on Locust Street.

Answer: He was black with long hair. The hair style is called dray locks. He was wearing green pants. That's the only thing I could remember.

Question: Did you see any weapons.

Answer: No. I didn't see any.

Question: Did you see anyone else on the street besides the policeman and the other guy with the dray locks.

Answer: It was just the two of them.

Question: Did you see anyone in the VW.

Answer: No, sir.

Q. Is that the entirety of the statement you took from Mr. Singletary?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. After you completed typing that statement, Detective Quinn, did you give those two typewritten pages to Mr. Singletary for his review?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did he read that statement?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did he have any changes or corrections to make to that statement?

Page 57.

Detective Edward Quinn - Direct

A. Not that I believe. I don't see any corrections.

Q. And is it your custom and practice to give the person from whom you have taken a statement the opportunity to make any changes?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are no changes reflected?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Singletary to sign both of those pages to indicate that it recorded what it was that he had told you?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your presence did he do so?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Do you know what or where Mr. Singletary went after you completed taking that statement from him?

A. Ahh, no, I don't.

Q. What else did you do at Homicide that night, if you recall?

A. Umm, I believe this is the only interview I did. Just, I was answering phones. Just general things until I wasn't needed anymore.

Q. And was that the only morning that you worked at Homicide regarding this case?

A. Yes, it is.

Page 58.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

MS. FISK: Thank you very much, Lieutenant.

THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I recover the original back?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: (Handing).

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good morning, Officer Quinn.

A. Detective.

Q. Detective, I'm sorry.

A. Thank you.

Q. Could you state for the record what your height is?

A. Ahh, six-foot-four.

Q. Six-four. And back in December, '81, I assume you were a little lighter of weight?

A. Quite a bit.

Q. How much did you weigh at that time?

A. Approximately 195 pounds.

Q. Six-foot-four, 195 pounds?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 59.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. And could you just state for the record your family ancestry, of what national origin?

A. Irish.

Q. I see you're wearing a green tie today? Maybe it's my eyesight that's bad.

A. Ahh...

Q. Do you recall if you, back in 1981, if you would wear any kind of a pin or a button that indicated your ancestry?

A. No, sir.

Q. Specifically, do you remember if you wore a button that said Kiss Me I'm Irish?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, is it your testimony that Mr. Singletary was definitely in the Roundhouse on Race Street in the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes.

Q. No question about that?

A. The person I interviewed was there.

Q. And his name to your present knowledge is?

A. William Singletary.

Q. Right. And is it your testimony that while Mr. Singletary was there he underwent an interview by you?

A. Yes.

Page 60.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. And that was in the Homicide unit?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And is it your testimony that he as a result of that interview was given a typewritten statement that you typed?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that he signed it?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. So there is no question about all that?

A. No question in my mind.

Q. Do you have an independent recollection of that morning or are you testifying on the basis of having recently read the statement that's before you and marked D-29?

A. All right, are you referring just to the statement or my recollection of that whole morning generally?

Q. First just to the statement.

A. Umm, I knew I took a statement from a witness. I didn't have an independent recollection until I was, you know, I read the statement over.

Q. Right. Before you were shown the statement you probably couldn't remember the name of who you interviewed that morning; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Page 61.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. And before you were shown the statement you probably couldn't recall a description of that person; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when were you shown the statement?

A. This morning.

Q. This morning?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you also shown the statement that was allegedly taken from a patrolman, Highway patrolman named Vernon Jones?

A. No, I was not.

Q. You were not?

A. No.

Q. Did you have occasion to meet with Officer Jones this morning?

A. No.

Q. Now, as I recall your testimony, you were not ordinarily assigned to the Homicide unit in Race Street; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were ordinarily out in North Central; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were called into the Homicide unit

Page 62.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

that morning; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was because an officer had been shot?

A. That's correct.

Q. And your superiors told you to go down to Race Street?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you remember what time you went down there?

A. No, I don't recall the exact time.

Q. What was your ordinary tour of duty, if you can remember, on December 9th?

A. Midnight to 8:00 a.m.

Q. Midnight to 8:00. And so your tour of duty was over at 8:00. Do you remember if your tour was extended because of this case, or whether you went down there within the framework of your tour of duty?

A. I went down within the framework.

Q. You went down there before 8:00?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you stay until after 8:00, if you can remember?

A. I don't recall if I did or not.

Q. You might have stayed until --

A. I might have.

Q. Right. Incidentally, your hours that you

Page 63.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

worked that tour, as well as anything beyond your regular tour, would be recorded somewhere, would it not?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: May we have discovery with respect to that?

THE COURT: No.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, when you got down there at Homicide -- I wrote down your testimony on direct -- you said it was, quote, pretty chaotic. That is something that you remember?

A. Yes.

Q. And could you explain what you mean a little more in more detail than just that general description?

A. There was one picture that really just stuck out in my mind. It was an officer I knew that had blood all over his shirt. There was a lot of police down there. It was, it was not a happy place to be.

Q. The police had already received word that Officer Faulkner had died?

A. I believe so. I don't know.

Q. But when you say not a happy place I'm just

Page 64.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

trying to, what do you mean by that?

