Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal

Robert Chobert, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Chobert.

A. Good morning.

Q. Mr. Chobert, I want to direct your attention back to the Sunday before last Sunday, which is August 6th. Did you have a conversation on that day with a gentleman by the name of Mr. Newman, Mike Newman?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And he was calling you by telephone?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was in San Diego and you were here in Philadelphia?

MS. FISK: Objection, Judge. How would he know that unless it's hearsay? He was on the telephone.

Page 4.

Robert Chobert - Direct

THE COURT: I will have to sustain the objection to that.

Q. Now I want to ask you a few questions about that conversation. In the course of that conversation did you speak to Mr. Newman about your driver's license and the status of your license back in 1981?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And do you recall if back in 1981 or 1982 whether or not you had a conversation with the District Attorney who was prosecuting this case -- Joe McGill -- about your driver's license?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you recall what he said to you at that time?

A. Well, he said he'll look into it.

Q. He'll look into it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was that before the trial?

A. I don't know, probably during the trial, sometime during the trial. I don't know.

Q. All right. And when he said he'll look into it, that was in response to something that you had mentioned, was it not?

Page 5.

Robert Chobert - Direct

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what had you told him?

A. I asked him if he could help me find out how I could get my license back.

Q. Help you to get your license back?

MS. FISK: Objection: That's not what he said.

(The Court Reporter read back the last answer.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. And your license at that point had been expired?

A. Suspended.

Q. Suspended. And when you asked him if he could help you he said he would look into it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you expected him to look into it, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And as it turned out -- well, strike that. Now, in December of 1981, was your license expired or suspended at that time?

A. Suspended.

Q. Suspended.

Page 6.

Robert Chobert - Direct

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

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, do I understand that you had been a, you were a taxi driver in December of '81; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you had been a school bus driver as well; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Right. And with your license in a suspended state you could not drive a school bus?

A. No, sir.

Q. And that was important to you?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you let him testify for a change.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Right. Was it important to you to be able to drive a school bus?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's why you needed your license?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was important -- was it important to you because it's the way you earned your livelihood?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

Page 7.

Robert Chobert - Direct

THE COURT: Sustained. It would be nice if you let him testify for a change, Counselor. Rephrase your question.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Why was it important to you?

A. Because that's how I earned my living.

Q. That's how you earned your living?

A. Yes. But I didn't testify because I was trying to get my license back.

Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear...

(The Court Reporter read back the last answer.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, before you testified were you housed in a hotel here in downtown Philadelphia?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. That is beyond the offer of proof which was made by Counsel at the bar of the Court yesterday afternoon. Which was, as I understood it, and apparently as the media understood it, to be whether or not any promises were made to this witness with regard to the status of his driver's license. Therefore, the housing of this witness is irrelevant and beyond the offer posed by Counsel at the bar of the Court

Page 8.

Robert Chobert - Direct

yesterday.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, it was promises backed up by certain treatment.

THE COURT: You should have said so yesterday.

MR. WEINGLASS: We should be able to go into --

THE COURT: You should have said that yesterday. You limited yourself.

MR. WEINGLASS: Am I barred because I didn't mention how he was housed prior to trial?

THE COURT: You told us what you wanted to prove by this witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have the Court's permission to expand the questioning into how the witness was housed prior to his testifying?

THE COURT: Does the Commonwealth have an objection to that?

MS. FISK: Your Honor...

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

MS. FISK: Fine, Judge, no, I don't.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Were you put up in a hotel?

Page 9.

Robert Chobert - Direct

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For how long prior to your testifying?

A. How long? To tell you the truth, I don't know.

Q. Was it more than a week?

A. Yes.

Q. More than a week?

A. Yeah.

Q. You were kept in a hotel?

(Witness nodded head affirmatively.)

Q. Were you alone in the hotel or were there others with you?

A. About two cops with me.

Q. Pardon?

A. Two cops.

Q. Two cops with you? Were they with you all the time?

A. This one that picked me up from work and take me to the hotel. That's the only time he was with me.

Q. They would pick you up from work and take you to the hotel?

A. Yeah.

Q. And then would they take you to work in the morning?

Page 10.