A. Well, there was just a lot of police officers down there. Like I said, my recollection is seeing a couple that I knew who had blood on them, that sticks out in my mind.

Q. And did you know a detective by the name of Brown at that time? If you can recall.

A. I may have, I don't know.

Q. So you got down there and it is pretty chaotic. Part of being pretty chaotic is there are a lot of people in Homicide when you got down there?

A. I believe there was.

Q. And Homicide is not a big area, is it, it just has four little cubicles; do you recall that?

A. There was no cubicles in Homicide.

Q. There were no cubicles?

A. No.

Q. Interrogation rooms?

A. No.

Q. Nothing like that?

A. Well, they have interrogation rooms but they're rooms, they're not cubicles.

Q. Right. They are rooms with doors on them?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. And they have a small desk and a

Page 65.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

couple chairs?

A. I don't think I've ever been in one of their interview rooms.

Q. Right, so you didn't go into the interview rooms that night?

A. No.

Q. Instead you went to another area within Homicide?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And that area you said was cluttered with desks. Is that right?

A. Well, when I say cluttered: There is, along the one wall there is several desks on the left-hand side. The way I was facing. And there's two or three on the right-hand side.

Q. You have a pretty graphic memory of what it was like when you got in there. Would you say it was crowded in the Homicide area that night, or that morning?

A. Are you asking me a question?

Q. Yes.

A. Umm, when I say crowded, there was a lot of people. Which it's not unusual in Homicide, you know, during homicides. We have a lot of policemen there, a lot of witnesses.

Page 66.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. You saw there were other witnesses there, did you not? Civilian looking people?

A. I don't recall if I saw witnesses or not.

Q. Well, I thought you just said you saw witnesses?

A. Well, I'm just generally speaking that there are witnesses during a homicide. I told you specifically what I recalled were the policemen.

Q. Right. But you are saying now that you don't remember seeing witnesses there?

A. I'm not saying that.

Q. You did see witnesses?

A. Generally speaking, I'm assuming there was witnesses there.

Q. And you go to this area which you said was the rear of the Homicide unit, which was cluttered with desks. And you just remained in that area?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, and at a certain point Mr. Singletary came to you, you didn't go to him; isn't that right?

A. I don't recall the circumstances how we got together and did the interview.

Q. Well, wasn't it true that someone brought him to you?

A. May have, I don't know. I may have been told

Page 67.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

to go get him, I don't know. I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall if it was an African-American detective who brought him to you?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: He testified he doesn't remember whether someone brought him to him or whether he was told to go get him.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am trying to help his recollection by asking him if he could recall. Perhaps the race of the individual would help him.

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. And you don't know whether it was one or two people who brought him to you?

A. I don't know if he was brought to me or I went and got him, I don't recall that.

Q. And did someone indicate to you that you were supposed to take a statement from him?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who told you that?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know how long Mr. Singletary had been

Page 68.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

there?

A. No, I don't.

Q. He might have been there three, four hours before you got to him; isn't that right?

A. No, I don't believe -- no.

Q. What do you base that on?

A. I'm basing that, assuming that I got there around 4:30, five o'clock, I probably was only there about 15, 20 minutes before I did the interview.

Q. Is that a recollection that you have or an assumption?

A. I'm basing it on me reporting off at eight o'clock.

Q. But you told us you don't know if you reported off at eight o'clock. You really don't know that, do you?

A. Well, no, I'm not. But I am just trying to get a time frame of when I could have done the interview. I don't believe he would have sat there three or four hours without being interviewed.

Q. But you don't know that?

A. I don't know that for a fact.

Q. All right. And you can't tell us because you don't remember what he looked like in terms of whether he was upset or not upset?

Page 69.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

A. No, I don't recall his demeanor at all.

Q. Now let's go to the statement. Do you have a copy of it there?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. D-29. He told you, did he not -- and it's referred to on the top of page 2 -- that when he saw the fallen officer he described him as sitting on the ground with his back against the wall? Is that what you typed up?

A. Yes.

Q. And I assume that's something you're telling us you typed accurately, he did tell you that, to the best of your present recall?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. And he told you, did he not, it is also on page 2, that the other individual was sitting on the curb was wearing dread locks, and had on green pants, and he was black? That's also on page 2, closer to the bottom. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Right. Now let's go back to page 1. About two-thirds of the way down. Did he tell you I looked east on Locust -- are you following where I am? About six lines, seven lines up from the bottom.

A. Okay.

Page 70.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. I looked east on Locust and saw two figures about 25, 30 feet away from me. One was standing facing the wall, the other was standing with his back to the wall. The one with his back to the wall was bent over at the waist. One hand was down by his waist, the other was by his head. I started to walk towards the two figures.

Okay, let's just stop there. Is that in your statement?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So he in effect -- and correct me if I am wrong -- he told you he saw the officer sitting with his back against the wall, he saw a gentleman who was black with dread locks on the curb in green pants, and he told you he also saw two other people there; isn't that right? One was up against the wall with his back to it, the other one was bent over at the waist, one had his hand down by his waist, and the other was up by his head. Right?

A. That's what it says, yes.

Q. So he saw four people out there that night; is that right?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: The statement speaks for itself.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain the

Page 71.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

objection. The statement does speak for itself.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Well, let me ask you this. An officer is shot and is laying on the sidewalk. According to this document, which is D-29, Mr. Singletary tells you at just about this time he saw two people standing, one facing the wall, one with his back to the wall. Did you ask him for a description of those two people?

A. No.

Q. Is that conceivable, that with an officer laying bleeding on the sidewalk and a witness tells you he saw two people standing there within feet of the officer, you don't ask for a description of those two people?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. At the time you took this statement --

A. Yes.

Q. -- you had been a detective for 10 years?

A. No.

Q. Pardon?

A. No, I was not.

Q. How long had you been a detective? You have told us 24 years, I subtract 14, that leaves me with 10, but correct me?

A. Well, this incident took place in 1981.

Page 72.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. Right. 14 years ago, approximately.

A. Yes.

Q. 13.

A. Yes.

Q. And you have been a detective for 24?

A. No, I have been on the Police Department for 24.

Q. I see. At this time how long had you been a detective, if you can remember?

A. Ahh, eight months.

Q. Eight months. And you were assigned the responsibility of talking to a witness in the shooting of a policeman?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. That's what he said. He was assigned. He doesn't make the assignments. He goes wherever they tell him to go.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, as you read your statement -- I'm just going by your statement -- did you ask, according to your statement, Mr. Singletary to describe the two other people he saw standing by the wall, one facing the wall, the other facing outward?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I object for

Page 73.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

two reasons. One, this is not the detective's statement, this is Mr. Singletary's statement as recorded by the detective. And second, if Counsel is going by the statement, the statement speaks for itself. What is asked is recorded, what is not asked is not recorded. I have no objection to him asking if there were other questions which were asked which are not recorded, but if you are going by the statement, the statement speaks for itself.

MR. WEINGLASS: Of course it speaks for itself but I am entitled to question on this statement and whether or not this statement is a complete statement of what he had in his interview with Mr. Singletary.

THE COURT: If you want to ask him whether or not there is anything else that he didn't put down there, that is one thing. But don't dictate as to what the meaning of that statement is. The statement was given by Singletary. Whether he knows how to give a statement or don't give a statement, whether the statement is wrong, it's not for this officer, or this detective to make that decision. That's for the Court to make the decision.

Page 74.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Just before we move off this: When you read D-29, in reading it and refreshing your recollection, did you ask Mr. Singletary to describe the two gentlemen who were standing there with the fallen officer on the sidewalk?

A. I believe he was talking about the same two people. When he refers to two figures, I'm assuming that he means the police officer and the male with the dray locks. That's what I'm assuming.

Q. You are assuming that now?

A. Well, that's what I get out of it reading the statement.

Q. Pardon?

A. That's what I get from reading the statement.

Q. So what you're saying now, in your assumption, then, Mr. Singletary saw Officer Faulkner standing, who he describes as just a man, not a police officer?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The statement speaks for itself.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. It is not for this witness to interpret the statement of somebody.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. By the way, am I right, you said one of the

Page 75.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

figures was bent over at the waist? Is that right?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The detective read the statement which he recorded. And that has been read.

THE COURT: He didn't say he said that, he said this is what the witness told him. So if you are going to be correct, ask him if the witness said that and did he record it properly. This is not his statement, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. If D-29 reflects your typing, that has one of the figures that he saw bent over at the waist, to your recollection did you type that accurately?

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, on the statement which is D-29, did you record the time of the interview?

A. It's not, it's not on there.

Q. It's not on there?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Detective Quinn, isn't that ordinarily done?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation as to why you didn't do that?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, was there a logbook at

Page 76.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Homicide that morning that recorded when people entered or left, if you know?

A. I don't know.

Q. To your knowledge is there, to your knowledge, is there any written record anywhere that would reflect when Mr. Singletary entered that building and when he left?

A. I don't know.

Q. And to your knowledge, do you know how he entered the building?

A. No.

Q. Through what entrance?

A. I don't know.

Q. And you don't know whether he came unescorted or escorted either?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you see his car -- strike that. Do you know what car he was driving that night?

A. No.

Q. Your testimony is you only saw him when he was in your immediate vicinity?

A. That's correct.

Q. In your, within your vision, did you see whether or not Mr. Singletary was talked to by any other detective who was there?

Page 77.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

A. I don't recall if he was or not.

Q. Now, it's true, is it not, that you were given a briefing when you got down there with respect to the general parameters of the state of the investigation?

A. I don't recall if I was or not. I'm sure I was, what the extent of it was I don't recall.

Q. Right, I am not asking you the extent of it, but you do recall being given a briefing?

A. I don't recall, I'm just assuming that I was.

Q. Well, general parameters, you knew an officer had been shot and had died?

A. Yes.

Q. You knew that it had happened out on the street: Locust and 13th?

A. I believe I knew that, yes.

Q. You knew that a gentleman had been taken into custody who was also shot at the scene?

A. I don't recall specifically if I knew that or not.

Q. You were told, were you not, that there were witnesses to the shooting who were being interviewed?

A. I don't recall being told that.

Q. You weren't told that?

A. I don't recall being told that.

Page 78.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. In other words, I think the thing I'm trying to ask you is: The way it worked, to the best of your recollection today, was that either Mr. Singletary was brought to you or you went to the gentleman, and without having details about what happened you started to interview him?