Robert Chobert - Direct

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So they would take you to work. And in the evening, did you know where the police were?

A. Yes.

Q. Where were they?

A. In the next room.

Q. Pardon?

A. In the next room.

Q. In the next room?

A. Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have a moment.

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

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, when Mr. McGill told you that he would look into it, you believed him, didn't you?

A. Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have nothing further.

MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

Page 11.

Robert Chobert - Cross

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Mr. Chobert, you told us on direct examination that what anyone told you about your driving status had nothing to do with your testimony at trial; is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Did you testify at trial under oath and truthfully about what you saw occur on the night Officer Faulkner was murdered?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, and so I understand, Mr. Chobert, on the night of the murder -- December 9th, 1981 -- did you give a statement to Homicide detectives about what you saw?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And three days later, did you give further details to another Homicide detective about what you saw?

A. I don't know, I guess I did.

MS. FISK: Let me show you this.

May I ask, Your Honor, that these two documents be marked, shown to Counsel, shown to the witness.

THE COURT OFFICER: C-21. I will

Page 12.

Robert Chobert - Cross

check for a second.

MS. FISK: Okay, thank you.

THE COURT OFFICER: That's it, C-21.

(Investigation interview records of Robert Chobert were
marked Commonwealth Exhibits C-21 and C-22 for identification.)

MS. FISK: C-21 being a December 9th, 1981 statement of Mr. Robert Chobert. And C-22 being a December 12th, 1981 statement of Mr. Chobert.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to this: It is beyond the scope. The witness was called to testify about a conversation with Joe McGill. He testified, now Counsel is going into his testimony, his police statements, his recollection of the events on the night in question.

MS. FISK: No, I am not.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to it: It is beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Counselor, I don't know where she is going yet.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I do not intend to ask Mr. Chobert any questions regarding his recollection with regard to the night of the

Page 13.

Robert Chobert - Cross

incident. It is my understanding, however, that if we were in 1981, and if, as defense Counsel claims, there had been a promise which had been extended to a witness, which Counsel, defense Counsel could have argued to a Jury affected his testimony, it would be appropriate to respond to that argument by a prior constant statement, which was given prior to any alleged-promise, as evidence to the Jury that the testimony of the witness is based upon what he saw as reflected in his prior constant statement (displaying), and that his testimony was not being fabricated or created in exchange for a promise.

Furthermore, I am seeking to mark Mr. Chobert's statements, show them to him, simply have him identify them as that, and have that as part of the record so that argument could be reflected in the record.

THE COURT: Okay, you may do so.

MS. FISK: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the issue was whether or not there was any conversation between the District Attorney and the witness at the time that constituted a promise. And this is not the issue. I object to this.

Page 14.

Robert Chobert - Cross

THE COURT: Yes, but it is an issue as to whether or not it influenced his testimony in any way. The Court is entitled to know that. I said for the limited purpose for which it is being admitted, it is admissible.

Go ahead.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing) Mr. Chobert.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Mr. Chobert, you have two documents: Commonwealth Exhibit 21 and Commonwealth Exhibit 22. I want you just to look at them and tell this Court and this record whether or not those are two statements that you gave to Homicide detectives regarding your observations of the murder of Officer Faulkner?

(Pause.)

MS. FISK: If I may, Your Honor, while the witness is reading, have a second? Thank you.

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

(Pause.)

Page 15.

Robert Chobert - Cross

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Mr. Chobert, it appears that you have completed looking at those two Exhibits. Are those two statements that you gave to Homicide detectives regarding your observations surrounding the murder of Officer Faulkner?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it refresh your recollection in looking at those statements that those statements were made by you on December 9th, 1981 and December 12th, 1981?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Chobert, at the time of trial or sometime during the trial your testimony is that you were being housed during the evenings in a hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that for your protection, Mr. Chobert?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you afraid for your well-being because you were testifying in this case?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And was it because of your fear that the police provided you with protection during the course of the testimony?

A. Yes.

Page 16.

Robert Chobert - Cross

Q. Did the fact that you were provided protection, did that have any affect or influence on the testimony which you presented at this trial?