A. Are you asking me if that's correct?

Q. Yeah.

A. I -- that's not correct.

Q. Well, correct me, then?

A. Your --

Q. What is your recall of how that happened?

A. Well, your question asked me if I just blindly asked, interviewed him and went and picked him out. That's not correct. Somebody either brought him to me or told me to interview him regarding this.

Q. Yes. And I'm just asking you what was the state of your knowledge at the time you did that interview, did you know, did you have any information as to what other witnesses were saying?

A. I have no recollection of that.

Q. See, I'm trying to ask you: When you sat down and you say you had a conversation with Mr. Singletary, did you have any idea as to what the detectives had already discovered about what had

Page 79.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

happened out on that street?

A. I'm assuming I had a general knowledge of what had occurred, or what had happened, that a policeman was shot.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. We are talking about a homicide of a police officer. You will agree with me, would you not, that when you're talking to someone who might be a witness it would be important to know basic facts in order to get at what this person had seen or heard; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you have those basic facts that night?

A. I mean I assume I did, yes.

Q. So your telling us that it's your assumption that you had a kind of a police theory of what happened that night when you started to interview Singletary?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. You are assuming something, Counselor, he hasn't said it.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Page 80.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. Did you have the police theory as to what happened when you started to interview Singletary?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the basis of your objection?

MS. FISK: There is a difference between basic facts and police theory. I would object to the use of the word.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay? I will withdraw it and ask the other.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did you have basic facts when you sat down to interview Singletary?

A. I believe I did.

Q. And the basic facts were as we have indicated: An officer was shot, 13th and Locust, the officer had died. What else are basic facts, you tell me?

A. I don't recall what basic facts were told to me at that time.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. And those facts were facts that were given to you by other officers?

Page 81.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Detective Thomas?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him there that night?

A. I don't recall if I seen him there that night.

Q. Did you know him to be supervising the gathering and the collection of information?

A. Umm, I have since learned that he was the assigned investigator.

Q. Right. Do you know if he was the one who gave you the briefing?

A. I don't recall.

Q. But you do remember that there was a briefing?

A. I don't independently remember. I am assuming I -- I mean I wouldn't do an interview if I didn't have the basic knowledge of what happened.

Q. All right. Now, it's true, is it not -- well, strike that. You didn't know Mr. Singletary from before at all?

A. No, I did not.

Q. He was a complete stranger to you when you started talking to him?

A. I believe he was. I don't recall ever meeting him before.

Q. And it's important, is it not, that in

Page 82.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

questioning a witness, you as a detective try to do some kind of evaluation of whether or not you're being given the truth?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. In view of what limited experience he had at that time. And what his assignment was.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Well, that night you were assigned to question a witness, were you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you performed that questioning and you typed up a statement, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you in the course of that work do an evaluation of the witness you were talking to?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Whether or not he did is not relevant.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. We haven't found out what he did with the statement. I don't know whether he gave it to somebody else who was in more authority than he was at the time to evaluate it.

MR. WEINGLASS: We are getting to that.

Page 83.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

THE COURT: Well, then let's get to it.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did you, Detective Quinn, write a report of what you did that night?

A. No.

Q. Do you maintain a diary or a logbook of your activities?

A. No.

Q. So there is no record written of what you did that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Where is that?

A. Right here (displaying).

Q. Indicating D-29?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn't report to your supervisors or superiors that you had conducted an interview at Homicide that night in connection with Officer Faulkner's case?

A. To the Homicide supervisors or to my supervisor?

Q. To your supervisor?

A. I may have verbally told them. I probably did verbally tell him.

Page 84.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. And who would that be?

A. You want their names?

Q. If you could recall one.

A. Ahh, Sergeant Penny Brace.

Q. But you're telling us that you at that time were not maintaining a logbook or a personal diary indicating what you had done?

A. No.

Q. After this interview what did you do with D-29?

A. Umm, I don't specifically recall who I gave it to.

Q. You gave it to someone in Homicide?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't remember who?

A. I don't remember who.

Q. Did you give it with a recommendation of any sort: There should be follow-up, there should be evaluation, this fellow was there pretty close, you know, to the time of the occurrence, anything like that? Or you just handed it in?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you know if you talked to Detective Thomas afterward about this interview?

A. I don't recall if I did or not.

Page 85.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

Q. As a matter of fact, is it your testimony that from the time you took this interview, and you don't know what time it is, to the time that you were asked to come to Court, you never talked to anyone about Mr. Singletary?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. From the time that you finished taking the interview --

A. Yes.

Q. -- and handed it in --

A. Yes.

Q. -- until you were asked to come to Court today --

A. Yes.

Q. -- you hadn't talked to anyone about Singletary?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. You haven't talked to Joe McGill, the District Attorney prosecuting the case; is that right?