A. No.

Q. Was that testimony based on your observations of what you saw on the morning of December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And was that without influence from any source, your testimony?

A. No.

Q. It was without influence or it was influenced?

A. No, I told the truth that day.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Now, is it my understanding that you do not remember when in the course of these proceedings, whether it was before, during or after, specifically when you spoke to Mr. McGill about that?

A. No, I don't remember.

Q. So it could have been after you testified; is that correct?

A. Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection:

Page 17.

Robert Chobert - Cross

Speculation.

THE COURT: Yes, he said he doesn't know when.

MS. FISK: Well, and if he doesn't know and it could have been after that would mean that there was absolutely no discussion prior to trial.

THE COURT: That's what you could argue to the Court later on.

MS. FISK: Fine.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Is it my understanding, Mr. Chobert, that you don't remember when in the course of these proceedings you spoke to Mr. McGill?

A. I don't remember, no.

Q. And it could have been after you testified; is that correct?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Speculation. Could have been. It is a speculative question.

THE COURT: I will take that into consideration. No sense in arguing. Let's go.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 18.

Robert Chobert - Cross

Q. Now, is it my understanding, sir, that you told Mr. McGill that your license had been suspended and your testimony is he told you he would help find out how to get your license back; is that correct?

A. Yes. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Did you expect Mr. McGill to get your license back for you?

A. Not really, no.

Q. Was it your expectation that he was going to simply wade through the legal part of it and explain to you what you had to do?

A. Yes.

Q. You were, in effect, using him as sort of like a free lawyer?

A. Yeah, like a lawyer.

Q. To explain it to you?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Because you knew that Mr. McGill couldn't get your license back for you?

A. No.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And in fact, despite the fact that your license was suspended, you were working as a cab driver anyway; is that right?

Page 19.

Robert Chobert - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. So you were earning a living despite the absence of your license; is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, did Mr. McGill ever call you to tell you what to do to get your license back?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Did you ever call him and say yo, hey, what's the story, you promised me you were going to do this?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Did you ever get your license back?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. In fact, you still don't have a license; is that right?

A. No.

Q. That is right or it isn't right?

A. I don't have no license.

Q. You don't have a license. And so I'm clear -- I asked you that with regard to the hotel -- well, actually, since you don't know when you spoke to Mr. McGill about your license, you don't know whether you had spoken to him about it before you testified; is that right?

A. That's right, yeah.

Q. But you do know that your testimony was based

Page 20.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

only on what you saw and not on what anyone did for you or promised you; is that right?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Asked and answered. Twice now.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have a ruling?

THE COURT: I said okay. All right. I know it's twice.

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

- - - - -

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

Q. Mr. Chobert, isn't it a fact that you never talked to Mr. McGill after the trial?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know that?

A. I don't know. Oh, after the trial?

Q. Yes.

A. No, I never talked to him after the trial.

Q. You never talked to him after the trial?

A. No.

Q. Right. Now, are you telling us that an Assistant District Attorney of this City knew that

Page 21.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

you didn't have a license when you were driving that night?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. How can he tell us what another person knows?

MR. WEINGLASS: Because he said he told him, he had a conversation with him about his license.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. He did not. He said he does not remember when he had a conversation.

MR. WEINGLASS: He said when he did have a conversation: That is not a when.

THE COURT: So is Mr. McGill on trial here?

MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What difference could it make?

MR. WEINGLASS: It makes a lot of difference, I want to assure the Court.

THE COURT: I don't see where.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Without reference to when, are you telling us that you had a conversation with an Assistant District Attorney of this City about your driving a taxicab and not having a license? Is that what you

Page 22.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

are telling us: You had such a conversation? Right?

A. Yeah.

Q. And you were never arrested or charged or fined?

A. Well, I'm not the one on trial, either.

Q. Right.

A. So what's the difference?

Q. Okay. Were you ever arrested or charged or fined for driving without a license?

A. Yes, sir. I am not on trial, though, buddy.

Q. Were you arrested? Tell us when?

A. I don't have to answer that: I'm not on trial.

Q. Were you ever fined for that? Even up to today were you ever fined for that?

A. Yeah.

Q. When was that?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't remember when?

A. No.

Q. It was since 1982; is that right? Tell us when, what year?

A. I don't know.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor...

MS. FISK: Your Honor, the witness is

Page 23.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

speaking to you.