A. No, never spoke to him.

Q. Now, by the way, when were you contacted to come to Court?

A. Ahh, it was around 6:00 p.m. Friday evening when I was getting ready to leave for vacation.

Q. You were about to go on vacation?

Page 86.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were asked to make yourself available for today?

A. Yes.

Q. And you got that through a telephone call?

A. Yes.

Q. About 6:00 p.m. on Friday?

A. It was about 6:00 p.m.

Q. To be here on Monday?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's something that you're obliged to do as a detective in the City, irrespective of your vacation plans?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, in your work as a detective, You understand, do you not, that tearing up a handwritten statement of a witness is a violation of law?

A. Am I aware of that?

Q. Yes.

A. I guess it is.

Q. And that a police officer who engages in that kind of activity would be subjected to at least

Page 87.

Detective Edward Quinn - Cross

internal discipline?

A. Most certainly.

Q. And that if a police officer -- or a detective -- I'm sorry -- were to admit to that, that that person would be in effect putting his or her entire career in jeopardy?

A. From the witness stand?

Q. Yes.

A. Absolutely.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have just a moment.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. I'm sorry, just one last question. The North Central Detective Division is in what numbered district?

A. Umm, it's located at 17th and Montgomery, that would be the 22nd and the 23rd District.

Q. Right, and, umm, I said that would be the last, this will be the last. Are you a member of the Fraternal Order of the Police?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. I can assume he is, Counselor.

Page 88.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: I could assume that he is. He is a police officer.

MR. WEINGLASS: I just wanted it on the record but I will take the Court's --

THE COURT: Well, I don't think you have to bother putting it on the record. We have enough on the record. Anything further?

MS. FISK: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Thank you.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, the Commonwealth has no further witnesses to present. In light of Counsel's representations this morning. However, we would ask an opportunity for a recess to research whether or not Counsel is entitled to the subpoena that was requested this morning.

THE COURT: All right, how long of a recess do you want? It's a quarter to 12:00 now.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could we make it, what would ordinarily be the time we would return from a luncheon recess?

THE COURT: Well, what do you want?

Page 89.

MS. FISK: Make it 1:30.

THE COURT: 1:30 you want.

Is 1:30 okay?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay, 1:30.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court stands recessed until 1:30.

- - - - -

(Luncheon recess was held until 1:50 p.m.)

- - - - -

MS. FISK: Your Honor, upon our return from luncheon recess I advised Mr. Weinglass of my intention to advise the Court -- which I am now so doing -- we have no objection to the Court permitting defense to issue a subpoena for this new alleged witness that Counsel intends to produce.

THE COURT: Well, there is nothing for me to decide.

MS. FISK: I was advised by Counsel that upon permission by the Court to issue that subpoena, that Counsel would be able to produce the witness tomorrow morning. I asked whether the witness could be produced this afternoon; I

Page 90.

was advised that he could not. I also inquired as to the address or location where the witness could be located and I was assured that at the end of today's proceedings Counsel would provide me with that information.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, now that that issue has been resolved, the only other issue is the matter of the Exhibits. Many Exhibits have been admitted as evidence. Other Exhibits have been marked for identification only. We request that to assist in whatever appellate review is necessary in this case, that all of the Exhibits be marked in evidence. That is the Exhibits that are now presently marked for identification only be converted to Exhibits admitted in evidence.

THE COURT: Which ones are you specifically talking about? Are you talking about the newspaper articles?

MR. WILLIAMS: If those have only been marked for identification, yes.

THE COURT: Well, that's all.

MR. WILLIAMS: I could work it out with the Clerk because I don't want to misspeak.

THE COURT: You can't work it out with

Page 91.

the Clerk, you have to work it out with the D.A. Because if she is objecting then I have to rule on it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Of course, of course. Do you want me to take a few minutes now to do that?

THE COURT: Yes, I will give you time to do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, okay, we appreciate that, Your Honor. But before I consult with the Commonwealth, the other thing is that I have approached Detective Walsh regarding Mr. Harkins. And the arrangement we have is that Detective Walsh will make an effort to contact Mr. Harkins and then somebody from the defense team will then contact Detective Walsh tomorrow morning regarding a meeting with Mr. Harkins. In light of that eventuality of having a meeting with Mr. Harkins, we want to make sure and let the Court know that if in the course of that meeting with Mr. Harkins we receive information that has a bearing on our claims, that we would retain the right to move to reopen the hearing if in fact the hearing is over at that juncture.

Page 92.

THE COURT: Well, can we set a date for this?

MS. FISK: A date for which, for the interview with Mr. Harkins?

THE COURT: No, whether or not the Court will have another hearing. You see, I just can't sit around and do nothing.

MS. FISK: I assume we would know by Thursday. I assume we would know by Wednesday.

MR. WILLIAMS: If Mr. Harkins is produced by tomorrow we will know by tomorrow.

THE COURT: What I am trying to say to you: They don't let me sit around. I have another case that I have to start as of tomorrow.

MR. WILLIAMS: You and me both.