THE COURT: Oh.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, do I have to answer this? I am not on trial here.

THE COURT: I know. You want me to get you a lawyer? I don't know what the situation is.

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I got fined for it, yeah.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes, I got fined.

THE COURT: He said he got fined for it.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. When?

A. My last ticket is about four years ago.

Q. Four years ago?

A. Yeah.

Q. 10 years after the trial.

MS. FISK: He said his last ticket was four years ago.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Were you in 1982, were you ever charged with driving without a license?

Page 24.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

A. I don't know.

Q. 1983 were you ever charged with driving without a license?

A. I don't know.

Q. 1984 were you ever charged with driving without a license?

A. I don't know. If you want to know just check my record.

Q. Okay. Now, when you're caught driving without a license, what happens, are you fined?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's something that no one likes to have happen to them?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you certainly didn't want that to happen to you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Incidentally, Mr. Chobert, how did you get down here this morning?

A. The D.A. The detectives.

Q. The detectives brought you here?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ask for that?

A. Well, they called me up, I called them back.

Q. And did you talk to them about what was going

Page 25.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

to happen this morning?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. I believe this goes beyond the scope of cross-examination.

THE COURT: Yes, it's way beyond.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Mr. Chobert, you looked at these two statements that are in front of you and you told us those statements are true. Is that right?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: He testified that those are statements that he made.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Are those statements that you made, Mr. Chobert?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Right, those statements are not accurate, are they?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, I will have to sustain that.

MR. WEINGLASS: They opened the statements, Your Honor.

Page 26.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

THE COURT: No, I limited them only to identifying them so they could be made part of the record. We didn't go into them.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Newman on Sunday, August 6th, when he read you those statements, that those statements are not accurate?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. He is admitted just for a limited purpose.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, it is being limited on this side.

THE COURT: No, it was limited to her too, only to identify them. Only that he identified his signature and he made them.

MR. WEINGLASS: They brought in the statements, Your Honor, now I should be allowed to go into those statements.

THE COURT: No, because you didn't allow her to go into the statements. Now you are on redirect.

MR. WEINGLASS: I objected and you overruled me and allowed her to go into the statement.

Now I want to go into this

Page 27.

Robert Chobert - Redirect

generally.

THE COURT: She didn't go into the statements, only to identify them, Counselor. Don't tell me what my rulings are. I know what I ruled. Only to identify his signature and those were the statements that he made. She did not go into the statements themselves. Because you had objected and I sustained your objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: All right.

THE COURT: I admitted it for a limited purpose only and that's all.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. You had time to read the statements, did you not?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: This morning.

THE COURT: He had time to read them so that he could identify them that they are the statements that he made, period, and that's all it was.

MR. WEINGLASS: And I am precluded from going into it.

THE COURT: Right, because I precluded the D.A. from going into it.

Page 28.

Robert Chobert - Recross

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

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you, Mr. Chobert. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MS. FISK: Yes, just one or two questions.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Mr. Chobert, on the day that you completed your testimony in this case, and the Court session ended, you were in City Hall still, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. McGill was still in the Courtroom as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you have contact with Mr. McGill on that day when you were done testifying?

A. What do you mean?

Q. Did you see him again and speak to him, did he say, you know, thank you for testifying in this case?

A. He just came over and shook my hand and said thank you and left.

Page 29.

Robert Chobert - Recross

Q. And you had contact with him on that afternoon when he did that?

A. Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: The witness described the contact, the question was asked and properly answered. I object to further inquiry in the same nature.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: What is okay?

THE COURT: Okay means I am agreeing with you. What is the big deal? If you don't understand what I am saying, Counselor. I can't help that.

Any other questions?

MS. FISK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. You are excused.

All right, as I told you before, we meet again on September the 11th, unless you contact me that --

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would wish at this point: I assume, therefore, that defense is resting.