THE COURT: Well, then you see it's pretty hard for me to decide these things for you. If you need time, and you want to say well, let's adjourn until next Monday, and we'll see if we could do anything at that time, that's perfectly all right with me.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm suggesting -- maybe it's better for the Court, it's only a suggestion -- it's unclear what will happen in

Page 93.

our interview with Mr. Harkins. It may be that --

THE COURT: I know that, I know that. But what I am trying to do is set down a definite date. In other words, if you are not going to call him you could tell me that next Monday, right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE COURT: If you are going to call him you will have him here next Monday.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MS. FISK: Fine.

THE COURT: That's what I am trying to do. And you could do the same thing with the witness they want to subpoena. I don't care, we could do that.

MS. FISK: I would just as soon do that tomorrow, Judge, and get the bulk of this testimony behind us.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you will just give me a moment on the Exhibits.

THE COURT: All right, take a short recess.

- - - - -

Page 94.

(Brief recess.)

- - - - -

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom, please. Quiet in the Courtroom. This Court is now reconvened.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, after consultation with the Commonwealth, here is where we're at. The first three Exhibits are newspaper articles. And they were proffered to the Court on the issue of the recusal. So it's our position -- and I understand the Commonwealth quarrels with our position -- that those newspaper articles ought to be admitted not simply for identification purposes but for evidential purposes because those newspaper articles reflect a community attitude that has a bearing on the recusal issue. So for that reason they ought to be admitted as evidence.

MS. FISK: As I advised Counsel, Your Honor, my position is that a document which is simply marked and placed in the record which is not a subject of testimony which is tested through a witness is not and cannot be admitted into evidence, as opposed to merely being marked for identification purposes. For that reason I

Page 95.

object to any articles which were simply proffered as being admitted for anything other than identification, which is the purpose for which they were marked.

THE COURT: Well, let me say this: I know of no Supreme Court case that says community interest or viewpoints of the community have anything to do with a recusal motion as to the judge himself. For that reason I'm denying entering that as evidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, the item Defense Exhibit 4 is a letter from Miss Wolkenstein to Mr. Eisenberg of the Commonwealth. And that was cc'd to Your Honor. That we admit is properly not in the nature of evidence in the hearing but is correspondence that ought to just be part of the record. And I think it is part of the record in light of --

THE COURT: If she has no objection. Do you have any objection to that?

MS. FISK: Well, I am assuming since it is marked and identified as Defense Exhibit 4 that it was marked and it is going to stay in the record if it is there. But it is not coming in as evidence, it is marked for identification

Page 96.

for the purpose for which it is marked.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is not, we agree it is not in the nature of evidence. It is simply correspondence from Counsel to opposing Counsel.

THE COURT: If that's the purpose of it it's all right with me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 are excerpts from the voir dire back at trial. And this is already just a matter of record, given that the Commonwealth has already moved the entire trial record to make it part of this PCRA hearing.

THE COURT: Well, we have that anyway.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right, so that is --

THE COURT: The Supreme Court already had that and will probably get it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: So it is a matter of record, so there is no need to spend time on it.

Then we go down to Defense Exhibit 14, which is, yes, Officer Wakshul's vacation schedule. Their position as I understand it is that that vacation schedule, the printout of that schedule is not authenticated. In any event, we request that it be put into evidence. I will note that in the witness list for

Page 97.

Commonwealth, that they included the custodian of records to authenticate that document. But I take it they have decided not to call that witness. But in any event, for purposes of efficacy, I ask that the Court allow that that printout been admitted as evidence.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, that was a document which was shown to the officer. My recollection is he did not recognize many portions of it, he could not attest to it's accuracy, and it has never been authenticated, and I object to it being admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Well, isn't that an explanation of it, then?

MS. FISK: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Isn't that an explanation of it?

MS. FISK: Well, it was marked but never authenticated, Your Honor, and that is apparently on the record.

THE COURT: Well, there seems to be a lot of things that are marked here and not authenticated. And can it just go in as being an Exhibit?

MS. FISK: I am objecting to it being

Page 98.

an Exhibit. I defer to the Court's ruling. It was presented.

THE COURT: No, as I understand, people talked about it.

MS. FISK: Right.

THE COURT: So how do you think it should not come in?

MS. FISK: Well, he was asked questions about it. He was unable to give answers because it wasn't a document he prepared.

THE COURT: I understand that. But isn't it something, then, the Supreme Court should look at?

MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor, it is.

MR. BURNS: Your Honor, it could be admitted as an Exhibit but it can't be considered evidence. Everything will come in as an Exhibit.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I object. Anything in this case that has been handed up at this point and given a number, whether it has been identified, been the subject of questioning, been admitted as part of testimony, if it is marked and given a number it is going

Page 99.

to be a part of the Court record.

THE COURT: That is what he wants.

MS. FISK: Apparently, Counsel is making a distinction between items which are being marked for identification purposes and items which are being admitted into evidence, which I am interpreting as meaning agreeing to their accuracy, in effect. I will not.

THE COURT: I agree with you it is merely an Exhibit.

MS. FISK: I agree that this vacation schedule was marked, given the number, was the subject of testimony.

THE COURT: And it will be part of the record.

MS. FISK: That is exactly right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: The other item is Defense Exhibits 18 and 19, which are two police interview reports, one for Mr. Nelms, number 19 is for Officer Schu. They also were marked for identification purposes only. I believe those were introduced in connection with -- I can't recall who was on the stand. But in any event, the Commonwealth's position as I understand it

Page 100.

is that those ought not be marked in evidence because the relevant persons were not on the stand.

THE COURT: Just as an Exhibit.

MS. FISK: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just as an Exhibit.

THE COURT: Okay, all right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then Defense Exhibit 24 is the FBI Department of Justice authentication letter. The reason why that one is important is because we have proffered the FBI files. They go to two issues. One is the police bias, the Kyles versus Whitley claim. And then the other is the mitigation evidence claim. The authentication letter essentially releases us all of the burden of having to bring someone in from Washington, D.C. from the FBI to come in and testify that in fact these documents that we proffered are the documents that were provided to us from Washington, D.C. pursuant to our Freedom of Information Act request.

THE COURT: All right, what is your position on that?

MS. FISK: Again, Your Honor, it is a letter which has been marked for identification

Page 101.

purposes, moved into the record. There has been no witness who has been offered to testify. Frankly, I am a little puzzled. I mean Counsel didn't want to bring someone from Washington. They flew people in from Idaho, New York and all over the globe to testify in this case. I agree it was marked, it is in evidence for what it's worth, and I object to it being given credibility by saying that it is accepted into, accepted as evidence. It is marked for identification, it is in the record for it's purpose.

THE COURT: It is admitted for the limited purpose, then.

MS. FISK: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: And lastly we have the affidavit from Charles Honts, Dr. Honts. Your Honor may recall that he was present in Court. He is the polygraph expert that the defense proffered to the Court for purposes of testifying in regards to Mr. Hightower's polygraph results.

MS. FISK: And again that was marked, it is an Exhibit in the record, and to the extent that it is in the record it is there for

Page 102.

whatever purpose. The witness was not permitted by the Court to be called and it is equivalent to the affidavits which are part of the initial Petition.

THE COURT: Well, as I said, polygraph results are not admissible.

MS. FISK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Wouldn't have been admissible in 1981, it is not admissible in 1995.

MS. FISK: And that was the basis on which the Court refused to permit the witness' testimony.

THE COURT: That's it. It is of no value as far as evidence is concerned, but it is in the record for whatever use it can be and that's it.

MS. FISK: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just give me one moment, Your Honor?

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among defense Counsel.)

MR. WILLIAMS: The only other thing -- and I wanted to take advice from the Commonwealth as well as from Your Honor on how

Page 103.

to deal with this -- in our letter we refer to several police reports based upon interviews with several police officers, as well as hospital personnel. Specifically Security Guard Charles Kenney and Nurse Carol Young. Those all go to the issue of the confession. And they are attached as exhibits to our letter, the relevant police reports.

What we're interested in: I know Your Honor has ruled that those police reports cannot be admitted as evidence, and Your Honor has not permitted us to call these individuals as witnesses. But -- and I am not here to quarrel with that ruling -- what I'm seeking to do is if appellate review is necessary on this issue, I just want to make sure that the appellate Court knows what Counsel is talking about when we refer to these police reports. So I only ask that those relevant police reports be marked for identification purposes so that effective appellate review can be had here. I am not asking it to be admitted into evidence, Your Honor has ruled, just want it to be identified.

Now, I know that our letter to Your Honor with the exhibits is part of the record.

Page 104.

And maybe it's sufficient that we could just then refer to the letter and the exhibits.

THE COURT: Well, is it any part of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions file?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean as part of the exhibit list (displaying)?

THE COURT: Whatever you filed with the Clerk of Court.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it is not.

MS. FISK: The Judge's question is is that part of the Quarter Sessions file?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, there. Yes, yes, it is.

THE COURT: Then it's in the Quarter Sessions file and they'll have it.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's all we are looking for. We could make reference to it in any appellate briefs.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have anything that you want to move into evidence?

MS. FISK: Well, Your Honor, the Commonwealth can't really be called upon to rest until the defense does, and defense hasn't. I will ultimately ask that all those documents which have been marked as Commonwealth Exhibits

Page 105.

be moved into evidence. I don't believe Counsel had any objections to any of those documents.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. The ones that I have been apprised of that are on the Exhibit list.

MS. FISK: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: That we talked about a moment ago, I have no problem with.

MS. FISK: And I have no objection to the Court accepting those at this juncture.

THE COURT: Okay. If no one has any objections it's all right with me. The reason why I'm pushing you a little bit: I have over a hundred people in this next case that I have to hear. And they were here today and I had to tell them to come back tomorrow. Now you are giving me another witness for tomorrow morning. How long, how long will that witness be on the stand, do you have any idea?

(Pause.)

THE COURT: Is he here for a limited purpose only?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he will be called on direct for a limited purpose. I am not sure that the cross won't be extensive. He

Page 106.

will be called on direct, I can represent that to the Court, for a limited purpose.

THE COURT: Okay. Then could we start tomorrow morning at 9:30?

MS. FISK: Sure.

THE COURT: And I mean 9:30. Not ten o'clock, not 10:15. Could we do that?