THE COURT: All except he wanted to

Page 30.

talk to this Robert Harkins, the gentleman that said he didn't want to talk to them because when he talks to them they turn the story around. And I said okay, if he wants to talk to you he can. If he wants to he can. If he doesn't want to he doesn't have to. He now wants to speak to them in the presence of Detective Walsh.

MS. FISK: That occurred eight o'clock this morning.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, as the witness was here and was leaving the room I asked the witness if he would be willing to talk to me. The witness indicated at that time that he would be willing to talk but only in the presence of --

THE COURT: No, he didn't say that first. No, no, no, no, no. I was here. He first said I don't want to talk to them because when I tell them something they turn it around. That's what he said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And then he said before he left, he said the only reason, the only time I will talk to them is if Detective Walsh is present at the time that I talk to them.

Page 31.

MR. WEINGLASS: Good.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then an arrangement was made because he said that, that he would be willing to talk in the presence of Detective Walsh, for the defense to talk to him this morning at eight o'clock.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: And I went to the Roundhouse this morning at eight o'clock. Mr. Williams and I went into a small interrogation room where we found Mr. Harkins sitting there appearing to be terrified. And before I could ask him a question, Detective Walsh said that he has something that the witness, that the witness has something to say to me. And at that point the witness in a somewhat frightened voice said to me that he's thought it over and he doesn't want to talk. I then asked him well, you've talked to the other side, haven't you. At that point Detective Walsh insisted that Mr. Williams and I leave the room. I got kind of an intimidating effect and I now understand what some of the witnesses here went through. Directed Mr. Williams and I to leave the room

Page 32.

immediately.

As soon as we did, he pulled the door closed very emphatically, slamming it shut. And with two or three other detectives in the near vicinity, we were told to leave. That's the way in which interrogations are conducted here. I saw it for myself. I would have to say it was very intimidating. Very oppressive. And I understand now more fully some of the testimony that's been offered in this case. About the methods and manner in which interrogations are conducted in the Homicide unit at the Police Administration Building.

But I wanted to report that incident. And I think the witness should be brought before the Court and the witness should be told that he may talk to Counsel without police being present if he wants to. Because --

THE COURT: No, Counselor, that was his wish, Counselor. And I'm not ordering anybody to take the stand for anyone. Whether it be for the Commonwealth or the defense.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think it was a coerced witness, though. I think he was informed and told not to talk to us.

Page 33.

THE COURT: Well, you may think whatever you want to think, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: That's the way it appeared.

THE COURT: You have been doing a lot of that and you do it for the news media and that's fine. But I can't force somebody to talk to you if he doesn't want to talk to you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not asking him to be forced.

THE COURT: Well, I would like to hear from Detective Walsh. He was there.

Detective Walsh?

DETECTIVE WALSH: Take the stand, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Any way you want to, or here.

- - - - -

Philadelphia Police Detective Joseph Walsh, Badge number 697,
Homicide Division, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honor.

Page 34.

Detective Joseph Walsh

THE COURT: Good morning.

MS. FISK: Does Your Honor ask questions or is the Court going questions of the detective?

THE COURT: No, you could ask him. Anybody could ask him. Defense, you, whoever wants to, he's there.

MS. FISK: Well, I will just ask one.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Detective Walsh, would you please explain to the Court what occurred in the Homicide Division this morning regarding Mr. Robert Harkins?

A. Your Honor, it actually started yesterday afternoon. Mr. Williams (indicating) had asked me if I could make arrangements to, for them to speak to Mr. Harkins. I made the arrangements and I contacted the defense and told them that Mr. Harkins would meet with them at the Police Administration Building at eight o'clock this morning.

I picked Mr. Harkins up at his house and brought him down 8th and Race, signed him in the logbook at 7:35, and brought him up to Homicide. It was at that point Mr. Harkins informed me that he had changed his mind and did not want to give a statement, he didn't trust the defense, that he gave

Page 35.

Detective Joseph Walsh

a statement years ago and he testified in Court and had nothing else to say.