MS. FISK: Sure, Judge.

THE COURT: Because I have to get word to these people to have them come in a little later. I hate to do that to them, it's not fair to a lot of people that are involved in this case. The next case. But I don't know how else I'm going to do it. We are getting all these last minute deals. You see, if you had followed my advice at the very beginning and given the Court all of these names together with their affidavits and everything, we wouldn't be running into that trouble now. We would have had this resolved already. But. Well, we will just take it tomorrow morning and see.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, we are prepared to go ahead then. I should indicate that Commonwealth Counsel handed me the name of another witness, I just got it. And that's

Page 107.

going to require that we investigate that witness. I just want to state for the record, again, it's someone new and we're going to do our fastest follow-up that's possible. But that's the situation we face. This is a witness that the defense has not generated.

THE COURT: Does anybody have a calendar here? Let's see if we could get the date here.

I have already instructed the Court reporter that I want him to start transcribing the entire record, including all our sidebars and everything. Not just what you ordered, you people ordered individually. But I want the whole record transcribed. So that's going to take a little time. And what I want from you also, I know you want oral arguments here. What I also want from you is a proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law from both sides. When do you think that you would be able to do that?

MR. BURNS: That depends largely on the rate at which the notes are transcribed.

THE COURT: Well, does anybody have any vacation time or something that is going to

Page 108.

interfere with this? You have a problem.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have a problem, yes.

THE COURT: What is your problem?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, for the remainder of August and early September I have a vacation that I planned. But I don't assume the notes will be ready that quickly in any event.

THE COURT: All right, let me ask you this. How is this for oral arguments? Will September 6th be all right for you? That's two days after Labor Day. Labor Day is September 4th.

MR. BURNS: Fine with me, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right now we are scheduled on this case in a civil matter in Pittsburgh before a Federal Court. Mr. Jamal has to be there.

THE COURT: What day?

MR. WEINGLASS: The 6th.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: 6th and 7th.

THE COURT: I don't know, 5th, 6th and 7th.

MR. WEINGLASS: We would prefer as late --

THE COURT: The 8th?

Page 109.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- in the month of September as possible.

THE COURT: How about September 8th, then?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, if he is in Pittsburgh on the 6th and 7th, the odds are Mr. Jamal would not be available here on the 8th. Just a wild guess.

THE COURT: September llth? I'm trying to get a date here.

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm not, we don't know when the notes -- is there any date?

THE COURT: Well, I am sure he is going to have the notes before September 11th. That's for sure.

MR. BURNS: Is Your Honor indicating that the argument will take place before the submission of the findings of fact and conclusions of law? Because if that were true it wouldn't matter when the argument was, we could have that just about any time.

THE COURT: I don't particularly care one way or the other if the notes are at the same time of the argument. Does anybody want a different schedule?

Page 110.

MR. WEINGLASS: We would prefer having the notes, submitting the findings of fact, and then having the argument. Because then the argument will be pinned down to the record. As opposed to people arguing over what's in the record without being specific.

THE COURT: Well, I am not saying that I am going to accept anybody's findings of fact. I am going to make my own. But I just want to give you an opportunity to file them.

MR. WEINGLASS: But the process of both sides --

THE COURT: What about September 11th then, Monday, September the 11th?

MR. BURNS: That's acceptable to the Commonwealth, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could I have just a moment?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

MR. WEINGLASS: We would prefer if possible September 18th. Because we will be active in litigation.

THE COURT: Yes, but, Counselor, I

Page 111.

have other schedules to meet too. I haven't had a vacation yet either. I am going to set September the llth, Monday, September the 11th. I think that's plenty of time. And it should be plenty of time for the notes to be transcribed. And anybody who wants to purchase them can purchase them.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, is that -- just so we understand -- is September the 11th the date on which the Court wishes to receive from both sides the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law?

THE COURT: And the argument.

MS. FISK: Also entertain oral argument on that date?

THE COURT: Yes. I am figuring on allocating at least two hours to each side. Is that sufficient? Without any interruptions for objections or anything of that nature.

MR. BURNS: In other words, as an appellate argument would be, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. That's more than you get I when you go up to the Supreme Court you won't get two hours.

MR. BURNS: No, only about a half

Page 112.

hour.

THE COURT: I don't know, you're lucky if you get a half hour. But two hours should be sufficient. Is that agreeable?

MS. FISK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay, then, we will adjourn until tomorrow morning for this one witness and we'll hold the other witness in abeyance until you've had a chance to decide whether you're going to call him. And what I would suggest you do: If you decide that you want to call him, let's get together informally and see when I could do that. Because I am going to start this other case tomorrow. I don't have any idea how long it is going to take but it involves a lot of people. I really don't know how long. I haven't even gotten into it as yet. So we'll leave it at that, then.

MS. FISK: Yes, work that out tomorrow.

THE COURT: Until tomorrow morning.

MS. FISK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: 9:30 to start.

MS. FISK: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay.

Page 113.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning at the call of the Crier.

- - - - -

(The hearing was adjourned for the day at 2:20 p.m.)

- - - - -

Page 114.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.

Official Stenographer

Date


The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.

Judge