I told Mr. Harkins that they would have to hear that from him because they wouldn't believe me. So at approximately 8:05, 8:06, the defense, Mr. Williams, Mr. Weinglass showed up. I signed them in the logbook and took them upstairs. And Mr. Harkins was in the room. They entered the room and Mr. Harkins three times in my presence, and in at least one, maybe two other detectives' presence, but three times he stated to them, he apologized to me and to them, that he had changed his mind, he did not want to give a statement. He thought about it, he talked it over with his wife, he told them, and that he did not want to give any further interviews or statements to them.

At that point Mr. Weinglass started to ask him questions about well, you spoke to them, why don't you want to speak to us. He again told them he didn't want to give a statement, and upon hearing it the third, possibly fourth time, I asked the two attorneys to step outside the room with me. I didn't slam the door, I closed the door. And I told them at that point they had to leave: He did not want to speak to them.

Page 36.

Detective Joseph Walsh

I escorted them out of the building, signed them out of the logbook and walked them to the door of the PAB.

MS. FISK: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Detective Walsh, you picked up Mr. Harkins this morning?

A. Yes, sir, I did. He didn't have any transportation, he asked for a ride.

Q. And on the ride down did you talk to him?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And did you talk to him about lawyers coming in to talk to him this morning?

A. I explained that to him on the phone last night.

Q. Right. And he was still willing to come?

A. That is correct, he wanted me present there.

Q. But when you spoke to him on the phone last night he said yes, I will go down and I'll talk to these lawyers, so you picked him up this morning; is that right?

A. He didn't say to talk to the attorneys, he said he needed a ride down.

Q. Okay. And then somehow between the time you picked him up and the time we came in to see him he

Page 37.

Detective Joseph Walsh

indicated he didn't want to talk to the lawyers?

A. That is correct. Yes, sir.

Q. Did it have anything to do with your conversation with him on the way down?

A. Nothing at all.

Q. You can't explain how he changed his mind from last night to this morning?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The detective does not know what was on his mind last night.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. And you said you got him down there at 7:35?

A. Signed in the book.

Q. Did you bring the logbook with you?

A. No, I didn't bring the logbook. Officer Brown -- I believe you met him this morning -- Security, he's in charge of the logbook.

Q. Yes, it was a very pleasant greeting. And you and I were at the logbook also this morning, right?

A. Yes, and Mr. Williams also.

Q. And Mr. Williams. And you signed us in, did you not?

A. Oh, yes, sir.

Page 38.

Detective Joseph Walsh

Q. And the entry immediately before us was Mr. Harkins, which you signed in, right?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Frankly, I don't care what the entry before was, it has nothing to do with this, Judge.

MR. WEINGLASS: Just be patient, it will have something to do with it.

MS. FISK: I have lost my patience so that clearly cannot be.

MR. WEINGLASS: You are being paid to be patient.

MS. FISK: No, unfortunately, I am being paid to be a lawyer; unfortunately, you are being paid to act like a lawyer, Counselor. I have to object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINGLASS: The courtesy in the Courtroom is astounding.

THE COURT: Counselor, he said he had signed in Harkins. He also signed you in. Now let's go forward, please.

MR. WEINGLASS: I accept that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Would it surprise you that the logbook reflects the fact that Mr. Harkins was signed in at

Page 39.

Detective Joseph Walsh

eight o'clock?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Would it surprise you, Detective Walsh, that that's what the logbook reflected this morning?

THE WITNESS: There was an objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: No.

THE WITNESS: Wasn't there an objection?

THE COURT: I don't know.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. You may answer. Would you like to answer that question?

A. I would be totally shocked because it's signed in at 7:35. Now, Mr. Harkins, Bob Harkins, 7:35 a.m.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right. Your Honor, could the logbook be produced?

THE COURT: Well, you go down there and look at it yourself. I have another matter to take care of. If it's important. And I don't know the importance of it, but whether he signed in at 7:35 or eight o'clock, what is the difference? He signed him in, he signed you in, that's it.

MR. WEINGLASS: 25-minute difference

Page 40.

Detective Joseph Walsh

by my calculations. I don't know what happened there to this witness in that interim.

THE COURT: Well, you're putting him closer to the time that you got there so it can't be that important.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fine. Nothing further.

THE WITNESS: Anything, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I don't know. Not from me.

MS. FISK: I have no questions.

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

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, once again --

MS. FISK: One more thing, Your Honor: I understand that Counsel for -- the witness could come down -- I understand that at the request of Counsel that the photographs have been reproduced by the Police Department. Detective Walsh, as I understand it, has the bill for the cost of the reproduction. And once that bill is paid those photographs will be

Page 41.

Provided to defense Counsel.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. FISK: I would ask, Your Honor, at this stage I am assuming, therefore, that the defense is resting.

THE COURT: Well, I assume so, too.

MS. FISK: Well, we need to hear that on the record. I would also wish a statement on the record by the defense that any of those witnesses who have not been presented by defense who are referred to in the initial Petition, the Amended Petition, the letter, all those other documents that were filed, all those persons who were not quashed or expressly prohibited from testifying by the Court, are nevertheless not being called by defense and that is for a reasonable, legitimate strategy purpose and for no other purpose.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor, there is one caveat to that, and it's this: Yesterday we received from the District Attorney another letter indicating that there was another witness who allegedly came to the District Attorney's Office. The District Attorney gave us that witness' name and address. I went to

Page 42.

that witness' home last night. The witness was not there, not available. In fact, the witness doesn't live at that address but comes there frequently to pick up his SSI checks. Probably at the beginning of each month. I was told that he will be back on or about September 1st. So we will have to talk to that witness as there are --

THE COURT: Well, September 1st may be a little late, Counselor, because you're going to be away and you're going to have your final arguments on September the 11th. That's already been scheduled by the Court. If you can't get him before then, too bad.

MR. WEINGLASS: And I want to make a record that there are other people now who not only are coming to the District Attorney's Office but are coming to our offices, our hotel and trying to locate us.

THE COURT: Counselor, I can't continue this until Christmas. You know, do whatever you think you have to do. I will rule according to what I think is the proper ruling. And that's it. But for the time being, you are resting, period?

Page 43.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, subject to that observation I am making on the record.

THE COURT: Subject to the observation. Well, I hope it's before Christmas, because I intend to take a vacation too.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, we were just given a copy of those photographs. We were also given a copy of the bill for $990 for copying 33 photographs.

THE COURT: Well, I have no idea what it costs.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, I just wanted to indicate for the record that this is absolutely outrageous and basically a form of extortion against the Defendant for getting a copy of what are Court Exhibits. There is no place in the world except for this Police Department that 33 photographs would cost $990.

THE COURT: Well, maybe it is because of the time that the officer, the salary that he gets, I don't know. Take that up with them, Counselor. I don't have the slightest idea.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, okay. Your Honor, I have to submit also as

Page 44.

exhibits to be marked for identification a transcript of the deposition of David J. Horowitz. He is counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: This deposition was taken as part of an action in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. Let me complete, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I know, but I am not going to get involved. That is in Federal Court, take it up there.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: On July 13th. What this indicates, Your Honor, is that a letter seized from the mail from, from Mr. Weinglass to Mr. Jamal --

THE COURT: Counselor, I hate to interrupt you but please, please, take it up with the Federal Court. I have nothing to do with that. He's not here, he hasn't testified here in this case. I'm not going to allow you to submit anything, all right.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, this letter of Mr. Weinglass with defense strategy was turned over to the Office of the General Counsel for Governor Casey. We maintain that

Page 45.

this letter of private privilege --

THE COURT: Counselor. Counselor. Counselor. Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Governor's files.

THE COURT: One more time and you are going to be in contempt of Court. Not only am I going to commit you this time but I am going to fine you a thousand dollars too. Okay, do you understand that? I am not going to allow you to do this. Take it up in Federal Court.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I hear you loud and clear, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Right, you are going to be there September 6th, 7th and 8th. Take it up with the Federal Court.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Can we submit these to be marked for identification?

THE COURT: No, absolutely not. Period. See you on September 11th.

MS. FISK: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court stands adjourned until September 11th.

(The hearing was concluded at this time.)

- - - - -

Page 46.

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