|
|
Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-JamalPCRA-Anhörung vom 01. Oktober 1996 |
|||||||||||||
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
- - - - - Hearing Re Veronica Jones - - - - - Tuesday, October 1, 1996 - - - - - BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J. - - - - -
- - - - - TRANSCRIBED BY: CHARLES M. GORGOL |
|
Page 2.
EXHIBITS
Page 3. - - - - - (At 10:08 a.m. the hearing was convened in the - - - - - THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. I assume you all received this amended Order from the Supreme Court? MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, there is a preliminary matter before we begin calling witnesses. And that has to do with the outstanding subpoena that we served on the District Attorney's Office for their entire file related to this case. The point about the subpoena is that we believe we are entitled to full disclosure of the District Attorney's files on this case because we have made substantial due process claims in this case on several different grounds and in several respects. One is that the police had successfully pressured a central defense witness Veronica Jones to change her testimony to Jamal's detriment in the course of the trial. That is a clear due process violation. Page 4. Additionally, the fact that the police asked Jones to testify falsely that Jamal was the shooter in and of itself is favorable material evidence which the D.A. was obligated to disclose to the defense and was not done. That is under Kyles V Whitley and Brady versus Maryland. Additionally, the information contained about Veronica Jones supports the claim that the Court improperly precluded Jones from testifying fully as to potential deals and pressure at the original trial. And that raises our claims under Chambers versus Mississippi. In support factually of our subpoena for the entire file on the Jamal case there is a record that's already been made in this case. First of all, Veronica Jones' statement itself shows that misconduct has not been previously disclosed to the defense, prosecutorial misconduct has not been disclosed to the defense. And indeed it has been hidden and hidden with Court assistance with respect to the restriction of her testimony which was done during the trial. Additionally, at the hearing last Page 5. summer, the PCRA hearing, it became for the first time known to the defense that a license or a duplicate license or application for a license of another person, Arnold Howard, was found on the body of the deceased Daniel Faulkner. That point which shows that a third person was somewhere around at the time or in close proximity to Faulkner's death was never before disclosed to the defense and that evidence came out in the course of the prosecution witness, Detective Edward D'Amato testifying. That was evidence on the part of the defense theory that a third person was the actual shooter and fled the scene. Additionally, at our PCRA hearing another piece of undisclosed evidence was the fact that prosecution witness Robert Chobert had been promised by the District Attorney assistance in reinstating his driver's license which he needed to maintain his livelihood. For the first time at that PCRA hearing it became known to the defense that such a promise was made by the District Attorney. That also was favorable material evidence which should have been disclosed to the defense some 15 years ago. Page 6. Additionally, it became clear in the course of our testimony at the PCRA hearing that William Singletary had been coerced and threatened into changing his truthful story that he saw a third man, the actual shooter, shoot Faulkner and run away. That was never disclosed to the defense. Additionally, the prosecution was bemused and ridiculed the idea that there was a Detective Green, a black detective for the Police Department, who interviewed Singletary that night, and was the officer who threatened him into changing his testimony. Yet, after the hearing, in the course of defense investigation, we have learned that there are at least three black police officers of detective rank or above with the last name of Green, at least three. That information was never disclosed to the defense and we believe that the fact that this was ridiculed is further evidence of the type of prosecutorial suppression of evidence that is going on. Furthermore, just last night I spoke to the Detective Sergeant who supervised the investigation for the Homicide division, one Page 7. Herbert Gibbons. And when I inquired of him of the Jamal investigation, and specifically Veronica Jones, what was done vis-a-vis her in terms of sending detectives in there to coerce her into changing her testimony, he told me to read his reports of the investigation; but there have been no reports by Sergeant Gibbons that have ever been turned over to the defense. Furthermore, the record of this Office, the District Attorney of Philadelphia County, has been well-known and established in the question of suppressing comparable types of evidence. Just this past February, Judge Savitt held that the prosecution in the Rider case had suppressed some hundred and forty-two statements for 22 years that were taken after a murder took place. 22 years, 142 statements. Upon review, it turned out that he found that eight of these were totally exculpatory reports. So based on this record of what our claims are, of some of the examples of suppression of evidence and potential misconduct by the District Attorney's Office and the Police Department, we are demanding that our subpoena be honored and we get full disclosure of the Page 8. prosecution's file. MS. FISK: May I respond, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. FISK: Thank you. Your Honor, I would first note to the Court and to Counsel that the Order of the Supreme Court issued yesterday in accordance I presume with the request by Your Honor to the Supreme Court to clarify -- THE COURT: No, they didn't talk to me at all. MS. FISK: Oh, all right. THE COURT: For the record, I couldn't even talk to a law clerk. I talked to a telephone operator who said she'll try to reach a law clerk. She reached a law clerk, she came back to me on the phone and said the Supreme Court does not amend its Order, whatever it said it said. And that's the way I took it: I am just going to go according to that. But I then received this supplemental. I assumed Counsel must have filed something with the Supreme Court. MS. FISK: Well, I am aware, Your Page 9. Honor, that Counsel had filed with the Supreme Court an emergency application seeking reassignment of this matter from Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, I know that. MS. FISK: And the Supreme Court yesterday specifically denied that emergency application. In addition, the Supreme Court yesterday did amend its initial Order remanding this matter to Your Honor and specified and clarified that the matter is remanded to the trial Court to conduct a supplemental evidentiary hearing commencing on today's date to develop a full factual record concerning the claims regarding Veronica Jones that Appellant raised in his Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition. The trial Court is further directed to enter an opinion within 30 days of said hearing and the Court continues to retain jurisdiction. It is apparent from that Order that, as we noted at the last status listing, that the purpose of this hearing is to give Counsel an opportunity to present for the record evidence that Veronica Jones could not legitimately be located by them at the last Post-Conviction Page 10. Relief Act hearing last summer and to preserve her testimony for the record as well with regard to what she would have said since we are here on this matter if she had been called at such a hearing. And that is the limit of the purpose of this remand. To suggest as Counsel now does that the entire allegations raised in the Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition filed last year can be revisited is ludicrous and is clearly denied by the specific language of the Supreme Court, which now specifically notes as we claim that the matter is remanded specifically with regard to Counsel's claims of Veronica Jones. Miss Wolkenstein stands before this Court, stands before Your Honor and notes that the defense proved last summer allegations regarding a particular witness. I would note, Your Honor, that after that witness was subjected to cross-examination, Your Honor made a factual determination that his testimony from the witness stand last summer was not credible, so in fact it has not been proven. Certainly it has been alleged, but it has not been proven. Page 11. Counsel also has argued today that the proofs of Miss Jones' testimony prove that there are due process violations. I would suggest that such a request is untimely and first it has to be proven not from Miss Wolkenstein's mouth, not from a typed affidavit, but from a witness on the witness stand subject to cross-examination, then subject to a determination of credibility by this Court. I suggest, Your Honor, that the subpoenas issued both to the Office of the District Attorney as well as I understand to the Police Department are inappropriately served at this time and I would ask Your Honor to quash all those subpoenas and limit this hearing to the purposes for which the Supreme Court has suggested it be limited, and that is with regard to developing a full factual record concerning the claims regarding Veronica Jones and we proceed on that matter alone. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, this is a hearing in order to deal with the substantial question of the due process violations, the prosecutorial misconduct towards Veronica Jones. We believe that additional information for this Page 12. hearing is in the prosecution files. We have requested that they be disclosed in our status hearing motion to the Court, and we have subpoenaed those records. And we ask for a ruling of this Court that we be able to pursue, as the Supreme Court has ordered, a full evidentiary hearing on the claims by Veronica Jones which we believe necessitate for the first time some openness and release of information from the prosecution's files. It is undisputed, contrary to what Miss Fisk says, that D'Amato, Detective D'Amato, who was a prosecution witness, stated for the first time that somebody else's license was found on the deceased Officer's body. That was material evidence for defense. It was never disclosed before. It came from the mouth of a prosecution witness. That is undisputed. This Court did not find Detective D'Amato a liar in any way, nor did the prosecution get up and disown their witness. But from that witness' mouth came evidence, concrete, undisputable, uncontroversial, that in fact there was material, favorable evidence that was for 15 years suppressed. Page 13. MS. FISK: I would note, Your Honor, just in light of the fact that Mr. Howard is not a party to this remand, that a statement of Mr. Howard was taken by Homicide detectives and presented to defense Counsel as part of discovery back in 1981, 1982. And there were property receipts with regard to physical evidence that were also available for examination by defense Counsel at the time of trial. THE COURT: All right, all right, please. I've heard enough. MS. FISK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I am going according to what the Supreme Court has said in this Order, that's all. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, could you -- THE COURT: I said that's all. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could you rule on my motion, please? THE COURT: Your motion is denied. Take it up with the Supreme Court. If they want me to have a full-blown hearing again, fine, let them send it back down for that purpose. But Page 14. they said they sent it down for a specific purpose and that's all I am going to hear now. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: For Veronica Jones, alternatively, could we have release of all the information that deals with Veronica Jones from the prosecution files? THE COURT: I don't know what you need but proceed with whatever evidence you have at this time. If you need something more later on, bring it up. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We say we need something more: We need the information on Veronica Jones. THE COURT: You have your witness here, put her on. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could we have a ruling on this? THE COURT: I told you I am only going according to this Order. I am not deviating one little bit from what they said. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You are denying that in terms of Veronica Jones? THE COURT: You could interpret it any way that you want but I am going according to what the supreme Court has ordered me to do, Page 15. period. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: As a third alternative -- THE COURT: Listen, Counselor, I made a ruling, now sit down. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: If you would just look at them in camera. THE COURT: Counselor, would you please sit down. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Is that a denial? THE COURT: I don't care what you consider it. Abide by this Order of the Supreme Court. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I take it you deny the in camera review. THE COURT: You can take it any way you want, Counselor, just sit down. Now, if you are going to present evidence, present it. MR. WEINGLASS: If we may have just a second. (Discussion held off the record at this time.) MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, at this point Mr. Jamal calls to the stand Veronica Jones. Page 16. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would ask sequestration of all other defense witnesses; and I would ask all Commonwealth witnesses who have been brought here as well to remove themselves from the Courtroom. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I see five people have left after the Commonwealth requested sequestration of their witnesses. May we have the names of the witnesses that the Commonwealth intends to call? MS. FISK: Your Honor, I will not know who I am calling unless and until Miss Jones testifies. These are all potential rebuttal witnesses. Therefore, I can not at this time assert who will testify. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, could we have the names of the five witnesses? THE COURT: You will get it at the proper time when she calls them and she'll tell you why she's calling them. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, my name is Jordan Yeager. I am an attorney for the individual witness Veronica Jones. THE COURT: Did you enter an Page 17. appearance? MR. YEAGER: Yes, I did, Your Honor. Your Honor, I have discussed with Miss Jones any potential Fifth Amendment rights she may have that may be at issue by her testimony today. And she is knowingly and fully aware of those rights. And pursuant to our discussions, she is testifying here today waiving any Fifth Amendment rights that may be specifically at issue concerning her testimony in the 1982 trial. And I am confident and I can represent to the Court that that waiver has been done knowingly and with full advice of Counsel. MR. WEINGLASS: We are prepared to proceed. - - - - - Veronica Jones, Camden, New Jersey, having been - - - - - THE COURT: I have a few questions I have to ask this witness, although I concede you have been telling her everything about her rights. Have they, has your attorney advised Page 18. you that if you say something now which is different from what you said at the trial, you could be charged with perjury? THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: Okay. Are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: So you understand that they don't have to prove which time you lied, but that you gave testimony differently on two occasions? THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: Did he tell you how much time you could serve if you are convicted? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't ask. THE COURT: Why didn't you tell her that? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, we did discuss the possibility of incarceration. THE COURT: Did you tell her what the maximum is under the law? MR. YEAGER: Yes, I did, Your Honor. THE COURT: What did you tell her? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, my understanding is that it is seven years for Page 19. perjury. THE COURT: Seven to 14? MR. YEAGER: My understanding under the statute, the maximum is seven. THE COURT: So you are saying three-and-a-half to seven? MR. YEAGER: Yes, Your Honor. MS. FISK: For each incident of perjury, Your Honor. THE COURT: For each incident? MS. FISK: That is our position. THE COURT: You understand that? THE WITNESS: I understand. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, I have had extensive discussions with -- THE COURT: Well, I know, but I have to create a record here so that later on she doesn't say you didn't tell her something. MR. YEAGER: Well, I appreciate that, Your Honor. But I, I say this, Judge -- THE COURT: You may appreciate it but I have to make sure that she understands it. That's why I asked her if she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. MR. YEAGER: And I believe she has Page 20. answered that for Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Good morning, Miss Jones. A. Good morning. Q. Feel a little nervous today? A. Very. Q. That's understandable. Just take your time and relax. A. Thank you. Q. Are you the Veronica Jones who testified back in June of 1982 in the case of Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal? A. Yes, I am. Q. Do you recall testifying in that case? A. Yes. Q. And with respect to your testimony, was any part of your testimony that you gave in that case untruthful? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall in what respect the testimony that you gave was untruthful? Page 21. Veronica Jones - Direct A. I told them that I didn't see two men leave the, umm, run away, leave the scene. Q. And, Miss Jones, in fact did you see two people run from the scene? A. Yes, I did. Q. And had you told the police earlier, on December 15th, 1981, that you saw two people run from the scene? A. Yes. Q. Now could you describe for us why it was that when you took the stand and testified in the trial you denied seeing two people run from the scene? A. I thought I was being, I was being, I would be brought into the Courtroom for my charges, which was weapons charges. And I had, I was facing five to 10, maybe 15 years in jail for possession of weapons. This is what I thought I was there for, but when I came into the Courtroom, this is not what I was there for. This is Mr. Jamal's trial, not mine. And I was scared and I didn't know what was going on. I wasn't ready. Q. Did anyone talk to you from either side prior to your testifying? A. Just, umm, the policeman I met in the jail. Q. The policeman talked to you when you were in Page 22. Veronica Jones - Direct the jail? A. Hmm-hmm, two detectives. Q. Two detectives? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. And this was before you testified? A. Yes, I had met them before then. I thought they were my lawyers coming to see me. This is what I was told. When I was brought to the room it was two detectives. Q. Did you have a conversation with them? A. I did a little talking but I did a lot of listening. Q. What did they tell you? A. More so they was letting me know what I was facing as far as my weapons charges. And, umm -- excuse me. That I could, you know, they could help me off those charges if I helped them. And it was a big decision to make but this is five or ten years away from my kids. And right then and there my kids was all I was thinking about. Q. And it was because of that meeting that you changed your testimony? A. Yes, it is. Excuse me. Q. Yes. MR. WEINGLASS: May Miss Jones be Page 23. Veronica Jones - Direct given some water? (Pause.) MR. WEINGLASS: Do you feel a little better now? THE WITNESS: I'm fine, yes. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Okay. Miss Jones, could you describe the detectives? A. I hate to sound so stereotyped but it was just two white men, late thirties, early forties. One had gray hair, and I couldn't, I don't recall what the other one, color the other hair was. That's the first time I seen them. And then I seen them again later on. Q. When did you see them again? A. When they brought me into the Courtroom when I thought I was going for my charges, my gun charges. They were in the back. Q. And you saw them when you went into the room? A. I saw them clearly because I looked in the whole room because I didn't know -- I wasn't supposed to be there. Q. So it was a surprise to you that you were brought in to testify in the Jamal case? A. It was a big surprise. Page 24. Veronica Jones - Direct Q. Now getting back to your meeting with the detectives prior to your testifying, do you recall what it was that they said to you about your testimony? A. Well, when they came to see me at the jail? Q. Yes. A. It was just more so that, umm, I was to name Mr. Jamal (indicating) as the shooter, you know. And if I was to do that, I was supposed to do something like this girl named Lucky White. They said we made a deal with her and it was going to work out for her so they could make it work out for me. All they kept expressing was don't forget five to ten years, that's a long time. They kept expressing that point. So flashback my kids, that's all I think about is my kids. Q. And they told you what would happen to you if you did what they wanted you to do? A. I don't recall, sir, I don't remember. Q. Did they say anything about the charges against you? A. The gun charges were supposed to be removed if I went with them. Q. By the way, Miss Jones, back in 1982 how old were you? Page 25. Veronica Jones - Direct A. About 20, I think I was 20, almost 21 years old. Q. And did you have children at that time? A. Hmm-hmm, I had three small girls. Q. And at that time were you concerned about being separated from them? A. I was very concerned. It was bad enough the fact that my mother had to watch over them while I was in the street. It was bad enough of that. But to let alone being taken away from them for all those years. They didn't deserve both. They had my mother, not me full time. But I never missed a birthday, a holiday or nothing. But I did work the street and I don't regret that. Because I took care of them, good care of them. So I don't regret that. And if I had to do it again, not to be away from my kids for ten years, I don't know what I might do, I might do the same thing again because I loved them, I loved them a lot. Q. You're still with them, are you not? A. Yes, I am, they are here with me. Q. They are here with you? A. Yes, they are. They love me. Q. Are any of your children in college now? A. I have two children, one is in the second-year Page 26. Veronica Jones - Direct of college, one's going for medicine, pre-medicine, and the other's going to be a criminal lawyer. My youngest one hasn't made up her mind what she wants to do. Q. And do you still live in the City of Philadelphia? A. No, I don't live in Philadelphia. Q. Do you live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? A. I live in New Jersey. Q. And would it be fair to say that your life has changed considerably? A. My life is splendid. I have no complaints. It was only this one thing bothering me and I had to get it off my chest while I could. I'm getting ready to be a grandmom for the first time and I want to go into that, raising a grandchild like that, you know, if they know something about me I want it to be pleasant things, not that I am just living a lie, no. I want to be a good grandmom. Q. Now, do you recall some time meeting with a representative of the defense in this case? A. The first time I met with the defense was April, the beginning of April of this year. Q. In April of 1996? Page 27. Veronica Jones - Direct A. Yes. Around the beginning. (Pause.) THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.) THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Do you recall who it was you met with first? A. First I met with, it's, I will go with the stereotype again, but it was a white defense lawyer, tall thin guy. I can't recall, I know it was Mike something. And a black investigator. Q. And after that did you meet with any other lawyers? A. Yes, I met with, umm, Rachel, well, maybe a couple weeks later. It wasn't that same day. I met with Rachel. You. And the other investigator Chris. Q. And did you freely talk to the people you met with? A. Yes. Q. About the matters you have just testified to today? A. Yes. And I know I did that because my children were in the living room when they first came. And it just all came back up to the surface again. So it was about time we do something about it. Excuse me. Page 28. Veronica Jones - Direct Q. After you met with the lawyers was a statement prepared for you to sign? A. Yes, yes. We, umm, we met in a Xerox company and when we first made the statement we first went there, the, I didn't have my ID in order to get it notarized. The second time the guy that notarizes it, he wasn't there, so we just sat at the computer whatever. And mistakes were made, I mean, you know, fix commas. And I initialed every page. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, may the witness be shown this five-page, typed statement entitled Verified Statement of Veronica Jones? I am showing it to Counsel (handing). (Pause.) MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record show the statement has been handed to the witness after Counsel has examined it. MS. FISK: It's been marked. MR. WEINGLASS: She is now examining it. May it be marked, Your Honor? THE COURT: What do you want to mark it? MS. FISK: As Defense Exhibit 1 for this hearing? THE COURT: Is that what you want? Page 29. Veronica Jones - Direct MR. WEINGLASS: Defense Exhibit 1. THE COURT: Well, ask for it. D-l. (Statement of Veronica Jones was marked MR. WEINGLASS: This is the same document that was provided to the Supreme Court. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Miss Jones, have you looked over the five pages? A. Yes. Q. Of what's been marked Defense Exhibit l? A. Yes. Q. Does your signature appear? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your initials on each page? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that the statement that you signed? A. Yes, this is the statement I gave you all. Q. And is it true? A. Yes. Q. I want to just ask you one other question about the month going back to January of 1982. Were you questioned at all by police in the 6th District? A. Yes, I was picked up on the street. And, umm, I thought I was going, I was going in for the night, Page 30. Veronica Jones - Direct you know. That's what we called going in for the night. And when I got there I was put in this room. I was never processed. They usually just sit us to the side for a few minutes, then take us out and fingerprint. I never got none of that. But they started, two guys came and just started questioning me. These weren't the same two detectives that questioned me before. And, umm... they were just questioning me. Q. Did they say anything to you about what you should testify to? A. Asked me if my mind had been made up what I was going to do. And these were two policemen that were usually in that area. These were suits that I met. I'm sorry. They wear suits. Q. By the way, who is, you mentioned a person named Lucky. Who is Lucky? A. Cynthia White. She was, she was supposed to have been a friend of mine on the street but we, we just friends out there like that. But her name was Cynthia White, we just called her Lucky. Q. Did her name come up with that conversation? A. Yes; they said you don't see Lucky around here, do you. In other words, they didn't pick her up. See, a number of us got picked up but I didn't Page 31. Veronica Jones - Direct get processed, okay. And when we got picked up Cynthia was not in the bunch. Q. To your knowledge, was she arrested at that time? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Was there discussion among the other women about that? A. I really couldn't say because I was in a different room. I was in a room by myself. Q. I see. And when the police mentioned Lucky to you did they say anything about your testimony as compared to what Lucky would do? A. Just told me I would be able to work, I wouldn't have to worry about my charges, I could work. Basically, that was it. Q. And did they say what you would have to do in order for you to be able to work? A. Just name Mr. Jamal as the shooter. Q. They made that clear to you? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. That was in January? A. This was around, I would say around the 9th or the 15th, somewhere in between there. Because it was really cold. Somewhere in there. Q. So just so to summarize -- Page 32. Veronica Jones - Direct A. Okay. Q. -- you were visited at your home about a week after the incident on December 15th by two detectives? A. Yes, yes. Q. And you were questioned? A. Yes. Q. Then in January of 1982 you were taken to the 6th precinct? A. Yes. Q. And questioned again? A. Yes. Q. And then just prior to your testimony you were visited by two detectives when you were in lockup? A. Yes. Q. And questioned a third time? A. Yes, but they weren't the same people. Q. Each time they were different detectives? A. Yes, yes. MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have just a moment. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. My last question to you, Miss Jones: It's Page 33. Veronica Jones - Cross clear that on the night of the occurrence shortly after you heard the shooting you saw two men run away from the scene? A. Yes, sir. Q. You're clear on that? A. Very clear. MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you. Nothing further. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. FISK: Thank you. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Good morning, Miss Jones. A. Good morning. Q. Miss Jones, many of the questions I ask you will obviously deal with events many years ago. If there is anything you do not recall, don't guess, just tell me you don't remember, all right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. It is not a test and I don't want to subject you to trying to assume or guess things. A. Thank you. Page 34. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Now, I also don't mean to make you uncomfortable or in any way question the means by which you supported yourself and your daughters but I do need to inquire to a certain degree. Miss Jones, until when did you work, ma'am, as a prostitute in Philadelphia? A. It's nothing you keep a calendar on. But I started when I was like maybe 17, being naive and weak for a man. That's when I started. The physical scars led me to do this for myself. I am going to do it, I might as well do it for myself. Q. I mean the question is when? A. I am telling you, ma'am, from 17. Q. Yes. A. I can't really say when I stopped. You know, maybe when I was about 23, 24. Q. All right. So would it be safe to say that for approximately two or three years after you were called by the defense as a witness in the trial of Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal you continued to work as a prostitute in the City of Philadelphia? A. No, ma'am, it would not be safe to say that, because I didn't live in Philadelphia. Q. I'm sorry, my question was until when did you work as a prostitute in Philadelphia? That was my Page 35. Veronica Jones - Cross original question. A. Well, I will straighten this out for you. As far as Philadelphia, when this happened I stopped. Q. Oh, all right. A. But as far as you mean when I said up to 23 and 24, I had moved for my children and whenever I saw a man it had to be on the money tip. So I still call that prostitution but I did not work the street. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Q. You say when this happened you stopped? A. Yes. Q. When which this, when the shooting occurred? A. Yes. Q. So following December 9th, 1981, would it be fair to say you no longer worked the streets? A. I can't say no longer worked the street, I was trying to get out of that. But I might have occasionally still did it. Q. Okay. When you say you occasionally still did it, were you occasionally still doing it up until the time of the trial? MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I am going to object at this point. I think Counsel has a misunderstanding that is confusing the witness. Page 36. Veronica Jones - Cross Miss Jones was in custody at the time of the trial. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Let her ask her questions, if she doesn't understand it she'll say so. MR. WEINGLASS: In fairness to the witness the question should be accurate. THE COURT: The question is to the witness. She could tell us. We don't need you to testify, unless you want to take the stand. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, then, your objection is overruled. This is cross-examination, we are trying to find out what she did. Okay. Go ahead. BY MS. FISK: Q. Are you able to answer my question, Miss Jones? A. I can answer it. Q. Okay. A. You want to ask it again? Q. Sure. Up until the night of the shooting, until you were taken into custody, which was -- A. Okay. Q. -- a week or two before this, whenever you Page 37. Veronica Jones - Cross were taken into custody in June 1982, were you from December 9th, 1982 up until you were taken into custody, were you still occasionally working the streets? A. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall? A. I don't recall working the streets. Q. You would agree with me, ma'am, that from December 9th, 1981, up until today, you were never again arrested and charged with prostitution in the City of Philadelphia; is that right? A. Not to my knowledge, I'm not sure. But, no, not prostitution, no. Q. If I were to suggest to you -- A. Okay. Q. -- that your criminal extract shows that from December 9th, 1981 to date there is no record of your ever having been arrested and charged with prostitution in the City of Philadelphia, you would agree with me that that was accurate? A. Okay, it's accurate. Q. All right. Now, when these police officers in January 1982 -- I'm sorry, you said these detectives -- A. Yes. Page 38. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. -- in January 1982 questioned you inside the -- you said the 6th Police District? A. Yes. Q. -- and they told you that you could work however you want if you named Mr. Jamal the shooter, what did you tell them? A. They told me that, asked me did I make up my mind yet. That's exactly what they said. Q. And what did you say to them? A. And I, I can't remember what I said to them. Because I was already mad by being picked up. So I really can't recall the exact conversation that went on. But I know as far as the deal, as far as them telling me about Lucky and what I should do is things that Lucky do, do what Lucky do, in order to work -- Q. Did you tell -- MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I object: Counsel is interrupting the witness. She was in the midst of giving an answer. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: I can't recall exactly what I told him. BY MS. FISK: Q. Well, I understand you can't recall the exact words, but did you tell him you would go along with Page 39. Veronica Jones - Cross that deal or you would not go along with that deal? A. I can't recall exactly how I put it or what I said. Q. But you don't remember whether you told him that you would or would not go along with the deal? A. No, I don't remember. Q. You have no memory of that? A. No, I do not. Q. Did you have further contact with those police officers? I'm sorry, those detectives? A. No, not those two. Q. You testified on your direct examination that those detectives were suits. That's people who worked what, the area of 13th and Locust generally? A. They were suits, they were undercover. They were suits, that's what I call them. Q. You call them that because they were people that you knew? A. No, they are just people that don't wear blue shirts, that's what we call suits. Q. Do you know their names? A. No, I do not, I did not ask. Q. I take it they had no badges on because they weren't -- A. I would see their badge but I can't remember Page 40. Veronica Jones - Cross what no numbers were. Q. Did you ever see these suits again? A. No, ma'am, I didn't. Q. Had you ever seen them before? A. In the area. On and off. Q. Now, ma'am, you told us today that from -- I'm sorry from that time until June -- I'm sorry -- in June you told us that you were arrested and placed in custody? A. In June I was arrested, yes. Q. Do you remember the precise date that you were arrested? A. I don't remember the precise date but I know it was in June. Q. Now, you have a document that you just picked up? A. Yes, I do have a document. Q. What is that, ma'am? A. It says June 12th. Q. What is that document that you have placed before yourself? A. It says I was arrested on a robbery and gun charges. Q. My question is the document, is that Defense Exhibit 1, the statement which you gave this past Page 41. Veronica Jones - Cross May? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it says that you were arrested on what, ma'am, on robbery and gun charges? A. Robbery, assault, gun, and multiple other charges. Q. And it gives the date as June 12th, 1982? A. Yes, it does. Q. I take it that you did not have an independent recollection of that date, someone provided that date to you from, perhaps, Court records? A. I know it was June. Q. Okay, do you know where the date June 12th came from? A. Not precisely, no, I don't. Q. Nevertheless, when this statement was typed up and that precise date June 12th, 1982 was placed there -- A. Hmm-hmm. Q. -- you initialed that page? A. Yes, I did. I knew it had to be around that time because of the first of the month. Q. All right. But someone else told you that the precise date was June 12th; am I correct about that? A. I believe so. Page 42. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. And who told you that the precise -- A. I'm not sure who told me. Q. Was it one of the persons taking your statement or preparing this statement? A. I'm not, I am not sure where June 12th came from, I just know it was in June. Q. But you remember being arrested, you remember being arrested and charged; is that right? A. I remember very well being arrested on these charges. Q. So you were arrested for far more than weapons charges; isn't that right? A. Yes, I was. Q. You were charged with robbery as well? A. Yes, I was. Q. And in fact, at the time of your arrest you had two guns in your possession; isn't that correct, ma'am? A. Yes, I did. Q. They were stuffed down in front of your pants? A. No, ma'am, they weren't. Q. No they weren't? A. No, they weren't. Q. Where were they? A. They were under the cushion that I was sitting Page 43. Veronica Jones - Cross on. Q. You don't recall having them stuffed down your pants underneath your shirt? A. No, ma'am, I don't. Q. Now, at the time of your arrest there were other persons arrested as well, weren't there? A. Yes. Q. At the time of your arrest for robbery? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall those persons' names? A. Yes, I recall those persons. It's been a while. I remember my girlfriend's name. Q. What was her name? A. Her name was Jan. Q. Her last name was Stelly? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember the name of the man who was arrested when you were arrested? A. The one I was dealing with, that was Bernard. Q. Was there someone named Zachery Leach arrested? A. Okay, that was his name. Q. Is that Bernard, Bernard is a nickname? A. No, Bernard is Bernard and Zachery is Zachery. Q. Okay, I got it. Now, following your arrest Page 44. Veronica Jones - Cross did you have a preliminary hearing on those charges? I'm sorry, before I ask you that: would I be correct that at the time of your arrest on June 12th, 1982 that bail was set? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you remember being brought in front of a magistrate? A. I remember being brought down, yes. Q. If the Quarter Sessions file reflects that at the time of your arrest bail was initially set I believe at the amount of a thousand dollars, would that refresh your recollection that that was the bail initially set? A. It was a thousand twenty, that I remember, yes. Q. A thousand twenty, okay. Now, did you thereafter have a preliminary hearing? A. This was -- yes, I believe so. Q. That was six days following your arrest? Would that be about right? A. That was after the first bail set? Q. That's correct. A. Yes. Q. About six days following your arrest? A. Hmm-hmm. Page 45. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. You appeared in front of a Municipal Court Judge? A. Okay. Q. And there may or may not have been witnesses who testified and you were ordered held for Court, again the Quarter Sessions file regarding your matter reflects that that was on June the 18th, 1982; do you recall that? Or having -- A. I don't recall the date but I recall being there, yes. Q. And again according to the Quarter Sessions file, it reflects that your bail at that time on June the 18th, 1982 was reduced to $300. Do you recall that happening? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And that was, according to your statement, Defense Exhibit 1, and the Court record, ten days prior to your being called by the defense as a witness in the case of Commonwealth versus Jamal; is that right? A. I don't remember. Q. All right. Well, was your preliminary hearing before or after the detectives, the two white men 30 and 40 years old, one with long white hair, visited you in the prison? Page 46. Veronica Jones - Cross A. The preliminary hearing was after. Q. Was after? A. Yes, I believe. I'm not quite sure but I believe it was after. Q. How long before you were brought in to testify did these men come to see you in prison? A. I don't remember. Q. Oh, all right. Did you say anything to these detectives when they visited you in the prison? A. I never said too much, I just listened. Q. Well, did you tell them you would do it or did you tell them you wouldn't? A. I just wanted to, I had them reassure me about my charges being dropped. And they kept reassuring me, reassuring me. Then they started saying how my kids could be taken from my mom being I was being sent up for all this time. Yeah, so I remember talking to them but I don't recall what I told them. Q. Okay. After they said that to you and you went to the preliminary hearing, did you expect that the charges then would be dropped? A. I was 20 years old: I didn't expect anything. I just wanted to get out and go home. Q. And -- THE WITNESS: Are you done with me? Page 47. Veronica Jones - Cross MS. FISK: And leave -- no, ma'am. THE COURT: We will take a recess if you need it. THE WITNESS: Excuse me, sir. MS. FISK: Let me know, Miss Jones, when you're ready to go on. THE WITNESS: I'm ready, I'm okay. BY MS. FISK: Q. Those detectives who visited you at the prison, did they tell you as the suits had done that you should say that Jamal was the shooter? A. Yes, they did. Q. And then you went to your preliminary hearing and you were held for Court and your bail was reduced; is that right, ma'am? A. Yes. Q. Am I correct that despite the fact that your bail was reduced on the 18th of June, 1982, according to the Quarter Sessions file in your case, that you did not have the funds to make bail; is that correct? A. My mother had enough trouble taking care of my kids while I was acting a fool, no, I didn't have the funds. Q. Okay, so it is for that reason that you remained in custody and were still in custody when Page 48. Veronica Jones - Cross you were called to testify; is that right? A. I believe so. Q. There was, however, a time the following July that you did come up with the funds, whether it was $300 or 10 percent of that, $300 to make bail; is that right? A. I don't recall when they came up with it but they came up with it. Q. When you say they, they are referring to your mother? A. My stepfather. Q. Okay. And again if the Quarter Sessions file shows that in July 1981 you made bail, would that refresh your recollection? I'm sorry. MR. WEINGLASS: I think Counsel misspoke. BY MS. FISK: Q. 1982 -- I apologize -- you made bail, would that refresh your recollection as to when you made bail? Specifically, July 23rd, 1982, a bail piece appears in the Quarter Sessions file signed by you using the name Louise Tatum; would that be correct? A. I remember using the name Louise Tatum but I don't remember anything else. Q. Right, and when you made bail in July 1982, I Page 49. Veronica Jones - Cross take it you were given a subpoena and told when to appear back in Philadelphia City Hall to face trial on the charges of robbery and the various weapons offenses; would that be correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, did you remain in contact with Mr. Leach or your friend Jan after that time? A. The same people got me in trouble? No. Q. Okay, so I take it, then, that you were unaware that later in the year 1982 and into 1983, when their cases came up for trial regarding this matter, that all the charges against them were discharged because the witnesses failed to appear? A. No, I didn't know. Q. Nevertheless, you were subpoenaed to appear in November 1982 to face trial on these same charges; isn't that correct, ma'am? A. November 19th, yes, it is. Q. Nevertheless, you failed to appear; is that correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And that is because you wanted to be with your children, ma'am? A. I was scared, I wanted my kids away from all this crap that I started. So I took them and we Page 50. Veronica Jones - Cross left. And we left for seven years and I loved it. I loved every minute of it. Q. And when you say you left, you left from where? A. I left the state. Q. You left which state, ma'am? A. I left the state of New Jersey, I left the state of Philadelphia, I just left. Q. You left the state of New Jersey or you left the state of Pennsylvania, I'm sorry? A. I was, I was living in Philadelphia, my children were living in Jersey. Q. Yes, ma'am. A. When they let me go I went and got my children, I said a prayer and I got on a bus and I left. Q. And you went where, ma'am? A. I just left. Q. And you went where, ma'am? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection to the relevancy of this inquiry. It doesn't go anywhere. THE COURT: How do you know? MR. WEINGLASS: Well. THE COURT: What are you, a mind Page 51. Veronica Jones - Cross reader? It is a question she is asking her. It may be relevant later on. I will let her answer it. MR. WEINGLASS: Could Counsel represent what relevance it has? It doesn't appear relevant. THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. That's enough. Answer the question where did you go. THE WITNESS: I went to West Virginia. THE COURT: Okay. BY MS. FISK: Q. When did you return from West Virginia, Miss Jones? A. I'm not sure, I'm not sure when it was. It was seven years later, six or seven years later. Q. And let me go back for a moment, please. The notes of testimony from this case, the case of Commonwealth versus Jamal, reflect that prior to your being called as a defense witness by Mr. Jackson, that an attorney representing you was brought in to speak to the Judge. Now, that attorney represented to the Court and in fact during your own testimony at the trial you referred to having spoken to your public defender. Do you recall having an attorney Page 52. Veronica Jones - Cross who represented you? A. No, I do not. No. Q. Do you recall speaking to an attorney prior to your testifying in the case of Commonwealth versus Jamal? A. I spoke to an attorney as far as my charges were. Mine. Q. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. A. But I didn't have one representing me there. Q. There was reference in -- let me see if I could call your attention to it. MS. FISK: Just bear with me for a moment, please. (Pause.) MS. FISK: I will return to that because I know it is here somewhere, I'm not certain. BY MS. FISK: Q. My question to you, then, is, or your answer is you have no recollection of speaking to an attorney prior to your testifying in this case or you do? A. No, I spoke to an attorney about me. Q. Your own case? A. About me, yes. Page 53. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. You don't remember speaking to an attorney about this case? A. Not that I recall, no. Q. Your attorney that you spoke to at your preliminary hearing, that is after the visit of the police officers -- I'm sorry -- the detectives to the prison, did you report that visit to your attorney? A. I don't remember. I don't remember. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I think the record's unclear as to whether or not that visit occurred before or after the prelim. MS. FISK: I disagree. I believe Miss Jones has clearly testified that that visit was prior to her preliminary hearing and she has already answered that question. MR. WEINGLASS: I think she has already testified that it was after the preliminary hearing. MS. FISK: Not once. MR. WEINGLASS: She has testified both. MS. FISK: Not once did she say that, Your Honor. And I think the record is clear. THE COURT: The record will show, he has it down there. Whatever it shows it shows. Page 54. Veronica Jones - Cross BY MS. FISK: Q. Well, let me ask you this, Miss Jones. A. What? Q. You told us that after you made bail in this matter, and prior to the date you were supposed to appear, you left town and you came back some six or seven years later. Now, am I correct that some six or seven years later you were indeed arrested on that open bench warrant? A. No, it wasn't that open bench warrant. I was arrested in New Jersey for something else and I was extradited over here on my bench warrant, yes, thank you. Q. Okay. And when you were extradited over here -- and again the Quarter Sessions file reflects that you were arrested again, whether it was through New Jersey or not, on June the llth, 19 -- I'm sorry, I was -- yes, on June the l0th, 1988, and bail was reset in the amount of a thousand dollars, in fact that is the thousand twenty dollars that had to be paid for your bail, that was in June '88, is that what you were thinking of before? A. Okay, my apologies, I'm sorry. Q. The Quarter Sessions file reflects that on June llth, 1988 you were again given bail, this time Page 55. Veronica Jones - Cross in the amount of a thousand twenty dollars, that was in fact furnished by someone named Daurish Rakeem? A. That was when I was extradited back over here for the gun charges I was still at bail for a thousand dollars, a thousand twenty dollars. Q. Put up by Daurish Rakeem? A. Yes. Q. Who is he? A. Ex. Q. Ex? A. Just an ex. Q. Friend? Husband? A. Friend. Q. Okay. At that time you were reunited, were you not, with the same attorney who had represented you at the preliminary hearing some six or seven years earlier? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you at that time in 1988 report to your attorney that you had been threatened or intimidated by detectives' and as a result had perjured yourself under oath? MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I have to object. THE WITNESS: I was 20 years old. Page 56. Veronica Jones - Cross THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Objection is overruled. This is cross-examination. THE WITNESS: How was I supposed to know I was supposed to tell him everything? MR. YEAGER: Objection: It goes to attorney-client privilege. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Like I said, I was 20 years old: How am I supposed to know I am supposed to tell this attorney about this or this attorney about that? I didn't know nothing about that. BY MS. FISK: Q. You will agree with me that in 1988 you were six years older and therefore you were 26 years old? A. Well, I was 26. Still I was a very naive person not knowing the Court system as I do a little now. Q. Now, is your answer that you did not report it to your attorney or you do not remember whether -- A. I don't remember reporting it to him. Q. You don't remember reporting it to him? Page 57. Veronica Jones - Cross A. I don't remember reporting, saying anything to him about this. Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it, the visit to You -- I'm sorry -- in 1988 when you were arrested on the bench warrant and bail was again made, you did in fact in July 1988 enter a plea of nolo contendere to the weapons charges that had been placed against you back in 1982; is that correct? (Pause.) A. Nolo -- no contest, right? Q. I'm sorry, yes. A. Yeah. Q. No contest; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that was a guilty plea that you made in July 1988 which caused you to be placed under probation for a period of years; is that right? A. I didn't enter a guilty plea. Q. I'm sorry, the no contest plea? A. Yes. Q. As a result of that no contest plea you were found guilty and placed on probation? A. I don't know about the guilty part but I know I was placed on five years probation, yes. Q. Well, you were found guilty after you pled no Page 58. Veronica Jones - Cross contest; isn't that correct? A. Okay, well, I'm sorry. Q. Okay. Now, you said that being located on the bench warrant was because you had been arrested in New Jersey for something else? A. You mean how did they find me? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Because I was, I was working and receiving welfare in New Jersey. Q. And how long had you been back in New Jersey at that time? A. I can't remember how long I was back. Q. Well, was it days, weeks or months? A. I don't remember. I really don't remember. Q. Well, do you remember how much welfare you received illegally at that time? A. It was,about $2,000. Q. And your testimony today is that you were arrested in New Jersey before this bench warrant was lifted in Philadelphia? (Pause.) MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, how would the witness know that? THE WITNESS: I don't know. MR. WEINGLASS: The question -- Page 59. Veronica Jones - Cross THE COURT: Lifted? MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. BY MS. FISK: Q. You were taken back, you said you were extradited to Philadelphia, right? A. Yes, I did. Q. And again the Quarter Sessions file, if the Quarter Sessions file reflects that you were given bail again in Philadelphia on June llth, 1988, is it your testimony that the day that you were arrested in New Jersey was before June llth, 1988, before you were given bail here in Philadelphia? A. I don't recall. You have that paper, I don't recall. I don't know -- I don't remember. Q. I am asking you in terms of being arrested in New Jersey? A. I was brought over here, that's all I know. Q. Well, I thought you told us -- A. I had another bail set, yes, I did. Q. I thought you told us that you were brought over here after you had been arrested in New Jersey on other charges? A. I said I was -- I will say it again -- I was extradited from New Jersey. I was... I didn't appear in Court I believe for welfare fraud in New Jersey. Page 60. Veronica Jones - Cross I had a warrant over here. They picked me up there, I sat in the County for three days over there and they ran the computer. I came up on the computer for not showing up in Court. They extradited me here. I was here for about seven days and my bail was raised for me. Q. Okay. Now, I take it that the welfare fraud that you committed was done for the betterment of your children, so you could better support them with money? A. Couldn't nobody else take care of them but me. Q. And it was necessary for you to steal from the state of New Jersey? A. I don't call it stealing, I call it borrowing. Because through these years I have worked, so I call it borrowing. Q. You call it what? A. I call it borrowing. THE COURT: Borrowing. THE WITNESS: It has been recouped, okay. MS. FISK: Borrowing, I see. BY MS. FISK: Q. Nevertheless, the State of New Jersey called it theft by deception; is that right? Page 61. Veronica Jones - Cross A. Well, that's what they call it. I don't call it that. Q. Would you agree with me that on October the 14th, 1988 you were found guilty in Camden, New Jersey for theft by deception and placed on probation for a period of four years? A. For a period of four years? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. That probation and Philadelphia probation was combined. I did five years and $200 -- 200 hours community service. So I don't remember them saying four years over there for no welfare fraud, no. Q. And the 200 hours of community service, what was the community service that you performed, ma'am? A. I had a nice leader so almost whatever I wanted to do. It was maybe cleaning, maybe working in the office, just about everything. But it was free. Q. Working what office, ma'am? A. Whatever office they place me in. Q. Would you tell us where it was that you worked? A. City Hall. Q. Okay. And your community service then was -- A. Cleaning. Page 62. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. -- working for the city for 200 hours? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you were also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,424? A. Yes. Q. And that was the amount that you had illegally borrowed? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. From the State of New Jersey? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, how much welfare were you obtaining on a weekly basis prior to that arrest in 1988? A. Is all this dealing with what you got me here for? Q. Indeed it is, ma'am. A. Back then? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. I really can't recall how much they gave you per month, you don't get nothing per week. Q. Per month? A. I can't really recall but I think it was 300 some odd dollars, maybe 404, I'm not sure. Q. Was that coming to you on behalf of your children? A. Yes, it was. Page 63. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Hadn't there in fact been a period back in 1985 when the money had to go to your mother? A. Yes, it did. Q. So your children were living in New Jersey in 1985, not in West Virginia; is that correct? A. Like I said, I don't remember when I brought them back. And they were with me when I left here. Q. When you returned after the six or seven years? A. Yeah. Q. Were your children with you during that entire period of time? A. With me. Q. If records in New Jersey reflect that in 1985, only three years following this case, your mother had to obtain welfare benefits for your children in New Jersey, would that refresh your recollection that your children were living in New Jersey? A. No, it doesn't refresh my recollection because they have been with me. They were with me. Now, I hope you get your paperwork right but my kids were with me. Q. I would be happy to, ma'am -- A. And they are here with me. They are with me. I don't leave my kids nowhere. Page 64. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Because you want to demonstrate to your children what it is to live life lawfully; is that right, Miss Jones? A. It has nothing to do about that. We are not even going to go there. It has nothing to do with that. Q. I thought, Miss Jones, that you told us the reason for your coming forward now, and in fact in your affidavit you note that -- A. Yeah. Q. -- was to -- I'm sorry -- in the press conference you gave last week -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- is when you said that this was to show your children what lawful living was like; is that correct? A. No, ma'am, I did not. Q. That is not what you said? A. No, ma'am, I did not. Just because I wanted to act the fool and do whatever I wanted to with my life doesn't mean that I was trying to raise my children like that. Yes, you could call me contradicted or whatever. Whatever I do, I didn't raise my kids like that. They learned from my mistakes from seeing me do certain things. That's Page 65. Veronica Jones - Cross why they are strong black women now. Because I -- you think I like what I did? No, I didn't. But it paid the bills and they never went hungry. And I'm okay with that. And as long as they have no complaints with that, I'm fine. Q. Miss Jones, is your mother's name Shirley Wilson? A. What does my mother have to do with this? Q. I am asking. A. Yes, her name is Shirley Mae Wilson. Q. And did Miss Wilson on November lst, 1985 file a civil custody action in the State of New Jersey for custody of your children? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, objection. MR. WEINGLASS: I object to this also. MR. YEAGER: The witness has certain Constitutional rights and the questions can't go into the private matters of this witness that have nothing to do with this case or her testimony here today and nothing to do with her testimony in the underlying criminal trial. MS. FISK: Your Honor, this is to -- MR. YEAGER: The Commonwealth is trying to harass the witness. MS. FISK: This goes to Miss Jones' Page 66. Veronica Jones - Cross credibility, Your Honor. She has testified today that for six or seven years following 1982 she and her children resided in West Virginia. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FISK: The fact that her mother in New Jersey is seeking custody of her children in 1985 certainly impeaches that statement. MR. WEINGLASS: It has nothing to do with impeaching that statement. They can't question Miss Jones about anything that her mother did. Number one, they don't know exactly what her mother did because it is all hearsay. THE COURT: Counselor, if you want to take the stand and testify we will be glad to listen to you. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I only ask that the testimony proceed according to law. THE COURT: Well, it is proceeding according to -- MR. WEINGLASS: The questions are based on hearsay documents. THE COURT: No, they are not. She knows very well where her girls were at that time. MR. WEINGLASS: And she has testified Page 67. Veronica Jones - Cross to that. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINGLASS: But questioning her on what her mother did has no bearing on the witness' testimony. THE COURT: It could refresh her memory that the children were not with her at that time. MR. WEINGLASS: She has not indicated she has any trouble with her memory. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: She's very clear that the -- THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Okay. Let's go. BY MS. FISK: Q. Miss Jones, does that refresh your recollection that your mother on November lst, 1985 filed a civil action custody complaint because welfare told your mother to sign because of negligence by you and you are just coming and going any time you felt? MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Your Honor, we are getting hearsay on hearsay. What the welfare agency told her mother is additional Page 68. Veronica Jones - Cross hearsay to the hearsay of what her mother put in the document. This is highly improper. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I am permitted to use anything to refresh the recollection of a witness. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness has not indicated she needs her recollection refreshed. THE COURT: Maybe she does. THE WITNESS: I don't. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness has indicated she doesn't. THE WITNESS: My children were with me. Whatever my mother did while we were gone, that's my mother. My kids were with me. BY MS. FISK: Q. Was your mother receiving welfare for your children? A. I don't know what she was doing. You would have to ask my mother. Q. Was your mother receiving welfare for your children in West Virginia? A. No, when I got there, but I will tell you if there was any wrongdoings, if the welfare system didn't pick it up then it is not my fault. I have nothing to do with that part. Page 69. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Now, you have told us when you were brought in to the trial to testify, that is the Jamal trial to testify, you did not realize you were going to be brought in; is that right, ma'am? Miss Jones, let me know when you're ready. A. I will. Q. Okay. A. I don't mean to sound so obnoxious but, you know, I didn't know I was being brought there for that reason, no. Q. Okay. A. I thought I was finally coming up for my, coming up to have something done with my charges. Q. Yes, ma'am. And when you were brought into the Courtroom, as I understand it you had not met with any attorney on that day or had you. Representing you. A. I don't, I don't remember. I don't remember. Q. Okay. When you came into the Courtroom you have told us that you looked out, you saw somewhere in the Courtroom the two white detectives who had visited you in the prison some -- how long before had it been? A. I don't recall how long before I saw them but Page 70. Veronica Jones - Cross the two white men that were there were the same two white men standing on the same side of the room with all the blue shirts in the corner. I don't remember saying that -- Q. Okay. And as I understand it, as a result of your fear because you were only 21 years old, your testimony is that you decided to go along with what they had told you; is that correct? A. I told them I didn't see two men running away. That's what I told them when they brought me into that Courtroom that day. And I didn't know what I was coming in for. I denied seeing anything. Q. All right, let me ask you this. Other than at the trial when you said you did not see two men running away, was everything else you said at the trial the truth? A. Basically. Q. When you say basically, I assume that -- A. Some parts of it is true and some parts wasn't. Q. Well, I assume, Miss Jones, that between 1982 and today you have been given an opportunity on behalf of those who have called you to testify to review your trial testimony; is that right? A. Between 1982 and today, I just met these guys Page 71. Veronica Jones - Cross this year. Q. Yes. A. So therefore it was not on my mind at all until I ran into them. Q. Between April 1996 and today have you been given an opportunity to review your testimony from the trial? A. Yes, I have, several times. Q. Okay. A. Good. Q. Then other than saying basically, can you tell us specifically what other areas of your testimony -- and I recognize that when you said you didn't see two men running away that that was an untruth? A. That was untrue. Q. What else was it that you said at the trial which was an untruth? A. I said I was intoxicated, I remember that. Q. And were you intoxicated? A. But I can't recall exactly what I said per se, I can't recall all that. Q. Well, let me go back first, then, to December 1981 when detectives took a statement from you. And again that statement was part of the attachment that defense Counsel filed, the statement which you gave Page 72. Veronica Jones - Cross in December 1981. You've had an opportunity to see that, haven't you, ma'am? A. Yes, I did. Q. All right. Now, was that a truthful statement? A. Not all of it, no. Q. Not all of it? A. No. Q. Now, was that, did you tell the police the truth when they interviewed you in December 1981? A. I told them I saw two men run away. Q. And does that appear in the written statement? A. I can't recall, I don't have that paper with me. Q. Well, let me ask you this. When the police interviewed you in 1981, it was in your mother's home; is that correct? A. Yeah. Q. And that interview was done in New Jersey? A. Yes. Q. Your mother was present when the interview was taken from you? A. She sat there for a minute, yeah, and then she left. But she left the room because I insisted on it. Page 73. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Okay. And the two detectives then spoke to you, one of them recorded the questions that he was asking you and the answers that you were giving; is that correct? A. I don't remember no recorder, I remember one doing all the writing. Q. Okay. A. One was writing in the small book, one was writing on some paper. Q. I'm sorry, when I said recording I was referring to writing, I apologize. A. All right. Q. One of them was writing and one of them was drawing a picture? A. He was just tapping a book, I never saw what he was writing. Q. Well, do you remember what the detectives looked like? A. No. Q. White? Black? Male? Female? A. Two were white and I can't remember if the other one was black or Hispanic, I can't remember. Q. Okay, one of them -- and again this is from your trial testimony -- I believe one of them was a Camden police officer and the other two were from Page 74. Veronica Jones - Cross Philadelphia; is that right? A. There was three from Philadelphia, the Camden police officer didn't even sit in there. Q. Three from Philadelphia? A. Yeah, Camden police officer didn't sit in the kitchen with us. Q. If you testified at the trial there were three of them, one from Camden and two from Philadelphia, is that a lie? A. Well, I don't remember. I must have been mistaken, I don't know. I know it was three police officers. The one from Camden police was reassuring my mother or something so that's why I know he wasn't in the kitchen with us. Q. Does that make it four police officers? I am not trying to confuse you, I am trying to understand. Are you saying there were four who came, one from Camden and three from Philadelphia? A. The one from Camden was more so somebody that knew us in Camden. And he came there with the three police officers. Q. That's what I am trying to say. So there were four who came, one from Camden and three from -- A. Three from over here, yes. Q. Okay. After you insisted that your mother Page 75. Veronica Jones - Cross leave you remained in the room with three Philadelphia police officers; is that it? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. And one of them wrote down things that he was saying to you and things that you were saying to him? A. Mostly things he was saying to me and I was just answering what he wanted me to answer. He asked me was I there. I told him I was there. Q. Well, when you say you were -- A. He asked me was I in the area. Q. Okay. So he asked you questions and you gave answers? A. Yes. Q. And you gave truthful, the most truthful answers you were able to give? A. The most I could remember. Q. Okay. Now, as you were speaking to him, was he, that person who was writing, writing down your answers? A. I can't recall who was writing down nothing. Q. After the interview was complete between you and this detective, were you given an opportunity to review the handwritten pages that the detective had filled out? Page 76. Veronica Jones - Cross A. I don't recall, maybe I did, maybe I didn't. I don't recall. I really don't. Q. Were you asked to sign that statement? A. I was asked to sign something but I don't recall doing all this reading and writing and everything I said. This is a hundred years later, I don't recall all this stuff. All I know is that I lied. Q. Yes, ma'am. A. That's the biggest thing in a nut shell: I lied and it wasn't right. Q. And my question is when you lied, Miss Jones, and that's what we are trying to find out, ma'am? A. Well, evidently when I was at trial, I don't know. MS. FISK: May I ask, Your Honor, that this document please be marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 1. This is Miss Jones' December 1981 statement. I would note that a copy of the statement was amended to the defense application to the Supreme Court. And quite obviously they have had it prior to this date. (Investigation Interview Record was marked Page 77. Veronica Jones - Cross THE COURT OFFICER: So marked C-l, Your Honor. (Handing to the witness.) BY MS. FISK: Q. Miss Jones, Commonwealth Exhibit 1 is a copy of the statement. Do you recognize first the signature on the bottom of each of the first five pages, and then the signature I guess at the top, upside down with the final page? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Are those your signatures? A. They are my signatures. Q. And did you place your signature on each of those pages after these words were written there? A. Evidently: They 're here. Q. My question is did you place your signature -- A. Yes, ma'am, I did. Q. Prior to placing your signature on those pages, Miss Jones, did you review these pages, did you read them to make sure they were accurate? A. I don't recall if I reviewed them or not, I don't recall. Q. So you didn't know whether you were signing as a witness to the Kennedy killing -- A. These were police officers, why should I have Page 78. Veronica Jones - Cross to second guess them? Why should I have to check after them? Q. Police officers -- A. A cop is a cop to me. Q. Police officers regularly -- A. Why should I have to, they -- I am trusting them, why should I have to check behind them? I don't know about the law. I didn't know about it then, ma'am, I didn't. Q. Police officers regularly arrested you up until that time, is that correct, for illegal conduct? A. Illegal prostitution, yes, ma'am. Q. And yet you trusted the police officers and didn't feel it was necessary to review anything they asked you to sign? A. What does that have to do with them picking me up for prostitution? Q. You are telling us that you trusted police officers; is that correct? A. Just because it was prostitution, I never, it was not their doing, they were doing their job. Q. I would like you to look at the last page of this Exhibit. And do you recognize that as a diagram of Locust Street, 12th Street, 13th Street? Page 79. Veronica Jones - Cross A. This is so called Locust Street, but this isn't the way things were. Q. Do you see the words right near your signature Veronica Jones, do you see the words heard shots? A. Yeah, at the bottom. Q. Isn't that in your handwriting, Miss Jones? A. No, I don't recall writing no heard shots. That is my signature like I told you. I don't recall writing anything else. I didn't draw no diagram. Q. Did you place your signature on that -- A. I wrote my signature on that paper, yes. Q. I haven't finished my question yet. Did you write your signature on that diagram after all these other marks which are on it were there? A. Ma'am, I don't recall. I don't remember. Q. All right, Miss Jones, with the exception of at the trial saying that you did not see two people run away, and the -- I'm sorry -- the one other matter which you just told us previously was untrue, am I correct that in the rest of your testimony at trial you attempted to tell the truth about where you were and what you saw, with the exception of people running away; is that right? A. Ma'am, like I said, I don't recall. This has been a long time. I see what you have given me. I Page 80. Veronica Jones - Cross have glanced through it. Q. Yes, ma'am. Well, take your time to read it, please, Miss Jones. If you wish to read over each and every word take your time. A. These were all the places that were there. But 1ike I said, I don't remember exactly what I told these men, I really don't. But I do remember saying that I did not see two men walk away, I mean run away. I do remember saying that. Q. At trial? A. Yes. Q. Yes, ma'am. If I would suggest to you that nowhere in this statement does it ever say that you saw two men run away, would that refresh your recollection that you never told the police that either? MR. WEINGLASS: This is an improper question. The witness' attention -- THE COURT: If you are objecting, the objection is overruled. MR . WEINGLASS: Would the Court please hear me out on the objection? THE COURT: I don't need to hear you out. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness has a Page 81. Veronica Jones - Cross five-page statement in front of her. THE COURT: Well, let her read it. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Counsel -- THE COURT: Let her read it. MR. WEINGLASS: The correct questioning should direct her attention to particular parts of the five-page statement. THE COURT: Let her read it. MR. WEINGLASS: This isn't a test of someone's memory or reading. THE COURT: Counselor, it is, some of it is. MR. WEINGLASS: If it is an accurate test she should be shown what Counsel is referring to. THE COURT: You try your case your way, let her try her case her way. She doesn't tell you how to proceed. Read over your whole statement. (Pause.) THE WITNESS: This isn't -- what I told them when I was in court, I told them that I did not see two men run away. But this one I agreed -- they told -- look, I was doing what I was told. Page 82. Veronica Jones - Cross MS. FISK: There is no question pending. MR. WEINGLASS: She is being interrupted again. THE COURT: Let her wait until she gets a question. I don't want her ad-libbing. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, I believe the witness is out of tissues. May I, Your Honor, may I pass the witness some tissues? THE COURT: Get tissues from there... BY MS. FISK: Q. Miss Jones, there has been no claim that the document Commonwealth Exhibit 1 is what you said at trial. The document Commonwealth Exhibit 1, I have asked you if you recognize that as the statement that you gave the detectives on December 15th, 1981. And I do not wish to mislead you or misrepresent. That is what it is reflected as: A statement given by you to detectives on December 15th, 1981 when you were interviewed in your mother's home in New Jersey. Just so you understand that. Do you understand that now? A. I understand what you're saying. Q. Okay. Now, would I be correct that at no place in that statement does it say that you saw two Page 83. Veronica Jones - Cross people running -- I'm sorry -- two men running away from the scene of the shooting? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor: The statement speaks for itself. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. MR. WEINGLASS: It is in the statement. MS. FISK: It is not in there, Your Honor, that is exactly -- MR. WEINGLASS: It is in the statement. THE COURT: Well, do you want to get up on the stand and we will ask you the questions? MR. WEINGLASS: No, the statement is in evidence. And the statement speaks for itself. THE COURT: She is asking her a question. MR. WEINGLASS: Whether it is on the statement. And it is on. THE COURT: Counselor, if you keep interrupting the Court I am going to move you out of this case. BY MS. FISK: Page 84. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Miss Jones -- A. I told them, like it says on here, I did see two men running away. Now, as far as the Rocky's and all that -- Q. I'm sorry, Miss Jones, where? Direct me, please, to a page where it says you saw two men running away? A. On page 2, first paragraph. Q. Yes, ma'am. Do you see -- I'm sorry. A. Well, running and jogging to me is the same thing, ma'am, I'm sorry. Q. I'm sorry, Miss Jones, directing your attention, I believe it is what you are looking at, starting at the bottom of the first page -- and if I am reading it incorrectly please correct me if I am wrong -- it reads, after I saw the policeman fall I saw two black guys walk across Locust Street and then they started -- I'm sorry -- they started sort of jogging. The next thing I saw was a wagon coming. Did I read that correctly, ma'am? A. Yes, you did. Q. Do you see the word away there? A. If I knew you was going word-by-word way back then I would have gave you word-by-word. I am just telling you what I told them. Page 85. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Do you see, ma'am, on the fifth page of that statement there is a question to you, question, how close did the two black males who jogged across Locust Street get to the fallen officer. And your answer as reported was not close enough, maybe two or three steps away? Do you see that answer to that question, Miss Jones? (Pause.) A. This is when I seen them running away from him. Q. Well, does the fact that they got not close enough suggest to you that they were running towards the officer? A. No, it does not suggest they was running towards him, they was running away. Q. I see. Now, at the trial, Miss Jones, you testified that you were on the north side of Locust Street, sort of on the corner of 12th and Locust but on the north side of Locust Street when you heard these shots; am I correct about that? A. If I said that, ma'am, if you check my high school records, my north and south and my math and all that is not all that hot. So I don't know north and south, which way, I don't know all that. Q. But you knew, for example, where Chancellor Page 86. Veronica Jones - Cross Street was, and you knew which side of the street the police officer was on? A. That was up the street. Q. Well, were you on the same side of Locust Street or the opposite side of Locust Street? A. I was on the right-hand side of the street, opposite of where the policeman fell. Q. That is my question. A. Okay. Q. You were across Locust Street from where the policeman was? A. Across the street. He fell on this side, I was on this side (indicating). At the corner. Q. And when you are saying this side you are talking about the opposite side of Locust Street, right, that is the street the officer was on, he was closer to 13th, you were at 12th? A. I was closer to 12th, I was on 12th. Q. Can you explain for me, ma'am, why Commonwealth Exhibit 1, this statement which you gave truthfully and honestly on December 15th, 1981 to the detectives, reflects that you were on the same side of Locust Street as where the police officer was shot? A. I don't know, that's not where I was standing. Page 87. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Well, why did you say that to the detectives in December 1981? A. If they said north, west or south, I didn't know. Like I said, I am not good with those type of things. But I was standing across the street at the corner. Q. You knew where Chancellor Street was; isn't that correct, ma'am? A. Who don't know where Chancellor Street is? Q. Pardon? A. Back then who didn't know where Chancellor Street was? Q. So you did know where Chancellor is? A. It is a street. Q. So that we can be clear, Chancellor Street is just north of,Locust Street, closer to Chestnut Street from Locust, right? A. Chancellor Street is where Chancellor Street is. I am not going to tell you again: I don't know about north, south, I don't know about that. Q. I am not asking you about that. You know where Chestnut Street is, right? A. Yes. Q. You know where Locust Street is, right? A. Oh, yeah, I know where Locust Street is at. Page 88. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. And if you went from Locust towards Chestnut you would get to Chancellor Street first, right? Okay? I am trying to do it without north or south so you understand. A. I didn't go that way, ma'am. I didn't go that way. Q. I am not saying you went that way, I am just trying to establish directions. Would you agree with me that Chancellor Street is that side of Locust between Locust and Chestnut? I am not suggesting that you went that way, I am just placing it there. A. I believe so. Q. That is the direction Chancellor Street is on, right? A. You know better than me, ma'am. Q. No, I don't. You said everybody knows where Chancellor Street is. A. Because Chancellor Street is up the street, sometimes that's where we went. Q. I understand but -- A. I can't recall where Chancellor Street is. I know it is in that area. You've got Camac, you got Chancellor, it's in that area, okay. Q. No, it is not okay, Miss Jones. A. Well, I can't help you because I don't know. Page 89. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Do you know that Chancellor Street is in between Locust and Chestnut? A. Well, then that's where it is. Q. And you knew that then, right? A. Evidently, if I had -- oh. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I am from out of town but Counselor is wrong: It is in between Locust and Walnut. MS. FISK: Yes, but it is north of Locust and that is the direction I am attempting to establish because Chestnut is also north of Locust. I am not suggesting there are no other streets, I'm just trying to establish a direction. MR. WEINGLASS: But there are many streets further north than Locust but Chancellor is between Locust and Walnut. THE COURT: Counselor, if you want to ask her questions later on save it for later on. MR. WEINGLASS: I don't think the witness should be misled. MS. FISK: Fine. THE COURT: She is not being misled. If she is operating in these streets she should know them. Page 90. Veronica Jones - Cross BY MS. FISK: Q. Chancellor Street is between Locust and Walnut; is that right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Yes? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, your statement of December 15th, 1981 reads as follows, ma'am. That I was in a little restaurant called Rocky's, it is on Chancellor Street. We were drinking. We came out of the restaurant, went down the alley towards 12th Street. We went down 12th Street and crossed Locust Street. Did I read that correctly, ma'am? A. You read it correctly but that's what we was doing all night. That's what we were doing. Joking and drinking beer. Q. Was what I just read to you what you told detectives on December 15th, 1981? A. He asked us what we did that night. I told him that's what we usually did, we hung out at Rocky's. It was a little pizza place where you could drink beer at and that's where I was earlier that night. Q. And did you tell them that when you came out of the restaurant we went down the alley towards 12th Page 91. Veronica Jones - Cross Street, we went down 12th Street and crossed Locust Street? A. Yeah, I lived on 12th Street. Q. Pardon? A. You come down the street, you come down Chancellor and make a right and you end up on 12th and Locust. That was my spot right there. Q. And you note on the statement -- that's what I am asking you about -- then you crossed Locust Street. That would take you to the other side of Locust Street still on 12th; is that right? A. No, I didn't cross Locust. Q. Do you see where it says -- A. I see where. I'm sorry, I'm sorry for jumping. My fault. But I didn't cross Locust Street. Q. Did you tell that to the detective is my question? A. No, ma'am, I don't recall telling him that. Q. But you see it written on the statement? A. Yes, I see it. Q. That was a page that was signed by you? A. Well, that was my fault. I didn't cross Locust Street. Q. Do you see, ma'am, on the diagram which was Page 92. Veronica Jones - Cross also signed by you on the last page the little dots that have two Xs, and by one is the words heard shots, and then there is another one up by what would be another, I would presume would be Polly's in front of Camac Street, are all on that other side of Locust Street? A. I didn't see it. I see it. Q. Which is the side of Locust Street one would be on after one crossed Locust Street having left the Chancellor Street area? Do you see that, ma'am? A. Yes, ma'am. But I wasn't on that side of the street. Q. You never said that to detectives? A. No, ma'am, I wasn't on that side. Q. You can't explain why those words are on this statement? A. No, because I didn't cross the street. Q. Now, what you testified to at the trial, ma'am, is that from the side of Locust Street you now say you were on, which is the same side closer to Chancellor Street -- A. Yes, ma'am. Q. -- which is the north side of Locust Street? A. Thank you. Q. That after you saw, after you heard several Page 93. Veronica Jones - Cross shots -- now, you testified at trial that you heard several shots while you were still on the 12th Street side; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. You were on 12th Street? A. Yes, but I wasn't right around the corner. I was around the corner on 12th Street leaning on the Speed Line. Q. Which is what, 10, 15 feet off the corner? A. No, I am five or six steps. MS. FISK: I would ask, Your Honor, Miss Wolkenstein not testify and we leave it to the witness to answer my questions. THE COURT: Would you please not testify. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay. THE COURT: If you want to testify let me know, I will put you up on the stand and you could testify to anything you want. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The witness shouldn't be misled, Your Honor. It is quite clear where it is. THE COURT: You keep your mouth shut or I will move you out again. BY MS. FISK: Page 94. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Miss Jones, you were leaning on the High Speed entrance? A. (Witness nodded head affirmatively.) Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. And after you heard the shots is when you moved to the corner to look up the street; is that right? A. Not right away. Q. Not right away? A. No. Common sense I am not going to stick my head around the corner right away. But I did a few minutes later. Q. Okay. How many minutes later? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you heard, well, am I correct first that all shooting had stopped before you made any effort to even go to the corner to look around the corner? A. You really couldn't, you really didn't know it was a shot, you would think it was like a backfire. Q. Okay. A. First" But then you also remember the area you're in. Q. Right. A. And we heard -- I heard it. I paused for a Page 95. Veronica Jones - Cross minute. Then I just looked around the corner. I came out the corner and I looked up the street. It is like an angle. I looked up the street. Q. Now, you testified at trial that at that point you also saw someone at a soda machine? A. Someone standing up around the other Speed Line. I didn't see the soda machine. I said there was a soda machine in that area. There was two of them. Q. Do you remember testifying at the trial that you saw a man across Locust Street, or that is across from where the officer was shot, at the soda machine, and that that person from the soda machine eventually moved towards the corner? Do you remember saying that at the trial? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection unless the witness is shown the testimony. Common courtesy. This is a test of the witness' recall of testimony 14 years ago. She should be shown the testimony. THE COURT: That is your problem waiting to file a PCRA until 14 years later. MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. Page 96. Veronica Jones - Cross MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, when you question a witness about any testimony the witness should be shown the testimony and asked if that was her testimony. THE COURT: She could ask it first and then she could give her the statement to read if she has it there. MS. FISK: I had the notes, but. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness has indicated over and over she has no precise recall of the testimony. THE COURT: Oh, I don't know, she testified that she had a lot of recall on direct. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, she recalls testifying falsely. THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINGLASS: This is on a minor detail. THE COURT: No, it is not minor. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the witness should be shown the testimony. THE COURT: All right, if we have the notes here we will show it to her. Do you have the notes? Page 97. Veronica Jones - Cross MS. FISK: I do, Your Honor. BY MS. FISK: Q. But do you recall, Miss Jones, testifying that there was a man by the soda machine on 13th Street near the Speed Line entrance on the opposite corner from Johnny Dees? Do you remember testifying to that? A. I remember saying there was somebody on the corner by the Speed Line but it wasn't on that corner, it was across the street by that big apartment building. It is another, umm, Speed Line entrance over there. Q. I'm sorry, having looked at my notes, do you recall -- and I apologize for changing the subject matter -- but you have told us already today that you never spoke to your attorney or any attorney regarding -- A. I said I don't recall. Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Do you recall at trial being asked by Mr. Jackson -- -- this is on page 111 of Miss Jones' testimony -- -- Mr. Jackson is asking, but the men that you saw out there, question, did they have dread locks. And your answer was I can't say. Like I told Page 98. Veronica Jones - Cross my public defender, I was too far to say they had dread locks. A. No, no. Q. Do you recall giving that answer to that question? A. No. Q. You don't recall that? A. No, ma'am. Q. So then I take it you have no clue as to who that public defender is you are referring to? A. No, I -- no. Q. Does that refresh your recollection -- A. It doesn't refresh it one bit. Q. Yes, I understand you know the answer but let me just finish the question. Does that refresh your recollection with regard to whether or not you spoke to any attorney representing you about your testimony in this matter? A. I still say I didn't speak to no one about this. Q. Okay. Now, am I correct, Miss Jones, that at the trial in 1982, you did while on the witness stand... Make reference to police officers asking you to give favorable testimony -- I'm sorry. MR. WEINGLASS: Could we have the Page 99. Veronica Jones - Cross pages? MS. FISK: Certainly. BY MS. FISK: Q. Do you recall testifying at trial about having been picked up at 11th and Winter, as you testified to today, do you remember testifying to that generally at the trial? A. No, I don't remember. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Page, could we have a page reference, please? MS. FISK: Certainly. It covers many pages, but starting at page 129. BY MS. FISK: Q. At the trial in this matter, which took place after you told us you were threatened by two police officers and as a result because of that you were lying, do you remember at that trial answering -- on page 129 -- I had got locked up, I think it was in January, I'm not sure, not January, I think sometime after that incident. They were getting on me, telling me I was in the area and I seen Mumia, you know, do it, you know, intentionally. They were trying to get me to say something that the other girl said. I couldn't do that. Do you remember saying that at the Page 100. Veronica Jones - Cross trial in 1982? A. It's vague, ma'am, I don't remember. I might have said it, I don't know. I don't remember, I don't. Q. Well, that doesn't sound like the words of a person who has been intimidated or threatened to say that Mr. Jamal did it, does it, ma'am? A. What do you mean? It was said to me and the only person that knows is me and God and those two detectives. You could believe it or you don't have to. Q. And you were so afraid of those two detectives that you were going to do exactly what they told you to do at the trial; is that right? A. But did I? Q. That is my question, Miss Jones. A. I lied and said I didn't see two men running away. Because I never pointed this man as the shooter because I was not there, I did not see him. Q. But you also testified at the trial in 1982 that the police before you testified had tried to get you to change your testimony about him, you said that, right? A. They put me in jail and they took me down to the 6th District. These are two times I saw these Page 101. Veronica Jones - Cross two police 0fficers. You could get me to screw up all these dates, you could do that because it has been a long time. You have every record in front of you to reimburse your mind, not me. I am telling you what I know and that's it. You can not get blood from a turnip. This is all I remember. I do not have no photographic mind, this is all I remember. Q. That is correct. Do you remember testifying at trial what I just read to you, and that is sometime prior to your testimony police locked you up and asked you to say that Mumia did it, and that they were trying to get you to say something that the other girl said? A. They didn't lock me up, they brought me in for questioning. They brought me in, they did not lock me up like they do everybody else. Q. Miss Jones, I am truly not trying to trick you. A. I am just going by what you're saying, ma'am. Q. My question is, do you remember testifying to this at the trial in 1982, do you remember saying -- A. I remember saying that they wanted me to do the same thing Lucky did. Q. Okay. So you said that at the trial in 1982; is that right? Page 102. Veronica Jones - Cross A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, I take it that it was pretty clear to you that they wouldn't want you to advertise that at trial, right: These officers who were trying to threaten you and intimidate you? A. Who are they talking to? A nervous 20-year-old. That's who they are talking to. Q. So despite the fact that you had been threatened and intimidated and were lying because they asked you to, you nevertheless at trial in 1982 did say that other police officers had improperly asked you to lie, is that right, and that you wouldn't do it? Am I correct about that? A. I don't recall, ma'am, I don't recall. I don't. I know back then there was a lot of objections and every time I start trying to say a few things I was cut off. I do remember that. So maybe that's why they didn't get it all. Q. Well, that's why I am trying to read to you -- A. Well, ma'am, slowly things are starting to come back to me. Q. All right, Miss Jones, because that's why I am trying to read to you, ma'am, the questions and the answers which appear on the transcript. Defense Counsel has this transcript as well: If I misread it Page 103. Veronica Jones - Cross I am certain that they will correct me. I am not trying to trick you. A. Okay. Q. Nor am I trying to misrepresent. I am simply trying to ask you if you remember these questions and answers. A. Okay. Ma'am, I could answer you the best that I can. Q. Fine. That's all I am asking. And there is really no reason to fly off the handle in your answers. A. That's just me, ma'am, I apologize. Q. Now, am I correct that at the trial you also in front of the Jury... On page 135, question by Mr. Jackson, in January -- again referring to this time when you were taken to the 6th District and not processed but what you have told us about -- in January did they question you about December the 9th. And your answer was it more so came about when we had brought up Cynthia's name and they told us we can work the area if we tell them. Do you remember saying that? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So you testified to that under oath at the trial in 1982; is that correct, ma'am? Page 104. Veronica Jones - Cross A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So you remember testifying -- just so I understand now, perhaps your memory has been refreshed -- you remember testifying in 1982 that the police in January had -- excuse me -- had taken you in and had tried to get you to say things that you refused to say; is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you told the Jury that, and you testified to that under oath, is that correct, that in January or thereabouts following the shooting, before your testimony, that the police had tried to pressure you into saying things; is that right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. All right. And your testimony today is that you were doing that even after, as you say, these two white officers had visited you in the prison two weeks or thereabouts before, and threatened you about or told you that you had to help them get Jamal; is that correct? A. They didn't say I had to do anything, they used my charges. Q. Okay. So they told you that if you helped them they would help you? A. They would get me off those gun charges. Page 105. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. And did they make clear to you what the helping was? A. Just to say that I seen Mr. Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner. Q. Okay. Now, ma'am, after you returned to New Jersey from West Virginia -- I'm sorry -- you were obviously back in 1988, because that's when you were arrested in Camden; correct? A. Yes. Q. Am I correct that from 1988 to and through now, you remain in, you have remained in Camden, New Jersey? A. I remained in New Jersey. Q. Have you remained in Southern New Jersey? A. Yes. Q. Have you remained in the Camden area? A. Ma'am, I'm in New Jersey. Q. The question is have you remained in the Camden area? A. I'm still there. Q. From 1988 to present; is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you were in Camden last summer? A. I was in Camden last summer, yes, ma'am. Q. And for how many years before last summer were Page 106. Veronica Jones - Cross you in Camden, was it since 1988? A. Excuse me, would you say it again. Q. I'm sorry, it is confusing, I will restate it. Were you living in Camden in 1989? A. Yes. Q. 1990? A. Yes. Q. '91? A. I started having problems in 1991. Q. Did you leave Camden? A. No, I was just having problems. Q. '92? A. No, like I said, I started running into problems. Q. '93? A. I was here and there but I was in Camden. Q. And throughout that period of time when was it that you were first approached by anyone on behalf of Mr. Jamal to give this testimony? A. I was first approached in April. Q. And where was it that you were first approached? A. It was around Easter time, at my mother's house. Q. Did you ask those persons who first approached Page 107. Veronica Jones - Cross you how they had located you in April? A. I don't believe so. I'm not sure if I did or not. Q. As you sit here today do you know how they came to locate you in April of 1996? A. I don't recall, I don't recall even asking them that. Q. Okay. So I am clear, the first time that anyone ever asked you about the truth of your statement from the trial was in April 1996? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you ever contact, between 1982 when you testified, and around Easter or April 1996 when you were contacted, did you ever contact any person to tell them that your testimony had been untruthful? A. Ma'am, that is a part of my life I tried to erase. Q. I recognize that but that really does call for a yes or no response. A. No, I didn't. Q. Okay. Throughout the pendency of these hearings last summer you were in Camden, ma'am? A. Yes; but I wasn't a media person, I didn't read it -- I just didn't -- I was an alcoholic, put it this way. So therefore me paying attention to Page 108. Veronica Jones - Cross what is going on, it was irrelevant, I could care less. All I wanted was something to drink, okay. You got that now? Is it out? But I lied. But I am not lying and I am sober and I'm cool with that. THE COURT: Take a short recess. THE COURT OFFICER: This court will take a brief recess to the call of the Crier. - - - - - (Brief recess. - - - - - THE COURT OFFICER: This court is now recovened. Everyone will please cease all conversation. MS. FISK: May I continue? Thank you. BY MS. FISK: Q. All right, Miss jones, before the recess we were discussing the fact that in April of this year I believe was the first time you told anyone regarding, you told anyone that the testimony you had given in 1982 was untrue. Is that right? A. Yes, ma'am. MR. WEINGLASS: She didn't say that. MS. FISK: Your Honor, again may I ask -- THE COURT: Councelor, please. I am Page 109. Veronica Jones - Cross going to have to remove you if you keep trying to tell this witness what to say. Please. THE WITNESS: Could you say that to me again. MS. FISK: Certainly. THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MS. FISK: Q. Am I correct that between the time that you testified in 1982 and April of 1996, you did not tell anyone that your testimony had been untruthful? A. No, like I said, I just met with the defense in April. Q. Yes, and my question is, before you met them, from the time you testified in 1982 -- A. I never spoke about it. Q. You never told anyone that your testimony had been untruthful; is that correct? A. I don't recall, no. Q. You don't remember? A. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember telling anyone? A. No. Q. Would it be fair to assume that you did not tell anyone? A. You can assume that but I don't remember Page 110. Veronica Jones - Cross telling anyone. Q. All right, last summer you told us that you were having personal problems, but were you aware that this hearing was going on in Philadelphia, that is this Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing was taking place? A. No, I wasn't. Q. All right. You were unaware that for a period three-and-a-half weeks in August there was testimony -- A. I didn't, like I said, I blocked that part of my life out and I was based on one thing. I was thinking about one thing, so. No, I was not aware of it. Q. And again, am I correct that what you were thinking about was drinking because you were having problems? A. I have an alcohol problem, ma'am. Q. Okay. Did you have access during August of last year to newspapers, to television, to radio? A. Like I said, I wasn't a media person. I don't like to read news because it's always bad news so I don't read news at all. Q. When was it, then, that you were first aware that Mr. Jamal was challenging his conviction through Page 111. Veronica Jones - Cross a Post-Conviction Relief Act proceeding? A. I really wasn't, I might have heard about it. (At this time there was a disturbance THE COURT: If you have any control over these people you better tell them to pay attention and be seated. Otherwise I am going to clear the Courtroom. THE COURT OFFICER: All of you that are out there now you must take your seats or this Courtroom will be cleared. That is by order of the Judge. If you do not take your seats now you will be asked to leave. Thank you very much. Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's all right. I don't know what caused that rumpus out there but, boy... That's a disgrace. THE COURT OFFICER: Good thing we have the Sheriff. BY MS. FISK: Q. Miss Jones, you said that you were aware that there was a Post-Conviction Relief Act proceeding of some sort, not under that name but that there was some kind of proceeding going on regarding Mr. Jamal? Page 112. Veronica Jones - Cross A. I was, I heard something about it, yeah. Q. And that was before you were approached by persons in April of this year? A. Yes. Q. Okay. When you heard something about it, how long before April of this year was it, if you recall? A. I don't recall. Q. When you heard something about it, did it occur to you that you should speak to someone about what you had done? A. No. Q. It did not? A. No. Q. Yet when you were approached in April of this year, did you immediately tell those persons who approached you what it was that you had done? A. I choked for a few minutes but the truth was right in front of me, which was the defense team. So I did what I was supposed to do. Q. And that is to tell them that the testimony which you had given was in part perjured because of this visit that you had had in the prison by these two detectives; is that right? A. Part, part was my fault and part was the policeman's fault, yes. Page 113. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Now, since that time in April, in April of '96, Miss Jones, have you remained in that same place where you had been living in April '96 when the defense team came and spoke to you? A. I haven't moved a stitch, I've been right there. Q. All right. Can you tell me, ma'am, who Ronald Simmons is? A. Excuse me? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. That's my fiance. Q. All right. And is that the person with whom you currently live? A. You dug that far into my business? Yes, that is who I am living with. Q. How long have you been living with Mr. Simmons? MR. YEAGER: I have to object to delving into the witness' personal life. It has no relevancy to, absolutely no relevance to this proceeding. And if it does Counsel should make a proffer on where Counsel is going. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MS. FISK: Thank you. Page 114. Veronica Jones - Cross BY MS. FISK: Q. Can you tell us how long you have been living with Mr. Simmons? A. On and off, about five years. Q. All right. Since this year, January of '96, up until now, have you and Mr. Simmons been living together? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, please, there is really, there has been no proffer made on what relevance this could possibly have. THE COURT: Well, we don't know until we hear answers. MR. YEAGER: Or unless Counsel makes a proffer on why she is -- MS. FISK: With all due respect, Your Honor, I believe Counsel for Miss Jones would have standing only to object to questions which are perhaps questions that go to her Fifth Amendment right, and certainly has no right to object to questions having to do with relevancy in this proceeding: He does not have standing. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, I have standing to protect my client's Constitutional rights. Among those are her rights to privacy and this is exactly where this is going. Page 115. Veronica Jones - Cross THE COURT: Well, when you take the stand it is like running for President, you don't have any private life. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It is extremely limited to crimen falsi. And other private matters, it is not relevant. THE COURT: It is not crimen falsi, okay. Counsel, you made your objection. Okay, let's go. BY MS. FISK: Q. Have you and Mr. Simmons been living together all this calendar year 1996? A. I live with Mr. Simmons when I am in a good mood. And when he puts me in a bad one I live with my mother. Q. Since March of this year have you been in a good mood? A. Particularly, no. Q. Have you been living with Mr. Simmons since March of this year? A. I live with Mr. Simmons, when it's convenient for me I live with Mr. Simmons. Q. Am I correct that you and Mr. Simmons cohabit -- and I will not give the precise number -- but cohabit in an address on Mt. Vernon Street in the Page 116. Veronica Jones - Cross City of Camden? A. You might as well give the number, you done gave the street. I don't want everybody at my house. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we object to any reference to an address. This wasn't done with prosecution witnesses, particularly when the police testified. THE COURT: She now said she lived in Philadelphia. All right, let's get into that. BY MS. FISK: Q. Am I correct that is the street that you and Mr. Simmons live on, ma'am? MR. WEINGLASS: I object to the street. She has given all the information she need give. And that is Camden, New Jersey. THE COURT: No, now it is Philadelphia. MS. FISK: No, Your Honor, her mother lives in New Jersey as well. THE COURT: I know that but you are talking about -- MS. FISK: No, it is a New Jersey address, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is? MS. FISK: Yes. Page 117. Veronica Jones - Cross THE COURT: Mt. Vernon? MS. FISK: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: I object to it. The witness has indicated Camden County, New Jersey. That's all she need testify to, the same as the police officers who testified here earlier. BY MS. FISK: Q. And you and Mr. Simmons live in an address rented to him at the sum of $400 a month? A. Excuse me? Q. Do you live in an address -- A. Ma'am, that is not your business. Q. Well, it is my business, ma'am, if prior to February of this year you were $4,400 in arrears in that rent and since March of this year -- A. That is not your business. That is his business. He is not my husband. Q. Well, let me ask you this -- MR. YEAGER: This is not proper impeachment. THE WITNESS: Who do you think you are? THE COURT: Just a minute. Where are you going, Counselor? Page 118. Veronica Jones - Cross MS. FISK: Your Honor, I am about to suggest that prior to February 1996 the address at which Miss Jones lived was $4,400 in arrears on the rent. That in March of this year $200 was paid, in May of this year $800 was paid -- THE WITNESS: You didn't pay it. THE COURT: Wait a while. MS. FISK: In June of this year $1,600 was paid, in August of this year $800 was paid, and in September of this year $400 was paid. That those payments, Your Honor, coincide with the time when this witness has all of a sudden started giving testimony in favor of Mr. Jamal. THE WITNESS: Can I answer that, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: Well, now since you all want to be in my business, when we was in debt for that $400 we have a very understanding landlord, okay, so he went along with us. And when his mother gave him money he covered the rent, okay. In April, okay, his sister died, he came into insurance money and cleared up all our bills. Nobody gave us a damn thing. BY MS. FISK: Page 119. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Nevertheless, the payments were being made month by month, am I correct that the payments were being made in the amounts and the months I just stated, ma'am? A. That is his business, ma'am. I don't go through these books, he handles the bills. Q. You know that he came into some money? A. I know for a fact he did. Q. Am I correct that despite the arrearage which existed up until February of this year, that in March $200 was paid, in May $800 was paid, in June $1,600 was paid, in August $800 was paid, and in September $400 was paid towards the rent at that address; am I correct about that? A. Yeah, you are correct. You are very correct. But I resent you digging into my man's business. Q. But I take it, ma'am, that you have not been paid anything by the Jamal defense team for this testimony? A. No, I have not. Q. All right. Now, when the attorneys came and spoke to you in April of this year, Miss Jones -- A. Yes. Q. -- did they bring with them an attorney to represent you? Page 120. Veronica Jones - Cross A. No, I spoke on my own free will, if I remember right, I just, I spoke on my own free will. Q. How is it, ma'am, that you came to be represented by Counsel two weeks ago when we came to these proceedings? A. Because we knew somebody like you would be sitting there. MR. YEAGER: It is attorney-client privilege. THE COURT: This is not a privilege. She is not saying anything that she said to him. MR. YEAGER: She is asking for the witness to discuss communications between herself and Counsel. THE COURT: I know. If she had any lawyer other than you at the previous hearing. MR. YEAGER: That is correct, Your Honor. But the communications that she had between her Counsel and herself is -- THE COURT: We are not going into any communications as yet. MR. YEAGER: That's what she is asking, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, she is not. MR. YEAGER: You will instruct her not Page 121. Veronica Jones - Cross to ask such questions and not to delve into such communications? THE COURT: I am not going to tell her to do anything. You make your objection and I will rule on it. I am not the prosecutor here, she is. BY MS. FISK: Q. My question, Miss Jones, is how did you come to be represented by Miss St. Hill who was here with you at the last proceeding? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, I renew my objection. Your Honor, the only -- THE COURT: She didn't ask her any communications, she just asked her how she came about it. Either she got her on her own or somebody supplied her. So what? MR. YEAGER: That's right, Your Honor, it is of no relevance. THE COURT: So what? MR. YEAGER: Then it shouldn't be asked and it is of no relevance here. THE COURT: No, she has her own reason for asking it, I am not going to presuppose that. MR. YEAGER: Well, let her ask that Page 122. Veronica Jones - Cross question. THE COURT: Well, she is asking her that. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question, please? BY MS. FISK: Q. How did you come to be represented by Miss St. Hill, who was representing you here at the last proceeding? A. From my knowledge, Miss St. Hill was interested in this case, from what I do believe. But she couldn't represent me further because she had further commitments. Q. When you say from her knowledge, was her name provided to you from those persons who interviewed you in April of 1996? A. I met Miss St. Hill at the last hearing. Q. Okay. So you did not, so I understand, was she provided for you by the defense attorneys in this case? A. I don't know. All I know is I met Miss St. Hill at the last hearing. Q. At the last hearing. You did not make a request for her to be present; is that correct? A. I didn't ask her but when I met her it was Page 123. Veronica Jones - Cross fine with me, I was happy. Q. Okay. So do I take it, ma'am, that you did not pay her anything; would that be fair to say? A. She did it from the heart. No, I didn't pay her anything. Q. Okay. And Counsel who is here today, Mr. Yeager, is the same true: That you met Mr. Yeager here this morning? A. I met Mr. Yeager, yeah, I met him. Q. Was today for the first time? A. I met Mr. Yeager for the first time yesterday. Q. Yesterday. Okay. And that was because Miss St. Hill was unavailable? A. She had further commitments. Q. Yes, okay. And again, do I trust that I am correct that you are not paying Mr. Yeager for his representation? A. No, he hasn't asked me for a dime. Q. Now, am I correct, ma'am, that since your return to Camden from West Virginia, that your children have attended schools in Camden? A. My children are straight A and B students. Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Have never been left back, always went to school in Camden. They are perfect. Page 124. Veronica Jones - Cross Q. Yes, all their last names are Jones, ma'am; is that correct? A. Jones (indicating). Q. Yes. Am I correct as well that for periods of time since you have returned to Camden, you have received public assistance? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor -- MS. FISK: This goes to the defense ability to locate the witness during the period of time. THE COURT: All right. MS. FISK: From trial to April of 1996, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: I might have received assistance for a little while, I can't say how long, but I had to turn custody over of my children to my mother for the better of them. BY MS. FISK: Q. Yes, ma'am? A. Because like I said, I was going through a lot of things and they were safer being in my mother's custody as far as financial wise (indicating). Q. Yes, ma'am. We know as well that you were arrested in Camden in 1988? Page 125. Veronica Jones - Cross A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And charged with theft by deception; is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And weren't you also arrested one additional time in Woodbury, New Jersey, ma'am? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, arrests are again of no significance for impeachment of this witness. THE COURT: I don't know what she is offering them for at this time. MR. YEAGER: Well, let's hear it, Your Honor, please. THE COURT: Let her ask. MS. FISK: As I just noted, Your Honor, the fact that an individual is arrested would leave a paper trail which would enable people looking for her to find her. THE COURT: You see, Counselor, we don't have a jury here. I look at the facts. If I think it is improper, I just disregard it. MR. YEAGER: Well, Your Honor, I have an obligation to protect the rights of my client, and I think the prosecution has an obligation to limit the questions to also Page 126. Veronica Jones - Cross respect the witness' Constitutional rights, and that's not being abided by. THE COURT: Her Constitutional rights are not being violated in any way. All right, go ahead. BY MS. FISK: Q. Do you remember my question, Miss Jones? A. I was not arrested in Woodbury. Q. You were not? A. No, I wasn't arrested. Q. Let me call your attention specifically to July the 14th, 1992. Do you remember being arrested and charged with attempting to pass a bad check? A. I remember being picked up for a bad check but I did not, I was not arrested for that because they found out exactly how that happened, okay. So I wasn't arrested for that. Q. You were not? A. No, I wasn't. Q. Were you arrested for anything at all in 1992 with regard to that check? A. Ma'am, as far as I know, I don't know. You got the records, read 'em. I don't know. Q. Well, do I take it, ma'am, that you're unaware that there is currently a bench warrant for your Page 127. Veronica Jones - Cross arrest in effect in Woodbury, New Jersey? A. I don't see how: I never got a Court date, they never told me that. MS. FISK: All right. Perhaps, Your Honor, Detective Sergeant Sheenan could be asked to enter the Courtroom. I believe he is out in the hallway. And just step up to the glass. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I object to this procedure. There is no reason for this. What is Counsel attempting to demonstrate here? MS. FISK: That there is an active, open bench warrant for this witness and that she has to be taken into custody with regard to this. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, this is the usual form of intimidation. It is a continuation -- THE WITNESS: This is not going to change my testimony. MS. FISK: I didn't ask you to change your testimony. MR. WEINGLASS: Back in 1992. There is no reason to take the witness into custody except to satisfy the desire to further Page 128. Veronica Jones - Cross intimidate and coerce the witness. MS. FISK: When a law officer becomes aware of an outstanding bench warrant for a witness who is appearing it is their obligation to exercise that bench warrant and take that witness into custody. THE WITNESS: I was not arrested. I was not arrested, I wasn't. I was not arrested. They picked me up because this one guy -- I was not arrested. MS. FISK: Then I am sure, Miss Jones, that you will be happy to return to New Jersey and explain that to the judge there. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, they have had her declaration now since May and there was no attempt to arrest Miss Jones. They only attempt to arrest Miss Jones when she comes in here in Court to tell the truth. This is only an attempt to coerce and intimidate. They had her declaration, they knew where she was since May. THE COURT: Well, if they had arrested her before then you would be arguing that they arrested her so she couldn't be here, to intimidate her. Page 129. Veronica Jones - Cross MR. WEINGLASS: But there is no -- THE COURT: Counselor, I don't have any control over any warrants from New Jersey. If they want to arrest her -- MR. WEINGLASS: You have control over the Courtroom. THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINGLASS: I ask the Court not to now effect the ultimate coercion and intimidation of a witness, namely, denying their freedom and taking them into custody. You could control that and I ask you not to do this. THE COURT: I don't have any control over them. MR. WEINGLASS: This is exactly what happened to Billy Cook and that's why we don't have him here. Now we will lose another witness. MS. FISK: I would note it is for that reason that the testimony of this witness has been already given and offered on behalf of Mr. Jamal. May I ask Sergeant Sheenan to walk up to the glass. THE COURT: I don't know where he is. Page 130. Veronica Jones - Cross MR. WEINGLASS: I am going to object to any detective coming in here. THE COURT: He is not coming in, he is just walking up to that plastic glass there. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? I must confer. Your Honor, I must confer with my client and advise her on these matters. This is highly unusual for the prosecution to attempt to call a witness while someone is on the stand. THE COURT: She is not calling the witness. MS. FISK: I am not calling the witness. THE COURT: She is just letting -- MR. YEAGER: She is trying to have my client arrested. THE WITNESS: You are threatening to lock me up because I am here. MS. FISK: No, I am promising to lock you up Miss Jones, it is not a threat. THE WITNESS: You better come stronger than that, I am telling you that. THE COURT: Wait a while. Is that the man? Page 131. Veronica Jones - Cross MS. FISK: That is Detective Sergeant Sheenan. Would you just raise your hands, please. BY MS. FISK: Q. Do you recognize this man? A. I don't recognize either one of them. THE COURT: She said she doesn't recognize them. MS. FISK: I would ask the Detective Sergeant be asked to leave the Courtroom. THE WITNESS: I don't know who they are, Judge, and I am not going to leave with people I don't know. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, may I please have a moment to confer with my client about these matters that have just come up? THE COURT: If you want her to take the Fifth just tell her. MR. YEAGER: I need to speak with her, I need to confer with her, and I believe I have a right to do that. THE COURT: Well, do you have any cases that say you have a right to do that? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, I don't have Page 132. Veronica Jones - Cross a case that says that with me. THE COURT: Well, if you don't have a case with you -- MS. FISK: Your Honor, I do not intend to ask this witness any substantive questions with regard to that arrest. I recognize that she has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent with regard to that arrest. My questions are only that the arrest occurred and a bench warrant for her arrest when she failed to appear at a subsequent listing was issued. Those are the only questions I intend to ask. MR. YEAGER: Those questions have already been asked. THE COURT: Well, that's it, then. MR. YEAGER: Would you please instruct the prosecution to move to a different subject? The prosecution has already asked any potentially relevant question on this area, of which there are none, but the prosecution has already asked the questions she has just proffered. THE COURT: All right, so they asked them and that's it. Okay, take a seat. MR. YEAGER: Thank you, Your Honor. Page 133. Veronica Jones - Cross MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I want the record to reflect that the witness was openly weeping and holding her head in her hands during this exchange. THE COURT: She has maybe a good reason to weep and hold her head. MR. WEINGLASS: Because she is being again threatened and intimidated. THE WITNESS: I am being railroaded, that's what I am being. THE COURT: Not my actions. I didn't commit any crime over in New Jersey or Woodbury. THE WITNESS: Well, I never got a Court date. THE COURT: She said she never went to Court. Okay. BY MS. FISK: Q. Miss Jones, am I correct that on July 14th, 1992, inside Scoops Liquor Store at 325 South Broad Street, you were arrested as a result of attempting to pass a bad or stolen check? MR. YEAGER: This has already been asked and answered and also calls for a legal conclusion of the witness of what an arrest is. MR. WEINGLASS: This is now a Page 134. Veronica Jones - Cross prosecution of a check case. Asking that question clearly violates her Fifth Amendment rights. She couldn't be asked that question in any Court. MS. FISK: Asking whether she was arrested does not violate her rights. I am not asking her whether or not she did it, I am asking her whether or not she was charged with it. MR. YEAGER: That question was already asked and already answered. I am instructing my client not to answer these questions. THE COURT: Okay. I don't know what the answer was. MS. FISK: I ask all her testimony be stricken from the record if she will start exercising that right. BY MS. FISK: Q. Can you answer that question, Miss Jones? A. No, I can't. Q. Were you on that date charged with resisting arrest after you attempted to avoid arrest by attempting to break a plate glass window and running away? A. What? Page 135. Veronica Jones - Cross THE WITNESS: Do I have to answer? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor -- THE WITNESS: Because what she is saying is not the way it went. BY MS. FISK: Q. I am not asking you how it went, ma'am, I am simply asking whether you were charged? A. I was not charged, that's what I am saying. That's why I am saying I know I wasn't supposed to appear in no Court. And you bring these two cops to come get me because that's all you got. Q. Ma'am, were you charged and had bail in the amount of $750? A. No, ma'am. MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, the government's proffer here was there was a paper trail because there was an alleged arrest. If that is the proffer the government has already established that or can establish that by other means. This is of no relevance at all. MS. FISK: Your Honor, the fact that a witness has an open bench warrant goes to bias along with other relevant areas. THE COURT: Well, maybe. Ask her. Maybe she didn't know, I don't know. Page 136. Veronica Jones - Cross MR. YEAGER: If there is any bias, Your Honor, it would be bias the other way. THE COURT: Well, maybe. THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I didn't have no bench warrant, I didn't. BY MS. FISK: Q. Well, is it my understanding you were saying that you were not arrested, ma'am? MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, that calls for a legal conclusion. It has already been asked and answered. THE COURT: I think everybody knows what it means to be arrested. MS. FISK: I would like to have this - document marked Commonwealth Exhibit 2, shown to Counsel and shown to the witness (handing). MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we have been shown what purports to be a mug shot which has no relevance whatsoever to this proceeding except to further humiliate and intimidate the witness. If the prosecution has a record of a prior arrest and they want to use that to demonstrate that the witness could have been found earlier they could put the arrest record into evidence and that would establish that Page 137. Veronica Jones - Cross fact. They needn't question the witness about something which the witness, number one, denies and says she has no specific recollection. THE COURT: Let her deny it, then, okay. Give them back the photo. MR. WEINGLASS: But forcing the witness to defend a case in New Jersey in this proceeding is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate her. THE COURT: No. MR. WEINGLASS: And to coerce her. THE COURT: No. MS. FISK: Your Honor, it is certainly not my intention to either intimidate, coerce or harass this witness. This witness has testified under oath that she was not arrested on July the 14th, 1992. I am asking that she look at a police photograph taken of her on that date, and that date is reflected on the photograph, which commemorates that arrest, and perhaps that will refresh her recollection with regard to that arrest. And it goes to the credibility of the witness. MR. WEINGLASS: We are talking about legal terms of art. The witness said there were Page 138. Veronica Jones - Cross no charges. MS. FISK: And the witness said there was no bail, and the witness has said there was no bench warrant, and all of those things exist. And at the appropriate time I would be more than happy to present the correct documents. I can't do it through this witness. THE COURT: All right. (Photograph was marked Commonwealth THE COURT OFFICER: So marked C-2. BY MS. FISK: Q. Am I correct, ma'am -- A. They took my picture in order to have it in the station. They did not charge me with anything. The thing is they had the check, they had this book and anything he used, and they didn't charge me with nothing. Nothing. And I am telling you they didn't. Q. So then if the city or the municipality of Woodbury has a bench warrant -- A. That's all they did. Q. If they have a bench warrant in existence for year arrest, it is your testimony that -- A. They have a bench warrant, they didn't make me aware of it. They told me this is one, make sure Page 139. Veronica Jones - Cross they put this up on the board with all the other pictures they have. That is what he did. The guy brought back the machine, he told me go ahead and catch the bus. That's all he said. I never got a Court date. I didn't need no paper, I didn't need no paper. Why would I be lying to you for? You done drug me through the mud. Q. Miss Jones, the City of Woodbury issued a warrant for your arrest on December the 8th, 1994, it is a warrant which currently exists and for which New Jersey is ready to return you? A. So that's all you had. You think that is going to make me change my story, it is not. Q. Not at all. A. It is not. Q. I am not asking you to change your story as a result, I was asking you whether you were aware of it. You have advised us you were not? A. I am advising you I was not incarcerated so it was not embedded in my mind. I am not trying to lie to you. Q. I am not asking you to change your story or to intimidate or coerce you, ma'am. You have told us that you came forward in these proceedings because of your children, and the fact that you had other open Page 140. Veronica Jones - Cross matters and bench warrants seems to contradict that. Your statement -- MR. YEAGER: Your Honor, it is a lecture of the witness. MR. WEINGLASS: This is not a question, this is a summation. THE COURT: All right. MS. FISK: I got a speech from the witness, I figured it was my turn to give a speech. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Counselor, you are not entitled to make a speech. MS. FISK: Only defense witnesses are. MR. WEINGLASS: You're entitled to move to strike the answer, not to remedy it with another speech. Counsel is proceeding here in a very improper way. THE COURT: Just go ahead, next question, please. MS. FISK: I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any? - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - Page 141. Veronica Jones - Redirect BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Miss Jones, did you come here today to tell the truth? A. All. I thought I did. Q. Have you been trying to tell the truth? A. Yeah, but see, it's like I am the one on trial now it seems. Q. You feel that way? A. That's the way I feel. And I hate this Courtroom every minute, every time, as long as I sit hear I am starting to hate this Courtroom. Because it's not for justice, it's for bringing us in here and badgering the hell out of us. THE WITNESS: Sherry and Tiffy, I'm sorry. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MR. WEINGLASS: Given the interrogation that Miss Jones has had to go through in cross-examination, I want to save her the trouble of any further questions. And although I have a lot of questions that I would like to ask, which I think would correct the misimpressions given here -- Page 142. MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I now object to Counsel's speech. I thought he had said we are not allowed to make speeches, just move to strike. I move to strike Counsel's remarks from the record. THE COURT: Okay, that part will be stricken. But he has no more questions. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would also like the record to reflect in light of Counsel's references to my cross-examination as interrogation that at no time throughout my cross-examination of this witness did I move from Counsels' table, at no time during my cross-examination did I raise my voice to -- MR. WEINGLASS: That is incorrect. Counsel not only cut off the witness frequently but did raise her voice and questioned her in a very threatening manner. MS. FISK: At no time, Your Honor, did I raise my voice in the manner I am about to raise my voice to Counsel for making blatant misrepresentations on the record. THE COURT: I realize that you didn't do those things, but. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would ask no Page 143. more questions. Now, Your Honor, in light of the bench warrant in effect for this witness, I would ask that the Sheriffs take her into custody. There are detectives here from New Jersey with regard to that warrant. If this witness waives her right to an extradition hearing they can certainly return her immediately to New Jersey. If she does not she'll be processed as a fugitive from justice. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, this is outrageous. They are moving now to arrest this witness. MS. FISK: There is an open bench warrant from Woodbury, New Jersey. It is not our plan, Your Honor, we didn't call this witness, they did. THE WITNESS: But you went digging, that's what you did. MR. WEINGLASS: They knew of her whereabouts. Now Your Honor has the power to allow this witness to return, her Counsel is here, to resolve the matter in Woodbury, New Jersey. THE COURT: Well he could go with them, too. Page 144. MR. WEINGLASS: Which is a check issue. THE COURT: He can go with them, too. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, she doesn't have to be taken into custody at all. The Court could arrange for her, the Court could give her one day, one day to appear in Woodbury with her Counsel to resolve this matter. She needn't be physically taken into custody. THE COURT: Well, that is not up to me, that is up to those detectives. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor could order that. THE COURT: Counselor, I am not going to order anything. If they arrested her outside, I don't care. That's their problem. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I am asking, frankly, the detectives, Your Honor, do not have the jurisdiction to arrest her outside. They are from New Jersey. I am asking that the Sheriffs take Miss Jones into custody as a fugitive from justice. As an Officer of the Court, I am advising Your Honor that there is an outstanding warrant, it has been entered into the National Crime Information Computer, and Page 145. that the State of New Jersey has advised that they are prepared to extradite her with regard to that warrant. If Miss Jones upon being taken into custody waives her right of extradition she can immediately be taken back to New Jersey by those detectives. If she chooses to exercise her rights under the uniform act having to do with fugitives, she would have the right to be processed as a fugitive and will have the right to have New Jersey enter Governors Warrants against her here in Pennsylvania. MR. WEINGLASS: And Your Honor has the right to inform the Sheriffs here that you are giving her one day to surrender. THE COURT: I am not giving her anything. That warrant has been out since 1994. MS. FISK: December of 1994. MR. WEINGLASS: They are now executing it. THE COURT: Because they have -- MR. WEINGLASS: After they heard her testimony. THE COURT: Ask the detectives from New Jersey. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, it is a question Page 146. that I think Counsel has to answer because she has the records and she has had these records since May. MS. FISK: No, Your Honor, I became aware of this bench warrant only within the last several days. MR. WEINGLASS: But they have not, she should not be allowed to take the witness from this stand who testified against the Commonwealth into custody as a matter of vindictiveness, punishment, coercion and intimidation. MS. FISK: It is none of those things, Your Honor, it is as a matter of law. There is a bench warrant in effect for this witness. MR. WEINGLASS: We are talking about a check case. THE COURT: I don't care if it is a shoplifting case. New Jersey has a warrant for her because she didn't evidently show up for trial. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor is going to order the witness into custody on a check case because she testified in a Post-Conviction hearing. Page 147. THE COURT: Whether it is a check case, shoplifting case, what is the difference, or anything else? MR. WEINGLASS: Given the minor nature of the offense, this Court can exercise it's discretion and give the witness one day to go to Woodbury, New Jersey with her Counsel, and to rectify this in a matter of 20 minutes. THE COURT: Sure they can, and he could go with her, with the detectives if she waives extradition to New Jersey and they could clear it up immediately. MR. WEINGLASS: There is no need to take her in into custody. MR. YEAGER: There is no need at all, Your Honor. We could deal with it completely on our own and you have the authority to release her under those terms. THE COURT: I don't want to exercise that type of authority. They have a warrant from New Jersey. It is a legitimate warrant, I am not going to say they can't do it. They need local police to help them take her into custody. MR. YEAGER: I don't see how you could pass judgment at this point that -- Page 148. THE COURT: Even if it is illegitimate. MR. YEAGER: I am just responding to your assertion that it was a legitimate warrant. THE COURT: If they have to go before another judge, I don't want to rule on that. If they go before another judge he could rule on it, whether it is legitimate or not. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We haven't seen the document. MR. WEINGLASS: The Court hasn't seen the documents. THE COURT: Do you want the detectives to come in with the warrant? MR. WEINGLASS: They have no authority to arrest her here in Philadelphia. THE COURT: They are asking the Sheriff to assist in arresting her. They have a right to do that. MR. WEINGLASS: The Sheriff hasn't been shown the warrant. MS. FISK: He has it in his hand. MR. WEINGLASS: I haven't been shown the warrant. MS. FISK: You are not her attorney. Page 149. MR. YEAGER: Could I see the warrant? THE COURT: Go over to him. Let the record show that Counselor is going over the papers with the warrant. Don't take anything out of there. MR. YEAGER: I am just trying to read between the staples, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. (Pause.) THE COURT: You see, they could take her right before a Municipal Court Judge now and they will rule on it. MR. WEINGLASS: Or she could go on her own as a free person. THE COURT: Not with this warrant. MR. WEINGLASS: And have the same result. MS. FISK: I would note that Counsel for Miss Jones, as well as Counsel for Mr. Jamal, certainly could have remedied this warrant at any time between April of '96 when they became aware of Miss Jones and today's date. Certainly Miss Jones must have known about it because bench warrants do not grow out of the ground. Page 150. THE WITNESS: I did not know about it. MR. WEINGLASS: She didn't think there were any charges. She had no knowledge of this. THE COURT: So she knows now that there are. (Pause.) THE COURT: Look, Counselor, I am going to turn her over to the Sheriff. MR. YEAGER: I think that would be highly inappropriate considering the fact, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Let me tell you what I am going to do. I am going to turn her over to the Sheriff to take her before a Municipal Court Judge who will rule on this. I am not going to rule on it. MR. YEAGER: I would like to note for the record that this warrant is not in the name of Veronica Jones, it does not reflect her Social Security number, and it does not reflect her address. THE COURT: Well, she had about a million Social Security numbers so I can't help that. MS. FISK: Well, Your Honor, I would Page 151. note that the warrant is in the name of Veronica Wilson. I would note further that the photograph Commonwealth Exhibit 2, which is that of Veronica Wilson, taken on the date of July 14th, 1992, has been identified by this witness as a photograph of herself. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, that question was asked to effect an arrest, having no relevance to this proceeding. What Counsel was doing in Court today was setting up the witness for a New Jersey prosecution. MS. FISK: No, Your Honor, that question was asked to impeach the witness who denied ever having been arrested. MR. WEINGLASS: She denied charges. MS. FISK: She denied being arrested, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: I forgot. MS. FISK: Oh, you forgot? THE WITNESS: I forgot because I was not arrested. THE COURT: You can go back. MR. YEAGER: Keep your mouth shut. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we want the New Jersey Detectives to remain. The Page 152. defense wants to call them on the issue of due diligence. THE WITNESS: Don't you cry. Stop. (Veronica Jones was taken into custody MR. WEINGLASS: We would like them to remain here in Court. THE COURT: They may have to take her back to New Jersey first. And tell them to come back. MR. WEINGLASS: We want them here in this record. THE COURT: Tell them to come back tomorrow, I don't care. MR. WEINGLASS: We want the prosecution to produce them tomorrow. THE COURT: Recess for lunch until 2:00, two o'clock. MS. FISK: Fine, Judge. THE COURT: Okay, recess for lunch until two o'clock. THE COURT OFFICER: What time, Your Honor? THE COURT: Two o'clock. THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now Page 153. stands in luncheon recess until 2:00 p.m, at the call of the Crier. (Luncheon recess was held until 2:20 p.m.) THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, before we begin with another witness, I have a matter that I would ask for the District Attorney to stipulate to. In the Quarter Session files dealing with Veronica Jones, cases 82-06, 0770, 0771, 0772, 0773, and MC 82-06 dash 3059, as of June 18th, 1982 Miss Jones' bail under the name Louise Tatum was reduced to $300 for each of four charges. I want to have a stipulation that that's accurate from the Quarter Sessions record: That there were four cases still pending at the end of that June 18th hearing, and for each of those four cases the bail was set as $300 for a total of $1,200. MS. FISK: Frankly, Your Honor, rather than making that stipulation and attempting to interpret the Quarter Sessions file, I would Page 154. have no objection to the entirety of that Quarter Sessions file being marked and entered into evidence as part of this proceeding. In fact, if Counsel doesn't want to do that I will do that at the appropriate time. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We have no problem with that. MS. FISK: I think therefore a stipulation would be unnecessary because the Quarter Sessions record would speak for itself. And I have no objection to having that Quarter Sessions file marked as a defense exhibit or as a Commonwealth exhibit if defense does not choose to mark it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We will mark it as a defense exhibit. MS. FISK: Very well. I have no objection to the Quarter Sessions file in the case of Commonwealth versus Louise Tatum, which was indeed Miss Jones, being marked. I would agree that the Clerk of Quarter Sessions would agree that that is the certified record. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And that would be Defense Exhibit D-2. (Quarter Sessions file was marked Page 155. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct THE COURT OFFICER: So marked D-2, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the next witness that Mr. Jamal would call is David Rosen. - - - - - David Rosen, Esquire, Assistant Defender, the Defender's Association of Philadelphia, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: - - - - - MR. WILLIAMS: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rosen. A. Good afternoon. Q. Thanks for coming in. You just indicated your occupation? A. I am an attorney at the Defender's Association of Philadelphia. Page 156. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct Q. And back in 1981 going into 1982, what was your occupation back then? A. I was a staff attorney at the time. Q. The same office? A. Yes. Q. And during that period of time from 1981 to the present, have you always worked at that same office? A. Yes, I have. Q. Now, Mr. Rosen, do you know a woman by the name of Veronica Jones? A. Ahh, no, I don't. Q. Back on June 29th, 1982, would it be safe to say that you were working as an attorney in the Public Defenders Office here in Philadelphia? A. Yes. Q. And did you have occasion as a Public Defender to represent individuals? A. Yes, I did. Q. Many individuals, I imagine? A. Many. Q. Okay. Now I'm going to ask that you look at some minutes from a proceeding in front of the Honorable Judge Sabo dated Tuesday, June 29th, 1982. MR. WILLIAMS: Counsel, page 92. Page 157. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct MS. FISK: Yes, thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: If I could have the witness -- BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you have a copy of that, sir? A. Yes, I do. Q. Your copy, is that page 92 going into 93? A. Correct. Q. And does it go on to page 94 as well? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. Now, have you had occasion to read those pages from the minutes? A. Yes, I have. Q. You will see on page 92 a reference to a David Rosen of the Public Defenders Office, do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Who do you believe that to be? A. I believe that to be myself. During the 23 years I have been in The Defender's Association I am the only attorney by that name that I am aware of. Q. So you have no belief that it is someone other than yourself? A. No, I don't. Q And does it indicate in these minutes that you Page 158. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct were representing a person by the name of Veronica Jones, a/k/a Louise Tatum? A. Yes, it does. Q. And in looking at the transcript, what was the purpose of your representation? A. Apparently I was called over by the Court to advise Miss Jones as to her Fifth Amendment rights before she testified in this matter. Q. Now, as an attorney with the Public Defender's Office, have you ever had to advise a witness about certain Fifth Amendment ramifications of testifying? A. Yes, I have. Q. Or several occasions? Many occasions? A. Many occasions. Q. And do you have a certain practice or procedure that you follow as an attorney advising the witness of the Fifth Amendment ramifications? A. Yes, I do. Q. In testifying? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you tell the Court what is your practice as an attorney in advising witnesses of the Fifth Amendment ramifications of testifying? A. Well, first I would have counsel give me any documents, any written statements of the witness so Page 159. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct that I could review them. Then I would -- Q. Okay, I'm sorry to interrupt, but what counsel are you referring to when you refer to counsel? A. Well, it could be the defense attorney and/or the District Attorney, depending on who had the documents. Q. So you retrieve the documents and then what do you do? A. I would review the statements, then I would talk to the witness and go over the previous statement with them. Q. And in looking at the minutes from this proceeding, did you in fact discuss or talk with Miss Veronica Jones? A. It appears that I did, yes. Q. And does it appear that you received a police report of some kind? A. Yes. Q. That purported to be a statement by Miss Jones? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And does it appear that you followed your normal practice in talking with Miss Jones and going over any statements by Miss Jones that were given to the police? Page 160. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct A. Yes, it does. Q. Now, can you tell the Court what is the purpose of talking with your client and going over a particular statement made to law enforcement? A. To see whether my client has, would have any right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or under the Pennsylvania Constitution to decline to testify in the matter. Q. And how does going over a statement given to the police bear on that responsibility that you undertake? A. Well, if what my client told me was substantially -- differed in material concern from the statement, then the client might be open to a charge of false police report. So that would be an area in which a Fifth Amendment right may be asserted. Q. So if I understand you correctly, Mr. Rosen, when you go over the statement with the witness -- I'm sorry -- with your client, and if what she tells you deviates in material respect from the statement, that this is something that you would have to talk to your client about? A. Correct. Q. And that is that there is some possible Fifth Page 161. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct Amendment problems here? A. That would be correct. Q. All right. And would you also advise the Court that there might be some Fifth Amendment problems in having this witness get on the stand and testify if there is a deviation from the prior statement? A. Yes, I would advise the Court that I have discussed the matter with my client and advised her to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. Q. And what did you advise the Court in this instance, if anything? A. I advised the Court that after speaking to my client and reviewing her statement I saw no Fifth Amendment problem in having her testify to what she saw. Q. So I guess judging from your testimony, sir, that we can draw the conclusion that Miss Jones didn't apprise you that she was going to deviate from that statement? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What conclusion, Mr. Rosen, did you draw -- what conclusion can we draw from the fact that you Page 162. David Rosen, Esq. - Direct told the Court that there was no Fifth Amendment problem in having Miss Jones testify at the trial of the Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal? A. The only reasonable conclusion was that I saw no problem with her testifying, that it was unlike -- strike that -- that it would not result in her implicating herself in any crime. Q. And that would include any crime that might be associated with deviating from a prior statement? A. That's correct. Q. And what crimes would a witness be open to if they get on the stand and deviated in a material respect from a prior police statement? A. They might be liable for the crime of filing a false police report. Q. And would perjury also be a possibility as well? A. I don't think the Fifth Amendment protects one from a perjury charge. Q. Okay. But in any event, would you alert your client as to a possible perjury charge if that client apprised you that he or she was going to deviate from a prior statement? A. Well, if I had any reason to believe that based on what she told me and what I had before me Page 163. David Rosen, Esq. - Cross that she would have implicated herself in a crime, I would advise her to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, yes. MR. WILLIAMS: All right, I have no further questions. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. May I assume, Mr. Rosen, from your very first answer, that is that you didn't know Veronica Jones, that you have no independent memory of this incident? A. That is correct. Q. And in fact, reading these notes kind of amazed you to find that you were present in Judge Sabo's Courtroom during this case? A. It did not refresh my recollection, no. Q. Okay, fair enough. Now, you have been, as you said, a public defender -- I'm sorry -- a member of the Defender's Association for some 23 years? A. That is correct. Q. And during that period you have charged yourself with the responsibility of protecting our Page 164. David Rosen, Esq. - Cross Constitutional rights in all of those persons who are charged with crimes and defending them to the utmost of your ability; is that right, sir? A. That is correct. Q. And have you further prided yourself on your right to defend those persons who are indigent and incapable of defending themselves in the Courtroom? A. Yes. Q. Would it further be your responsibility in your charge to question any improper or illegal police conduct that you have become aware of and to demand investigations into some improper police conduct? A. Yes. Q. Now with regard to this matter -- and granted that you have no recollection of this -- have you as part of your being called to testify for the defense had occasion to review whether after speaking to Miss Jones on June 29th, 1982, whether you made any complaint to the Philadelphia Police Department, the District Attorney's Office, the prison, or any other law enforcement entity with regard to attempts made by Philadelphia Police Detectives to intimidate Miss Jones as a witness in the case of Commonwealth versus Jamal? Page 165. David Rosen, Esq. - Cross A. I have no record or recollection of such a complaint. Q. And if in fact Miss Jones had advised you that two persons had visited her in the prison and made various statements to her about what would happen to her if she said one thing as opposed to what would happen to her if she said something else, would you have expected to find some record with regard to that kind of complaint? A. I would have expected that I did some kind of follow-up or I wouldn't have just let the matter go without any follow-up. Q. So may we similarly assume, as Counsel has just assumed, that the absence of any record and the absence of any recollection on your part cause you to reach the conclusion that when you spoke with Miss Jones on June 29th, 1982, she made no statement to you regarding police officers visiting her in the prison, would that be fair to assume? A. Ahh, I have no recollection of her making any statement like that to me. Q. My question is would it be fair to assume as we did a moment ago in terms of your regular practice, that the absence of those records would cause you to conclude that no such complaint was made Page 166. David Rosen, Esq. - Cross to you by Miss Jones regarding that? A. Well, I can't say. I mean I can't say for certain there wasn't a record, you know, 14 years ago. I just, there are no records and I have no recollection of any such complaint. Q. Fine. Now, when you spoke to Miss Jones did you identify yourself to her as an attorney? A. I'm sure I did, that's my standard practice. Q. Okay, so there would have been no question in her mind that an attorney was seeing her prior to her testifying on that day? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object as to what is in Miss Veronica Jones' mind. He represented himself as the attorney, I think that is about as much as he could say on that score. MS. FISK: I will rephrase it. BY MS. FISK: Q. Did she, do you have any memory as to whether she had any difficulty understanding you? Or, well, you simply don't remember this, do you? A. No. Q. So you can't tell me whether or not she was lucid or understanding what she was saying to you? A. Obviously not. Page 167. David Rosen, Esq. - Cross MS. FISK: Obviously not. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, Your Honor. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Rosen, let me pick up where Ms. Fisk left off. As a public defender, I take it that the police practices in Philadelphia are of interest to you? A. Of course. Q. And you follow instances of police misconduct in Philadelphia, do you not? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: I am just inquiring from what Ms. Fisk went into. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: She went into whether he discussed police misconduct with Miss Jones. MS. FISK: No. THE COURT: He said if he had anything like this to his knowledge he would have done something about it. He didn't do anything about it so he assumes he didn't have any such Page 168. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect knowledge. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. And the reason why you would follow up on a revelation of police misconduct is because police misconduct does occur here in the City of Philadelphia, does it not? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. We are talking about 19, what is it, 1982. MS. FISK: Specifically, Your Honor, the claim -- MR. WILLIAMS: That occurred here in Philadelphia. MS. FISK: Specifically, Your Honor, the question had to do with an allegation that the witness was visited in the prison and whether or not this attorney was notified by the witness about that visit in the prison. That was the extent of the questioning. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let me just ask you, Mr. Rosen: Why would you ever inquire or be concerned with whether a witness had possibly been subject to police misconduct? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Page 169. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect MR. WILLIAMS: If it never occurs. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, that was not the question. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. I don't know where you are going but it is far afield. MR. WILLIAMS: You didn't know where the D.A. was going earlier this morning and you permitted them to launch into extended inquiry without any offer of proof. Now I am picking up where Ms. Fisk left off regarding police misconduct. THE COURT: We are talking about generalities. If you want to ask him if he knew of any misconduct in this case all right. But we are not going to go fishing through every other case that came up in Philadelphia. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Rosen, if the record reveals in this trial back in 1982 that Miss Jones revealed in open Court in front of a Jury that police officers appeared to her in front of her and told her that if she implicated Mr. Jamal she would be able to work her corner as a prostitute, would that surprise you given that she didn't reveal that to you? Page 170. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, on several bases. One, it misstates the fact: There was no Jury in the Courtroom this morning when Miss Jones for the first time -- MR. WILLIAMS: I wasn't referring to this morning, I was referring back to 1982. MS. FISK: Second of all, whether or not it would surprise Mr. Rosen is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it was reported to Mr. Rosen. I was not permitted to ask directly whether it was because, quite frankly, that is still attorney-client privilege and the questions were asked with regard to his general practice in the same manner that Counsel asked general practice questions on his direct. Whether or not it would surprise this witness, however, is completely without relevance. The fact-finder in this case is Your Honor. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In your general practice in talking with many defendants and witnesses as well, have you ever encountered a situation where a defendant or a witness withheld information about police misconduct to you -- MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Page 171. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- that you later learned -- MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. If you want to limit it strictly to this case, all right. I am not going to go fishing into other cases. It is not the concern of this case, it is not the concern of this Court. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you recall if you ever asked Miss Jones directly if she had been tampered with by any law enforcement personnel? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The witness has testified that he has no recollection of meeting Miss Jones. MR. WILLIAMS: He was never confronted with this precise question. If he has no recollection, fine. But I'm asking does he recall ever asking Miss Jones that direct question. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question, Counsel. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did you ever ask Miss Jones directly whether Page 172. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect she had been tampered with or coerced or intimidated by law enforcement officers? A. Umm... yeah, I was -- I have no recollection. Q. Is it your general practice in connection with advising witnesses of their Fifth Amendment rights to ask them directly whether they had been manipulated or coerced or intimidated by law enforcement? A. No. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: It goes to general practice which is what we have been inquiring into given his lack of memory. THE COURT: Ask him if he did it in this case. MR. WILLIAMS: I have already asked him that. THE COURT: No, you haven't. MS. FISK: His memory is he has no memory or recollection in this case. THE COURT: If he has no memory he has no memory. MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking if it is his general practice. THE COURT: I don't care what his practice generally is. What did he do in this Page 173. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect case. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In this case is there any reason to believe that you deviated from your practices in advising witnesses of their Fifth Amendment rights? Do you understand what I am asking you? A. Yes. Q. Is there any reason to believe that you deviated from your general practice? A. Where I'm called upon and advising a client of their Fifth Amendment rights, I would not normally go into the area of inquiry that you're asking me on police misconduct. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. If I may have just one moment. Excuse me, Mr. Rosen. (Discussion was-held off the record at this time.) BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, Mr. Rosen, you didn't represent Miss Jones outside of this particular proceeding that is reflected in this transcript, that is you didn't represent her other than just to advise her of potential Fifth Amendment problems? A. To the best of my knowledge that was my only contact with Miss Jones. Page 174. David Rosen, Esq. - Redirect Q. You didn't represent her on independent criminal charges? A. I do not believe I did, no. Q. And do you recall if you ever met with Miss Jones outside of the proceedings that are relevant here back in 1982? A. I believe when I met her in the Courtroom on that day, that was the only occasion I met, I ever met her. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. No further questions. MS. FISK: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. You are excused. (Witness excused.) MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would advise Counsel when we returned from the luncheon recess that at their request the two officers from New Jersey who had the warrant remained and they are available to be called by defense as I was led to believe they would be. I would simply note they are available in the hallway. MR. PIPER: Your Honor, the District Attorney has in some of their papers alluded to Page 175. an issue about the defense investigation to find Veronica Jones. We would reserve rebuttal if they intend to proffer any evidence to sustain their burden under 9543B, based on prejudice. We would offer to address that issue on rebuttal. And on that basis we are prepared to rest. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would note the Commonwealth does not recognize that we have any burden to prove anything at this PCRA proceeding. It is the burden of the defense, we believe, and under the law, to prove that the testimony which was offered this morning could not and was not available to the defense despite reasonable and diligent efforts by them to obtain that testimony. And our position is that they have not at this point proven any efforts to obtain that testimony prior to April 1996. And it will be our position, so Counsel is aware, that they have not met that burden and therefore the substantive testimony offered would be improper to come into the record at this point. We recognize no burden on our part to make that proof, Your Honer. MR. PIPER: Your Honor, it is clear Page 176. that what the District Attorney intends to do, much as they did this morning, is to embark on a fishing expedition into the defense investigation. There was no, they were allowed to intrude into the attorney-client privilege. THE COURT: No, they didn't go into attorney-client privilege. MR. PIPER: They were intruded over Mister -- THE COURT: They were not intruded over. MR. PIPER: Yes, over objection by Miss Jones' attorney. THE COURT: They were not gone into. MR. PIPER: The law in Pennsylvania as stated in Commonwealth versus Knoll, 443 PA Superior Court, 602, a 1995 case, is that the attorney work product doctrine provides even broader protections than the attorney-client privilege. As attorneys must often rely on the assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of materials necessary for trial, the doctrine protects materials prepared by such investigators as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. Page 177. THE COURT: Well, you realize this isn't a trial. She is not on trial. MR. PIPER: Well, it extends also to any legal proceeding. In fact, there are further legal proceedings -- THE COURT: This is a collateral attack on a trial -- MR. PIPER: But the work product doctrine is iron tight in Pennsylvania as the Knoll case set forth. It is for that very reason that the statute which Your Honor often refers to says that it is the prosecution's burden to show some prejudice under 9543B before there is any inquiry into the diligence of the defense. They have never even offered or alleged that they have been prejudiced in any way with respect to responding to Miss Jones' testimony. And if they wish to proceed on that basis it is their burden to sustain before the Court can require some sort of intrusion into our investigation. MS. FISK: I would again note to Counsel, Your Honor, that the law having to do with after-discovered evidence clearly places the burden upon the party who is raising that Page 178. after-discovered evidence to prove that it is indeed after-discovered evidence. And one of the bases of proving something is after discovered is proving that it was unavailable to that side which is now offering that evidence at any time prior to the time it was being offered despite reasonable, diligent efforts to obtain that testimony. It is on that basis that the Commonwealth asserts that the burden is on the defense to make that proof, not through attorney-client privilege, but through whatever means was conducted prior to the hearing last summer and since to obtain the testimony of the witness who was brought and is now being offered as an after-discovered witness for purposes of this Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing. MR. PIPER: That was absolutely not the basis of our claim on Veronica Jones, Your Honor. The Orders from the Supreme Court says the claims raised in our Petition. We never raised a new-evidence claim with Veronica Jones. She is a Brady issue. She is one of many instances of the prosecution's misconduct and suppression of evidence. And as the Judge Savitt wrote in the Page 179. Rider case, where the prosecution -- THE COURT: Judge Savitt? MS. FISK: Your Honor, this is Commonwealth versus Jamal, this is not Commonwealth versus Rider. But if Counsel would like to I will start reciting the names of the defendants whose convictions have been affirmed who are sitting in the State prisons around Pennsylvania, as there are a lot more of them than those that have been reversed. MR. PIPER: As the Court noted in Rider, where similar misconduct was shown, there is no waiver issue. THE COURT: Who did that? MR. PIPER: Judge Savitt. THE COURT: He is a Common Pleas Judge just like me. MR. PIPER: But he was applying Pennsylvania Court -- THE COURT: Was it okayed by any appellate court? Supreme Court? MR. PIPER: It has not been reviewed. THE COURT: Has it been approved? MR. PIPER: Given that the Commonwealth concealed exculpatory statements I Page 180. don't see how it could be reversed, there is clear prosecution misconduct. THE COURT: You proceeded in this case on after-discovered evidence. MR. PIPER: That is not true, Your Honor. If you look at our amended PCRA Petition. THE COURT: First Order, did you see the first Order the Supreme Court sent down? MR. PIPER: Pardon me? THE COURT: The first Order that the Supreme Court sent down, did you read it? MR. PIPER: Yes. THE COURT: It says after-discovered evidence. MR. PIPER: No, it doesn't. And as a matter of fact, Your Honor interpreted that to be due diligence. That's why they amended their Order to make clear that Your Honor was overruled on that issue. THE COURT: I don't consider that to be overruled on anything. MR. PIPER: You said you wouldn't let Veronica Jones be put on the stand but the Supreme Court amended it's Order. Page 181. THE COURT: It is after-discovered evidence, you have to do certain things. As she says, there are four elements that you have to show. MR. PIPER: Your Honor, I have the Order here. There is nothing in it about after-discovered evidence. THE COURT: The first Order? MR. PIPER: Yes. Would you like me to read it? THE COURT: Read it. MR. PIPER: And now this 4th day of September, 1996, the matter is hereby remanded to the trial Court for a hearing within 30 days of this date, of the date of this Order, to determine whether Appellant is entitled to a supplemental Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing, and that Court is to render its opinion within 30 days of said determination. Jurisdiction is retained. Maybe you heard something I didn't, but I didn't hear anything about after-discovered evidence. THE COURT: Well, in your Petitions you did. Page 182. MR. PIPER: No, Your Honor, we didn't. Look at our Petition, claim 22 -- THE COURT: I don't have your Petitions in front of me. MR. PIPER: Claim 22 dealt with newly-discovered evidence and Veronica Jones was not presented in claim 22. She was presented among our many Brady claims of suppressed evidence along with Singletary, Chobert -- THE COURT: What was suppressed? There was nothing suppressed. MS. FISK: I would note that the Appellant's application for relief in this matter reads in the first paragraph that they applied for relief for the purpose of taking -- and I am, quoting -- the additional testimony of Veronica Jones, a newly-available witness. Now, I don't have a thesaurus in front of me but I would wager a bet that newly available is considered similar to after discovered. That was the defense application. However, Judge, rather than quibble and argue about it now, if Counsel avers that it is not his burden to prove reasonable diligence, then they can rest on that and I am ready to Page 183. proceed. If they in fact are resting. We obviously disagree about who has what burden, and Your Honor first, and the appellate court next, will make that determination. We obviously disagree. THE COURT: It is logical that they have the responsibility: You can't tell them what they did. MS. FISK: Apparently the defense believes that they do not. We will, after this hearing is completed we are obviously going to make closing arguments to Your Honor, Your Honor is going to rule, and whatever Your Honor rules will inevitably make it up to the appellate court for them to review further, and then they will tell me that I am wrong or they will tell the defense that they are wrong. But to sit here and argue, that really serves no purpose right now, because obviously everybody is dug in. MR. PIPER: We are prepared to meet that burden if the time comes. The time will come if they ever meet their burden of showing prejudice. THE COURT: They don't have to show Page 184. anything. It is your burden now. You can't say I want to reserve it now for rebuttal later on. MR. PIPER: Under protest, then, we will proceed on that issue. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FISK: Your Honor, before the next witness is called may I ask whether Counsel is going to be calling those witnesses from New Jersey? MR. WILLIAMS: They are the next witness. If you would give me the name so I could call them. MS. FISK: Detective Sergeant Sheenan is one of them. He is in charge of the detective bureau. MR. WILLIAMS: Defense calls Detective Sergeant Sheenan. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MS. FISK: I would ask for an offer of proof with regard to the Detective Sergeant, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: He is going to be a critical witness to establish due diligence. MS. FISK: Of what? Page 185. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct THE COURT: Their due diligence. MS. FISK: Their? THE COURT: Yes. - - - - - Detective Timothy J. Sheenan, Badge number 334, Woodbury City Police Department, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Detective Sheenan? A. Yes. Q. Yes, good afternoon. Can you state for the record what is your occupation? A. I am a Detective Sergeant with the Woodbury City Police Department in New Jersey. Q. Do you work for a particular unit with the police department? A. The detective bureau. Q. And for how long have you been a detective? A. Approximately five years. Q. How long have you been a police officer? A. Nine years. Page 186. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Q. Do your duties encompass enforcing bench warrants? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there a bench warrant unit, by the way, in your police force? A. No, sir, we don't have any individual warrant unit. Q. So all of the police officers as part of their duties enforce bench warrants? A. That's correct. Q. Would that include misdemeanor and felony bench warrants? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you're here to enforce a bench warrant for a Veronica Jones is it? A. Veronica Wilson. Q. Veronica Wilson. You are looking at a document? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could I see that document you're looking at? A. Yes, sir (handing). MS. FISK: For the record, Your Honor, the document being given to Counsel is the copy of the warrant which was shown to Counsel prior to the luncheon recess. Page 187. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now let me ask you this. As a detective who also enforces bench warrants, what is the procedure for enforcing a bench warrant in your jurisdiction? A. Specifically? Q. Yes. MS. FISK: Well, enforcing this bench warrant or any bench warrant? BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Any bench warrant, how do you go about enforcing a bench warrant? MS. FISK: My objection is based on the fact there are different procedures for persons who live within the jurisdiction and without the jurisdiction. MR. WILLIAMS: If Ms. Fisk wants to take the oath I will be glad to question her as well. THE COURT: Rephrase your question. And now we are down to this case, what they did. MR. WILLIAMS: I think the detective is fully equipped to answer my question. THE COURT: I know he is fully equipped to but rephrase your question. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Page 188. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Q. Is there a procedure that you follow in enforcing bench warrants? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Can you tell me what that procedure is? A. If we are aware of a bench warrant and we are aware of the individual's whereabouts then we place that subject under arrest. Q. Okay. And how do you become aware of a bench warrant? A. Through, we have copies in our Police Department. Q. Okay. And how do you become aware of a person's whereabouts to enforce a bench warrant? A. Numerous ways. Q. Can you tell us those numerous ways? A. It could be any type of a way. I mean anybody could call us and tell us they know the whereabouts of someone and if they do we will proceed there and lock that person up. Q. Do you employ police investigative techniques to find somebody who has a bench warrant? A. Sometimes, yes. Q. And do you have computers there that assist you? A. In seeing if we do have an active warrant for Page 189. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct subjects, yes, we do. Q. And in this particular case, what was the date of the bench warrant? A. The date the bench warrant was issued? Q. Yes. A. I believe it was in 1994, but you have the actual document in front of you. Q. Okay. I am going to show you the document, then, which was provided to me (handing). A. The date the bench warrant was issued was 12-8 of '94. Q. Okay. Now, Detective, you have a bench warrant that's issued on December 8th, 1994, and it is your office's responsibility to enforce bench warrants, right? A. That is correct. Q. What acts were taken to enforce that particular bench warrant in the month of December of 1994? A. When it was issued the actual bench warrant was sent to the City of Camden where the subject lived. And their -- it's normal practice to send the original copy of the warrant to the city, if it's out of our jurisdiction, for them to attempt to serve on the subject who lives in their jurisdiction. Page 190. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Q. So this Veronica Wilson you knew or your office knew lived in Camden, New Jersey? A. That is correct. Q. And information was then sent to a Camden office? A. That's correct. Q. And what steps were taken from the Camden officer if you know? A. I do not know. Q. Do you know whether an address was available to you in Camden? A. Yes, it was. Q. So from December 8th, 1994 until today, police officers, or police departments in the State of New Jersey had an address for Miss Jones? A. That is correct. Q. I see. And if you have an address, Detective, of somebody that has a warrant for their arrest, it is quite easy to make that arrest, isn't it? A. Yes -- MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't know if it is quite easy. You mean they are sitting around waiting for him, saying here I am, come and get me? Page 191. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct MS. FISK: It is also irrelevant, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: It goes to due diligence. They are the ones who are supposed to be diligent, Judge. You know, what is interesting, Your Honor -- well, let me just ask the witness. Let me ask the witness. THE COURT: Ask him what? BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You had the address of Veronica Wilson. Do you know if any steps were taken before today to go to Miss Wilson's house, arrest Miss Wilson on that bench warrant that you have in your hand? A. That would be the responsibility of the City of Camden. Q. And judging from the fact that nobody went to her house to make the arrest on the bench warrant that you have -- THE COURT: Just a minute, Counselor. Just a minute. That's not a fair question. We don't know what Camden did with it. If you want to find out what they did with it, subpoena the Camden detectives to come in here. All he did was, or I don't know if he did, but the department did, they sent it to Camden. Page 192. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Did they ever send it back? THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If it was Camden's jurisdiction to handle this bench warrant, why is it that your office is now enforcing that warrant? A. The bench warrant was issued by Judge Morgan out of the Woodbury Municipal Court. Q. So if it was issued out of that jurisdiction, didn't you feel obligated to enforce a bench warrant from a judge in your jurisdiction? A. Well, if Camden City located her, us as detectives in the Woodbury Police Department would have responded there to take custody there. Q. But you knew of her address, didn't you, Detective? A. That is correct. Q. And did your office do anything between December 8th, 1994 to today to enforce a bench warrant issued by a judge in your jurisdiction? A. We sent the warrant to Camden to have Camden officers attempt to serve the warrant. Q. And you washed your hands of it from that point on? MS. FISK: Objection to that question, Page 193. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, strike that wiped his hands. You mean they are supposed to go all over the United States? MR. WILLIAMS: They had her address. THE COURT: I don't care if they had the address. They gave it to Camden. If you want to find out what Camden did about it, get the detectives from Camden. They may have gone there a hundred times and she wasn't there. We don't know that. MR. WILLIAMS: Let's find out. THE COURT: How does he know? BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did you ever pick up a phone and call a colleague in Camden and say hey, what about this Veronica Wilson? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Do you know if anybody in your office ever picked up a phone to call up a colleague in Camden to say hey, what about this Veronica Wilson, there is this very important bench warrant we have? Did you ever do that? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, to the form of that question. Page 194. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct THE COURT: Please. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did anybody in your office ever pick up a phone to call anybody in Camden and say we have a bench warrant for Veronica Wilson? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: It is irrelevant. It has nothing to do -- MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it has everything to do -- MS. FISK: If I may state my objection before Counsel wants to start arguing about it. It is not my fault that Counsel has called a witness today who has an open bench warrant. Whether the jurisdiction that issued that bench warrant effected it or not prior to today, the issue is that there was a legal bench warrant in existence for that witness. If Miss Jones when she goes back to New Jersey to defend herself on the warrant wants to attempt to say she should not be fully prosecuted on it because police officers in New Jersey sat on their heels and didn't try to lock her up before now, that is certainly a defense which she can raise. But with regard to the legitimacy of the warrant, and the fact that it belonged to the witness who Page 195. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct was called this morning, those are the only relevant issues. Plus the fact that Counsel could certainly have found their witness and discovered the existence of the warrant had they looked. But whether or not there was an effective effort made to serve that warrant is irrelevant to the issues in this Post-Conviction hearing. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Detective, did you ever consult with the arresting police officers in connection with Miss Wilson's arrest? A. No, I did not. Q. Do you know if anybody in your office consulted with the arresting police officers? A. There is numerous people in my office, I couldn't testify to that. Q. Okay. Did you discuss Miss Wilson's bench warrant with any prosecutors from your jurisdiction? A. Prior to today? Q. Yes. A. Not the actual bench warrant, no, sir. Q. Okay. Did you discuss the bench warrant of Miss Wilson with any prosecutor in the State of New Jersey? Page 196. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did you have any discussions with the prosecutors in the State of Pennsylvania about the bench warrant? A. Yes. Q. Of a subject who lives in New Jersey? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you have that discussion? A. Yesterday. And also last week. Q. Okay. Let's go with last week. Was that over the phone or in person? A. That was over the telephone. Q. Did you make the call or did somebody else call you? A. Ahh, we were, we made numerous calls back and forth, I'm not sure. But D.A. Fisk made the initial call. Q. Miss Fisk, a prosecutor from the State of Pennsylvania, called you about a bench warrant from your jurisdiction? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And did you ask her why are you from Pennsylvania calling me about New Jersey, a New Jersey subject? A. I spoke to an investigator from the Camden Page 197. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct County Prosecutors' Office prior to speaking with Ms. Fisk about the bench warrant. And about the initial incident. Q. Okay, and what did that prosecutor tell you -- I'm sorry -- the investigator, what did that investigator tell you? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. What does it have to do -- first of all, it is hearsay, and second, what does it have to do with anything. It is irrelevant. THE COURT: I don't know that this has to do anything with this case. I don't care if they were negligent over in New Jersey in expediting this warrant or not. What did you do to find the witness is what I'm interested in. MR. WILLIAMS: What Your Honor is telling me -- THE COURT: Yes, what I am telling you: You can't depend on somebody else. I want to know what you did to find this witness. That's what I want to know. MR. WILLIAMS: What I am establishing right now, quite clearly -- THE COURT: No, what you are establishing -- Page 198. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct MR. WILLIAMS: The prosecution here, that we have a prosecutor's office in Pennsylvania who all of a sudden, at this juncture in these proceedings, all of a sudden takes an interest in the bench warrant status of a New Jersey resident. Now, that I think smacks of bad faith. THE COURT: This has nothing to do with wanting to enforce a bench warrant. What does it have to do with this PCRA? Nothing. Nothing. MR. WILLIAMS: Intimidating a witness. THE COURT: It has nothing to do with this PCRA. MR. WILLIAMS: Ms. Fisk calls the State of New Jersey and says we want to enforce a bench warrant in your jurisdiction. THE COURT: Well, you already know what she said? MR. WILLIAMS: That's what she said, that is what the witness has now indicated. THE COURT: He didn't say that. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me delve a little more deeply into it, then. THE COURT: But I say I don't see the Page 199. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct relevancy of what they did about this warrant with what you should have done to get this witness when we had the hearing last year. What did you do. MR. WILLIAMS: I am concerned about the bad faith of this prosecutor's office to intimidate a witness who testified in favor of the defense. THE COURT: Counselor, this Court reporter can't take what you're saying and what I'm saying at the same time. So when I'm speaking, please shut up so that he could take it, and then you could speak and then he could take that. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. THE COURT: Okay. But I'm telling you you have to tell this Court what you did to bring this witness in, why you didn't have her last summer. You were bringing in everybody in the world last summer. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, all right, let me make my offer of proof, Your Honor, to make it very clear to you. Either they have been looking for the past 20 months for Miss Jones and they couldn't find her -- Page 200. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct THE COURT: Who was looking for her? MR. WILLIAMS: New Jersey. THE COURT: He wasn't looking for her. MR. WILLIAMS: If they could not locate her after diligent efforts for 20 months I think that that bears a relevance to our ability to find her in the past 20 months. THE COURT: Wait a while. When you couldn't find her what did you do? Did you list her on the NCIC or whatever you have over there? THE WITNESS: The warrant was sent to Camden City because we could not locate her in Woodbury. The warrant was sent to Camden City. If they attempted to serve that I have no knowledge of that. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Nor did you care, did you, Detective? THE COURT: I know you didn't, but do you have what we have here, put it on the NCIC? THE WITNESS: No, she wasn't entered in NCIC at that time, but she was entered in NCIC after that time. She is in NCIC right now, the warrant is in NCIC right at this moment. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Page 201. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Q. Detective, when you sent it over to Camden, at that point you no longer cared whether that bench warrant was going to be enforced? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, as to whether he cared. THE COURT: Do you want to testify for him. Ask him a question, don't testify for him. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You can't testify as to whether any efforts were made to locate Miss Jones over the 20-month period since her bench warrant was issued, can you? A. No, I can't. Q. Can you tell us why it is that it's being enforced at this particular time? MS. FISK: Because it is a legal bench warrant, Your Honor: I object to the question. MR. WILLIAMS: But it's highly relevant as to the fact -- THE COURT: Because he knows where she is now. MR. WILLIAMS: He says that they knew it when the bench warrant was issued. But all of a sudden, 20 months later -- THE COURT: They sent it to Camden because that's out of their jurisdiction. Page 202. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct MR. WILLIAMS: So then why is it, sir, if Your Honor said that Camden -- THE COURT: What do you think Philadelphia does when they have bench warrants for somebody that's way out in Pittsburgh? They send it to the authorities in Pittsburgh. MS. FISK: Frankly, Your Honor, when they have a bench warrant for somebody at Broad and Snyder it usually sits with 40,000 other bench warrants unfortunately that are unserved in the City of Philadelphia. THE COURT: Well, I know that. We have so much crime here that you can't get around to them. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MS. FISK: And I would note further, Your Honor, so the record is clear, that what Counsel claims is bad faith on the part of the prosecution is merely an attempt to prepare to cross-examine a witness on the part of the prosecution. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Detective, let's go back to your sending the bench warrant to Camden, okay. Page 203. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct A. Yes, sir. Q. When the Camden authorities have a witness' address -- I'm sorry -- a suspect's address, when do they, as a usual practice, go to the address to effect the arrest? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. He can't answer for Camden. He doesn't know what they do. If you want to find out call the detective from Camden and ask him what they did with it. He can't tell you what they do. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Detective, have you had experience with the enforcement of arrest warrants in Camden? A. Not this type of arrest warrant, no, sir. Q. Is there something peculiar about this particular arrest warrant? A. No; if I signed an actual warrant that was an indictable offense and we felt that somebody was dangerous I would go to Camden and assist them in finding the person. But I didn't have any contact with this warrant or that individual at that time. Q. Okay. Do you know why it is that Camden authorities are not here to enforce the warrant but you are? Page 204. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct A. Because it is a warrant issued out of Municipal Court of Woodbury and I am an Officer for the City of Woodbury. Q. So if the jurisdiction is Woodbury because the warrant issued from Woodbury, then why was it sent to Camden? A. Because her address is in Camden. We don't have jurisdiction in Camden, we send it to them to attempt to serve that warrant. Q. At your behest, at your jurisdiction's behest? A. Our Municipal Court clerks send that warrant to Camden to attempt to serve them, for their officers to attempt to serve that. Q. So your jurisdiction retains an interest in the warrant but Camden is out to effect the arrest? A. The reason why it's sent to Camden is because if she is stopped or identified and somebody checks warrants on her they are going to call the City where she lives. So the warrant is sent to Camden for their officers to attempt to serve it and if anybody calls their jurisdiction they will have access to that warrant on their file. Q. Right, so Camden makes the arrest, it's for your jurisdiction's benefit? A. Right, and we will go take custody of that Page 205. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct person at that time. Q. And you can't tell us if any actions were taken in your jurisdiction to prompt or prod the Camden jurisdiction to effect an arrest coming from your jurisdiction, can you? A. No, I can not. Q. Can you tell us why at this particular time, given your discussions with investigators and Ms. Fisk, it is being enforced on this particular day? A. Because this is the first time I have personal knowledge of her actual whereabouts. Q. This is the first time you had personal knowledge? A. That's right. I knew of a warrant, I knew of her whereabouts, this is where we came to get her. Q. Okay. But it is not the first that your office knew; is that right? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. It is on the file, is it not? MS. FISK: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: What is on the file? BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Miss Wilson's whereabouts is on the file, is it not? Page 206. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct A. It is not. THE COURT: He has told you what happened to that. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Didn't you just testify that -- THE COURT: He sent it to Camden. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Because Miss Wilson resided in Camden? A. But I am not sure she's there. Q. That was her last known information: That she was in Camden? A. That is correct, and it was sent to Camden. Q. Okay. So back when you sent the warrant over to Camden you knew of her whereabouts, at least as of that time, didn't you? A. No , I did not. Q. But what about your office? A. I knew of her address but I didn't know if she was going to be there. Q. Did you make any attempts to find out? A. No, we sent the warrant to Camden to have them attempt to serve it. Q. And you don't know if they made any efforts to find out? A. No, I do not. Page 207. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct Q. In all honesty, Detective, it is no coincidence that this warrant is being enforced on a day where she testified for Mr. Jamal, is it? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. He told you this is the first time he heard where she is. That's why he's here, to pick her up. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Because you received a call from Ms. Fisk, right? A. Actually, I seem to recall an investigator from, I received a call from an investigator from the prosecutor 's office first and then a call from Miss Fisk, that's correct. Q. So your interest in this case is a direct result of conduct and activity by a prosecutor here in Philadelphia? A. My interest in this case is that I knew about a warrant that was issued for Veronica Wilson and her whereabouts were brought to my attention last week, where she was going to be today. Q. By a prosecutor here in Pennsylvania? A. By a prosecutor and by an investigator for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) Page 208. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Direct BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let me get this straight, Detective. As soon as you learned of her whereabouts, you personally, you went to effectuate her arrest, right? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. So for the past 20 months or so since this warrant has been issued, you didn't know of her whereabouts, did you? A. No, I did not. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: I believe this has been asked and answered. THE COURT: He said he didn't know where she was. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. No further questions. MS. FISK: I just have I think one. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Detective, is it Detective or Sergeant or both? A. Detective Sergeant. Q. Detective Sergeant? Sheeran? Page 209. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Cross A. Sheenan, S-H-E-E-N-A-N. Q. Detective Sergeant Sheenan, is this bench warrant a matter of public record? A. Yes, it is. Q. It is available for anyone to look at or see from the Woodbury Municipal Court records? A. That is correct. Q. Do you have any record as to whether or not any person made an effort to look at or confirm the existence of this warrant prior to your obtaining this telephone call from the Camden County investigator last week? A. I'm not sure I understand your question; could you repeat that, please. Q. Would you know whether or not anybody looked at the records and became aware of the existence of the bench warrant: You have to make a mark in the file if somebody opens it? A. No, ma'am. Q. All right, but since its issuance in December 1994, the existence of this warrant has been a matter of public record? A. Through the Municipal Court, that is correct. MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. - - - - - Page 210. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Redirect REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. And this is only in Woodbury; is that right? A. Woodbury Municipal Court. Q. That's where it is a public record, in Woodbury? A. I believe so. Q. It is not, it wouldn't be in the Camden Courts, would it? A. I'm not sure if -- Q. It wouldn't be on file in Camden other than the police department? A. I believe you are correct, I'm not sure of their procedures. Q. Okay. And when you say that you don't know if any person looked at this public record in your jurisdiction of Woodbury, that would include authorities in your jurisdiction; isn't that right? A. Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions. MS. FISK: I just have one, I'm sorry. - - - - - RECROSS-EXAMINATION Page 211. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Recross - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Though the warrant is in the name of Veronica Wilson, does the paperwork with regard to this offense also reflect that Miss Wilson was also known as Veronica Jones? A. Yes, it does on the arrest report. Q. And just so the record is clear, is the one who was in the Courtroom earlier this morning when you were brought up to the -- oh, I'm sorry -- when you were brought up to the glass, is that the woman who was the subject of that warrant? A. That's the woman who was arrested on that date. Q. And are you able to make that determination by looking at the photograph of the person who was arrested under this file number? A. That is correct. Q. Incidentally, when Miss Wilson, Miss Jones was arrested on July the 14th, 1992, was she also processed, that is fingerprinted, photographed and the like? A. I believe she was photographed but she wasn't fingerprinted due to the fact that her fingers were bleeding. Page 212. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Redirect Q. Okay. Was she made aware of the fact that she was being placed under arrest? A. Yes, ma'am. MS. FISK: Thank you. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you have an independent memory that she had been told that she was under arrest? A. On her arrest report she has to be served with her green sheets, which means she is under arrest. Q. My question is do you have firsthand knowledge as to whether she was informed that she was arrested? A. No, I do not. Q. In terms of Miss Jones having this different name of Miss Wilson, is it your experience as a detective that people use aliases to make it more difficult to find them? A. Sometimes, yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. I'm sorry, one moment. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) BY MR. WILLIAMS: Page 213. Det. Timothy Sheenan - Redirect Q. Did you check to see if Miss Jones also went by the name of Louise Tatum? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you check to see if she also went by the name of Rhonda Harris? A. No, I did not. Q. So you didn't check to see if she had a whole string of aliases? A. No, I did not. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. MS. FISK: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I ask defense Counsel whether they will need Detective Sergeant Sheenan or whether he and his partner could return to New Jersey? MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to call the other detective to the stand but before that I would like to call Ms. Fisk to the stand in light of Detective Sheenan's -- THE COURT: No, you can't do that. MR. WILLIAMS: She makes a call to Page 214. enforce a bench warrant in a very significant period of time, that is a few days before Miss Jones testified. I think the Supreme Court and certainly any Federal Court would be highly interested. THE COURT: Argue that before the Supreme Court. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor promised that you wouldn't interrupt. I will finish and then I will do you the courtesy of listening to you. THE COURT: No, I don't want to listen to you. Argue that before the Supreme Court, okay. (Discussion held off the record at this time.) MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we are under an order to create a full factual record. THE COURT: Yes, I know, a full record. MR. WILLIAMS: Of police intimidation. THE COURT: No, no, no, no. MR. WILLIAMS: That's what Veronica Jones testified, that is the crucial claim. THE COURT: No. What am I supposed to Page 215. do, investigate the whole police department? MR. WILLIAMS: No, what I am asking Your Honor to do is to examine whether what we saw here this morning is an illustration of the very thing we have been alleging in our papers, that is police intimidation, prosecutorial intimidation of defense witnesses. I think what we saw here was evidence of that. And what I want to establish -- THE COURT: I didn't hear -- MR. WILLIAMS: What I want to establish from the testimony of Miss Fisk was in fact that was the intention. THE COURT: What does that have to do with this case at all? MR. WILLIAMS: Because every witness that has testified favorably to Mr. Jamal has been intimidated and we saw it now. With an audacity that is shocking. THE COURT: You had an opportunity to bring them last time. I didn't hear anybody say anybody was intimidated. As a matter of fact, they told me they were intimidated by you. MR. WILLIAMS: And now what we have is evidence of Miss Fisk's enforcing a bench Page 216. warrant of a defense witness at this particular time. And I want to establish that it was intentional, intentional to intimidate this witness. THE COURT: Maybe it was. Maybe it was. So what? MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor isn't concerned about that issue? THE COURT: No, I don't see what it has to do with this PCRA matter. I don't. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it makes it very difficult to advocate for Mr. Jamal when Your Honor has such a limited knowledge about our case. THE COURT: Take it up with the Supreme Court and if they think it is important they will send it back down again, okay. I don't think it's important. I don't think it has anything to do with the PCR. That is a collateral issue. And I don't want to go into a second collateral issue. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't want to be in the position of having to send this case back. THE COURT: I am. Let them send it Page 217. back down if they want more information. I will be glad to give them all the information that they want. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) THE COURT: Come on, Counselor, do you want that other detective or can he go? MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I am conferring with Co-counsel on. THE COURT: Well. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we don't want the other witness. In light of -- let me just make this record. I mean I would just ask you to do me that courtesy. In light of the testimony that we just heard, we want Miss Fisk to testify on her intent to intimidate the defense witness. I think we are obligated to do it under the Order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Number one. And number two, I think that is what occurred here and the record cries out for it. THE COURT: Yes, okay. MR. WILLIAMS: So that is our application. Page 218. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: And the application is...? THE COURT: I told you take it up with the Supreme Court. MR. WILLIAMS: It's denied. THE COURT: If you say so. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to quibble with words. THE COURT: Well, Counselor, if you want to raise it in the Supreme Court, raise it there. If they want me to hear from Ms. Fisk they will send it back down. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. THE COURT: Okay. All right, let the officers go. MR. WILLIAMS: With the thanks of the defense. THE COURT: Let the officers go. THE COURT OFFICER: They are being instructed now, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the defense now calls Christopher Milton. MS. FISK: I would ask for an offer of Page 219. proof with regard to this witness, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Milton will testify in support of our due diligence claim which we are submitting under protest. MS. FISK: That is not an offer of proof, Your Honor. I am asking for specifics. THE COURT: Why don't you tell her what he is going to say, will you. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Milton -- MS. FISK: I would have no objection to Counsel telling me privately, it doesn't have to be in open Court. THE COURT: Okay, speak to her privately. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no problem with stating it in open Court that Mr. Milton is going to testify about his activities as an investigator in connection with locating Miss Jones. THE COURT: Okay. THE COURT OFFICER: What was the name again? MR. WILLIAMS: Christopher Milton. Page 220. - - - - - Christopher Milton - Direct Christopher L. Milton, having been duly - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Milton. Thanks for coming in. Can you tell the Court how you are employed? A. I am a licensed private investigator. Q. And how long have you been a private investigator? A. Since 1988. Q. Since 1988? A. (Witness nodded head affirmatively.) Q. Have you ever done work for what I will call loosely the defense team for Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal? A. Yes, I have. Q. In your capacity as an investigator? A. Yes. Q. When were you retained by the defense team? A. Hmm. Mid, mid July. Q. Of what year? A. '95. Q. 1995? How long have you worked for the defense team in your capacity as an investigator? Page 221. Christopher Milton - Direct A. Since then. Q. To the present? A. Yes. Q. Has it occupied all of your time as an investigator? A. Ahh, no. Q. So you've had other clients? A. Yes. Q. We are one among other clients? A. Yes. Q. Now, there was a woman who testified here this morning by the name of Veronica Jones. Do you know Veronica Jones? A. Yes, I do. Q. How do you know her? A. I have been searching for her since, since I pretty much been almost on the case and... Q. From the very moment you were retained? A. No, not from the very moment, no, sir. Q. Okay. From the very -- I will rephrase it. From the very moment that you began working on behalf of the defense team, when you began working as an investigator? A. Well, I knew of her. I hadn't met her at that point but I knew of her. Page 222. Christopher Milton - Direct Q. All right, let me back up. Were you ever told to locate a Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. When were you told that? A. Probably a month after, after I was retained. Q. Back in 1995? A. Yes. Q. And when did you begin looking for Veronica Jones? A. Around August. Q. Right after you were directed to start looking for her? A. Yes. Q. And when you began looking for Veronica Jones, did you have information in your possession that assisted you in your investigation? A. I was given her name and her birth date. Q. A name and a birth date? A. Yes. Q. The name you were given was Veronica Jones? A. Ahh, yes. Q. And with that information at your disposal, what steps did you take? A. Well, I did, you know, the basics: Ran it through criminal records, employment history, voter's Page 223. Christopher Milton - Direct registration, for possible welfare checks, things like that. Just the standard stuff. Q. Driver's license? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever look for a death certificate in the event that this person might be dead? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you investigate as to whether she had been incarcerated during any of this period of time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. What jurisdictions did you look in? A. Ahh, Philadelphia, in New Jersey. Q. Philadelphia and New Jersey? A. Yes, sir. Q. By the way, with respect to your investigation in New Jersey, did you have any reason to believe that there was any information in the county of Woodbury? A. In Woodbury, I don't think so, I don't remember. Q. Okay. That doesn't stick out in your mind as a significant place? A. No, sir. Q. Now, as a result of your investigations, did you find potential addresses for Veronica Jones? Page 224. Christopher Milton - Direct A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us more about that. A few? Lots? A. Well, in some of the areas, some of the possible addresses that I went to, I was given areas that she may have worked at or she may have lived at. One of them was being in New Jersey, others were in different parts of the City. Pretty much mostly South Philadelphia, or Southwest Philadelphia. Q. So you had potential employment addresses? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. And home addresses? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Can you characterize the number of addresses that you had, was it plenty or just a few? A. It was a few, a few addresses were given. Most of them, or actually all of them at one point turned up to be blanks in the beginning. Q. When you have addresses, either employment or residence, what steps do you take, investigative steps? A. Well, we will go to them, myself or someone out of the office will go to them, canvas the area and definitely knock on the door, ask for her. In most cases people will say she didn't live there. Page 225. Christoper Milton - Direct Q. All right, so you go to the address that you have, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you used the phrase canvas the area. What do you mean by that? A. Well, walk up and down the street, especially if no one was home, asking people if they knew of her, of the young lady. Q. And did you do that with respect to these addresses for Miss Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in your investigation did you come upon possible aliases for a Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Can you kind of characterize that for us: Were there lots of aliases or a few? A. Well, it was quite a few. Q. Quite a few? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. A. The birth dates were different. You know, her age. People would estimate her age. Information that was given to me changed every now and then. Q. Let me go back to the aliases. You said there were plenty of aliases and there were different birth Page 226. Christopher Milton - Direct dates for those aliases? A. Hmm-hmm. MS. FISK: I would simply ask Mr. Milton to say yes or no, because there is no uh-huh button on the machine. THE COURT: Yes, he can't record it. THE WITNESS: Okay, I'm sorry. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As a private investigator, does it make your job more difficult if there are aliases for a person? A. Yes, it does. Q. And maybe it's obvious but can you tell the Court why it is more difficult? A. Well, with a common name like Jones, for one, you have over thousands of Joneses. The name itself was a very common name. The biggest problem was nailing down the birth date, place of birth, things like that, even her mother's name which wasn't given to, it just makes it real hard. If I'm given an accurate birth date and accurate name it makes it a lot easier. Q. It's kind of like shooting at a moving target? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, I asked earlier about information that you had at your disposal and you said you got her Page 227. Christopher Milton - Direct name and her birth date? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. During the course of your investigation were you supplied more information from other investigators for the defense team as time went on? A. Yes. Q. What kinds of information did you get as time went on? A. Ahh, hmm... well, definitely I got different names. Q. The aliases were supplied to you? A. The aliases were given to me. Ahh... possible places of employment. Possible relatives. Q. And did you follow up on every single lead that you got? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever leave -- withdrawn. Did you ever ignore any of those leads? A. No. Q. You followed every single lead that you were given? A. Yes. Q. And did you yourself do any of the computer searches? A. No, sir. Page 228. Christopher Milton - Direct Q. From your knowledge do you know if anybody on the defense team or anybody retained by the defense team did any computer searches? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay, who would that be? A. Mr. Newman. Q. Mr. Newman? A. Yes. Q. And where is he, where does he work out of? A. To my knowledge, San Diego. Q. And were you ever in contact with this Mr. Newman from San Diego? A. Yes. Q. And for what purpose? A. He would give me, when he came here he would give me information. We would sit down and put our heads together and compare notes, compare my findings, my physical findings to his computer findings. Q. Okay. Tell me if I am wrong about this but let me see if I understand you right. We have this man Mr. Newman out in San Diego doing computer searches, you are out on the street following up on leads; is that right? A. Hmm-hmm, yes, sir. Page 229. Christopher Milton - Direct Q. And there were occasions where the two of you would meet out here on the East Coast? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you would confer to see how the progress of the investigation was going? A. Yes. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. And you understand, Mr. Milton, that what I am only asking you about is Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Not about any other investigations that you have done or anything like that, just Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. And whatever you have testified to thus far is about Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. That this investigator in San Diego was doing computer searches for Veronica Jones, or these aliases? A. Yes. Q. Do you know if -- by the way, are there other investigators working in your office? Page 230. Christopher Milton - Direct A. Yes, sir. Q. And did any of these other investigators in your office play a role in searching for Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. And what about other investigators outside of your office and other than Mr. Newman? A. Not to my knowledge, I don't know. Q. You don't know? A. I don't ask questions like that. Q. Okay. You follow your leads and you do what you're told? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you said something about canvassing areas in South Philly earlier; do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Were there other areas that you canvassed besides South Philly? A. Yes. Q. What other areas? A. Southwest Philadelphia. Q. Southwest Philly? A. Yes. Q. Where else? A. West Philly itself. These were the two main Page 231. Christopher Milton - Direct areas. Q. Okay. And you said earlier something about New Jersey as well? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you be more precise? A. Well, the addresses that we were given, we would only knock on the doors. We would, if nobody answered we would knock on the doors next to it, across the street from it. Like if somebody lives someplace, usually a person lives across the street sees them quite often. Q. Okay. A. We would talk to them, ask them if they knew the young lady. Q. All right, what I am asking is, did you look in any areas of New Jersey for a Veronica Jones or any of her aliases? A. Yes. Q. What parts of New Jersey did you look? A. Camden. Q. Camden, New Jersey? A. Yes. Q. And why Camden in particular? A. That was the address or the areas that were given to me. Page 232. Christopher Milton - Direct Q. Now, by the way, do you know a Floyd Jackson? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is Floyd Jackson? A. He works for me. Q. Was he at all involved in the search for Veronica Jones? A. At some point, yes. Q. Now, there came a point where Veronica Jones was actually found; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, before the real Veronica Jones was found, did there come a point where you believed you found the real Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us about that? A. There was a street address that was given to me where the relatives of this young lady, or we thought was the relatives of this young lady had said that she moved to Baltimore. They provided a picture of her and gave me good information: Life style, kids, new husband, everything. And I was pretty sure it was her at that point. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) BY MR. WILLIAMS: Page 233. Christopher Milton - Direct Q. When you say lifestyle of this particular Veronica Jones in Baltimore -- A. Hmm-hmm. Q. -- what do you mean by that? A. Well, you know, she was working, she was a family woman, had one child by a gentleman she met from the military, two other children by her present husband. Q. And by the way, did you ever locate this Veronica Jones in Baltimore? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what was the result when you located her? A. She said it wasn't her. Q. That it wasn't her? A. No. Q. And did you apprise the defense of this fact? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And did you make it a practice to apprise the defense of your progress in investigating the whereabouts of Miss Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And did this... now, the woman in Baltimore, her name was Rhonda Harris, wasn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And is that one of the aliases or a/k/a's of Page 234. Christopher Milton - Direct Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. And do you recall whether this Rhonda Harris in Baltimore had a prostitution background also? A. Yes, she did. Q. In Philadelphia? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it would be safe to say that when you found that out you thought you had a direct hit? A. Yes, sir. Q. Pretty excited? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were excited because you really wanted to find this Veronica Jones; is that right? MS. FISK: I object to that, Your Honor. Frankly, that doesn't matter. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it does matter in terms of the diligence. MS. FISK: You are right. I will withdraw the objection. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You really wanted to find this Veronica Jones; is that right? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Was it your state of mind or your impression Page 235. Christopher Milton - Direct that finding Veronica Jones was important to the defense team? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Okay. Tempers ever flare because we were having problems finding Veronica Jones? MS. FISK: Well, to that I object, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, did you attempt to review files for any criminal cases involving a Veronica Jones or a Rhonda Harris or Louise Tatum or any of the numerous a/k/a's? A. Have I reviewed the files? Q. No, did you ever attempt to review files in connection with criminal cases for a Veronica Jones or any of the aliases associated with Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir, I did attempt. Q. Okay. Here in Philadelphia? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell me what happened as a result of your attempts to review those files? A. Well, when I went to the Quarter Sessions to see if I could order the files, I was given instructions that they would probably not be Page 236. Christopher Milton - Direct obtainable right now due to, you know, the transition that was going to be made. Q. What transition are you talking about? A. The move from City Hall to over here, to the Criminal Justice Center. So I figured well, if I wouldn't get them right away they wouldn't be of any use because I think they had a sentencing or something coming up I think like within two days or three days or something like that. Q. You felt that you could spend your time better doing other things? A. Yes. Q. Rather than wait for the boxed-up materials? A. Yes. Q. Now, did there come a point, Mr. Milton, when you learned that your office had located the real Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did that occur? A. Sometime in April. Q. Of what year? A. This year. Q. 1996? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was that the first time as far as you know Page 237. Christopher Milton - Direct that anybody connected with the defense team was able to locate the real Veronica Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. And where was she located; do you know? A. In New Jersey. MR. WILLIAMS: If I may have one moment. Excuse me, Mr. Milton. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Milton. No further questions. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. FISK: Thank you. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Milton. A. How are you doing? Q. Fine, thank you. Mr. Milton, what is the name of your private investigation agency? A. Philadelphia Protection Service. Q. Philadelphia Protection Services? Page 238. Christopher Milton - Cross A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And does that operate under your license, sir, as a private investigator? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And how long has the Philadelphia Protection Services been in existence? A. About three years, since February 19th, I incorporated February 19th of '93. Q. And when you are retained as an investigator, do you charge an hourly rate? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what is your standard hourly fee, Mr. Milton? A. Well, from then to now it is changing. Q. With regard to this matter when you were retained in July of 1995, what was your standard hourly fee? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to that. There is no relevancy to what his fee was in this case. It has nothing to do with whether or not he exercised reasonable diligence. MS. FISK: Frankly, Your Honor, if a person is being paid ten cents an hour as opposed to being paid $100 an hour, the diligence of their efforts will be affected. Page 239. Christopher Milton - Cross MR. WILLIAMS: You could ask that: If his diligence was affected by the rate that was paid. THE COURT: We don't know what the rate is. MR. WILLIAMS: Then it is irrelevant. THE COURT: I think it is relevant. Go ahead. BY MS. FISK: Q. Mr. Milton, what was your statement -- MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor -- Pardon me, Ms. Fisk. I think the proper question to ask is was he paid the rate that he requested. THE COURT: Counselor, you will have a chance to redirect, you can ask him any questions that you want. Don't tell the Commonwealth how to ask their questions. MR. WILLIAMS: I am not telling them, I am just asking that the Court keep the questions bound within the law. THE COURT: Well, it's within the law. She has a right to know what he charged. BY MS. FISK: Q. Mr. Milton, do you remember my question? Page 240. Christopher Milton - Cross A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. A. My standard fee is $57 an hour. Q. And is that the fee that you quoted to those persons who hired you with regard to this case last July? A. No, ma'am. Q. And what was the fee that you quoted to Counsel in this case, sir? A. $47 an hour. Q. So you discounted them? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And since July 1995 has that fee remained, that is your $47 an hour? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And how many hours have you billed on this matter? MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor: There's no relevance to that. THE COURT: We want to know how much effort he put into it. MR. WILLIAMS: The issue is how much time did he spend in searching for Veronica Jones. THE COURT: That's what we're asking Page 241. Christopher Milton - Cross here. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no problem with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's what she is asking. BY MS. FISK: Q. My first question -- MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to Veronica Jones. MS. FISK: Oh, absolutely with respect to Veronica Jones. BY MS. FISK: Q. I apologize and I hope you didn't misunderstand my question. With regard to your efforts to locate Miss Jones in this matter, how many hours have you billed? A. For Miss Jones? Q. Yes. A. I have no idea. Q. You don't break -- A. Not specifically. Q. You don't break it down in your bills, sir? A. What I do is the amount of hours I spent working for them period I bill them for, I don't break down what the hours were doing. Q. Are you able to tell us how many hours you Page 242. Christopher Milton - Cross have devoted to the attempt to locate Miss Jones? A. I can give you an estimate. Q. And have you billed the defense for each of those hours to which you are about to give us an estimate? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And in your estimation, then, how many hours have you billed for attempting to locate Miss Jones? (Pause.) A. Probably about 200 hours. Q. And you have been paid for those 200 hours? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, sir, when you were hired, and I understand it you told us that you were retained in mid-July 1995? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. I trust that between mid-July of 1995 and about a month later, which is when you told us you were asked to locate Miss Jones, that you were doing other things regarding this matter? A. Yes. Q. So it was sometime in mid-August 1995 that you were directed to attempt to locate Miss Jones; is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Page 243. Christopher Milton - Cross Q. Now, sir, I trust that you were told that Miss Jones had been a witness in this matter back in 1982; would that be fair to say? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you request to be provided with a copy of her notes of testimony in an attempt to glean from that any information that you could have where she lived or her whereabouts or anything about her history? A. Did I request it? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, ma'am. Q. Were you ever provided with a copy of those notes of testimony? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Was that in the middle of August of 1995? A. Ahh, it was given to me about that time, yes, ma'am. Q. Now, all those other persons that you testified about during direct examination -- that is Floyd Jackson, Mr. Newman -- to the best of their knowledge, did their efforts to locate Miss Jones begin at or about the same time that you began looking for Miss Jones? MR. WILLIAMS: Objection to the best Page 244. Christopher Milton - Cross of their knowledge. MS. FISK: To the best of his knowledge. THE COURT: No, his knowledge. They work for him. MR. WILLIAMS: I think she just misstated the question. MS. FISK: I apologize for misstating it, I will restate it. BY MS. FISK: Q. The persons that you mentioned -- Mr. Newman is in San Diego, Floyd Jackson, a member of your Philadelphia Protection Services -- to the best of your knowledge, did those persons begin to look for Miss Jones at or about the same time that you began to look for Miss Jones, that is around or about mid-August of 1985? A. Mr. Newman did, yes, ma'am. Q. How about Floyd Jackson? A. No, ma'am. Q. Later? A. Later, yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. Now, you have told us that as part of your by standard initial efforts to locate Miss Jones, you checked, among other things, criminal records or Page 245. Christopher Milton - Cross her criminal extract in Philadelphia; would that be fair? That's what it's called. A. Yes. Q. And in checking Miss Jones' criminal extract in Philadelphia, did you note that in 1988 she had been found guilty of a weapons offense and had been placed on probation? A. I really don't remember that, I didn't look at it. Q. You didn't look at what? A. I didn't have that reason. Q. Oh. Well, if I were to suggest to you that Miss Jones was indeed convicted in 1988 of a weapons offense, is that something that you would have seen on her criminal history? A. If it was on there, yes, ma'am. Q. All right. And having checked that criminal history, did you then contact the Philadelphia Department of Probation And Parole to find out what if any information they had on her whereabouts during the pendency of her probation? A. Did I do that? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you suggest to any of the attorneys who Page 246. Christopher Milton - Cross had hired you that a subpoena duces tecum to the Probation Department might give you a more-recent address or biographical background or data regarding the person you were seeking? A. No, ma'am. Q. It never occurred to you to check with Probation, sir, in Philadelphia? A. No, ma'am. Q. Now, when you checked the criminal records regarding Miss Jones, do you also recall that you learned that she had been incarcerated during the pendency of this trial or at any time thereafter? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And specifically in Philadelphia, did you learn that? A. Yes. Q. Did you therefore as a result make an effort last summer, 1995, to subpoena the records from the Philadelphia prison in an attempt to get any biographical data they had regarding the woman you were seeking? A. Did I do that last year? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, ma'am, I don't remember doing that. Q. Did you suggest to any of the attorneys who Page 247. Christopher Milton - Cross had hired you that because she had been incarcerated that there would be records there that they might wish to subpoena and obtain? A. No, ma'am. Q. So to this day you still don't know what information, addresses or materials exist in those documents; is that correct? A. No, ma'am. Q. It is not correct or it is correct? A. No, I don't know. Q. Oh, okay. Now, in the check of criminal records, did you discover that Miss Jones had been found guilty of welfare fraud in Camden back in 19 -- I'm sorry -- yes, back in 1992? I'm sorry, I don't want to misstate it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: '88. BY MS. FISK: Q. I'm sorry, back in 1988? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you do a criminal record check in Camden? A. We went over to see if she had ever been arrested in Camden. Q. And did you discover that she indeed had been arrested in Camden? A. No, ma'am. Page 248. Christopher Milton - Cross Q. In what manner did you go over to New Jersey, then, and discover whether she had been arrested, please? A. The department that's right over the bridge, we stopped in there and we weren't given a whole lot of cooperation at that. Q. Did you suggest to the attorneys who had hired you or any of the persons who had hired you that a subpoena duces tecum to the Camden Courthouse to determine her full criminal history might give you additional information regarding her whereabouts? A. Did I suggest that, was that your question? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, ma'am, I did not. Q. And that was despite the fact that you were unable to obtain cooperation with those persons through an informal check of her records? A. We did a lot of civil work. When we couldn't get the criminal we said well maybe there is some civil information and we did come up with quite a few names. Q. But those were of various persons named Veronica Jones? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. As opposed to the person who you knew you were Page 249. Christopher Milton - Cross looking for who had been fingerprinted and who had an identifiable Philadelphia Police Identification Number? A. Well, at that point we still wasn't sure her complete name was Veronica Jones. Q. Well, you knew what her criminal extract said in Philadelphia, right? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. And that said Rhonda Harris; correct? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Q. Did you subpoena FBI records to determine, with the date of birth and the Philadelphia photo number that you obtained in Philadelphia, whether that person based on those fingerprints had any arrests in any other jurisdictions in the country? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you suggest of any of the attorneys who had retained you to attempt to locate this woman that those records from the FBI be subpoenaed so you would know that you were looking precisely for the same person? A. No, ma'am. Q. You knew that those were records that existed, Page 250. Christopher Milton - Cross did you not, sir? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, you told us that at some point, and that point was you told us two days before this matter was coming back to Court -- that is the matter of the Commonwealth versus Jamal -- is when you inquired as to the availability of the Quarter Sessions record; is that correct? A. Repeat that. Q. You said that you checked for her Quarter Sessions file, that is in the case in which she had initially been incarcerated in '82 and then a bench warrant was issued upon her in 1988, is that what you said, and they told you you couldn't get to it because the building was moving? A. I wasn't specific on what files but I did inquire about files concerning that young lady, yes. Q. Okay. And specifically did you attempt to locate the Quarter Sessions file, that is the Court document regarding her arrest in 1982 which resulted in the 1988 conviction? A. No, I didn't. Q. You did not? A. I asked for files on her, period. Q. And in what fashion did you ask for files on Page 251. Christopher Milton - Cross her, please? Did you make a formal, verbal request or did you issue a subpoena duces tecum? A. I asked that, I asked could files be obtained. And when I said that it was told to me that chances of getting them any time soon would not happen. Q. And that was because the Criminal Justice Center was opening and the Clerk of Quarter Sessions was moving documents from City Hall to this building? A. Right, that's what I was told. Q. Now, did I understand you to say on direct examination that since they were coming back for sentencing in two days you figured it wasn't worth it; is that what you said? A. I said the chances of me getting it might not be. Q. Okay. And when you said sentencing, am I correct that what you were referring to was the final closing arguments in this matter which took place in this building on September 11th of 1995; is that what you were referring to? A. No, ma'am, I am not. Q. What sentencing were you referring to? A. I haven't been in the Courtroom so I just knew that you were coming back here, or they were coming back here at a point that I needed to get what I was Page 252. Christopher Milton - Cross asked to get as soon as possible. Q. Now, was that request for those records made in August or September or October of 1995? If you know. A. You are saying September October? Q. I am asking you. A. I'm trying to remember. It was either late August or early September. Q. Now, I take it that you at some point became aware that in fact criminal court moved into this building; is that right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you thereafter return and make another effort to obtain all files having to do with this young lady? A. No, ma'am. Q. You never did? A. No, ma'am. Q. You then said you looked for people down in Baltimore? A. No, I didn't look for anybody. Q. You made alternative efforts to locate the person you were searching for; is that right? A. Yes. Page 253. Christopher Milton - Cross Q. Now, did you ever become aware during the course of your attempts to locate Miss Jones that she had children? A. That was talked about but there was nothing definite. Q. Because you know, sir, that had you subpoenaed her Philadelphia Probation records, it would have given you the name and age of each of her three children? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object as to what is in the Probation records. That is not in evidence and Miss Fisk is not under oath testifying. MS. FISK: When it comes to diligent efforts and things he could have done I believe it is legitimate. MR. WILLIAMS: She is making representations as to what is in the document. THE COURT: No, she is asking him if he had checked into it. MR. WILLIAMS: Right, and he said no. So whether he knows what is in those documents or not is irrelevant: He didn't check into it. But I don't want any representations as to what is in those documents. Page 254. Christopher Milton - Cross BY MS. FISK: Q. Did you ever become aware of the names and ages of Miss Jones' children? A. No. Q. Did you ever contact the Department of Public Welfare in the City of Philadelphia to find out whether or not Miss Jones was a recipient in Philadelphia of public assistance? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you ever contact the Department of Public Welfare in Camden, New Jersey? A. No, I did not. Q. Now, am I correct that you were aware that Miss Jones, that Miss Jones -- let me step back a moment. Were you provided with a copy of Miss Jones' statement to the police in December of 1981? A. Was I provided a copy of the statement to the police? Q. Yes, sir. A. Actually, I don't recall. Q. You have told us, however, that you were provided with a copy of her testimony from the trial? A. Yes. Q. You recall, then, Mr. Milton, that in the trial Miss Jones testified that at the time that she Page 255. Christopher Milton - Cross spoke to the police in December 1981, that she spoke to them in her mother's home in Camden, New Jersey? Do you recall that, sir? A. No. Q. You do not recall that? A. No. Q. Were you aware Miss Jones had contact, had contacts, that is her mother lived in Camden, New Jersey? A. No. Q. Did you read those notes of testimony, Mr. Milton? A. Yes. Q. Might it be that you knew that at one time when you were looking for her and you have since forgotten? A. No. Q. So you think you just missed that part of her testimony from the trial? A. Hmm, probably. Q. So you checked with the Department of Public Welfare in Philadelphia but you never checked with the Department of Public Welfare from Camden? A. Correct. Q. Am I correct that in the course of your Page 256. Christopher Milton - Cross looking for Miss Jones, however, you did develop leads in Camden? In fact, isn't this where you found the other address for the lady who moved to Baltimore? Or am I incorrect about that? A. You are incorrect about that. Q. That was an address in Philadelphia? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes. Q. Prior to locating Miss Jones in Camden in April 1996, had you received prior information that she had contacts with Camden? A. No. Q. I see. When was this lady in Baltimore located? A. When? Q. Yes, sir. A. Had to be around the early part of September. Q. Of...? A. '95. Q. So within a few weeks, or actually within a month of your attempts, of your being retained to attempt to locate this person you found the lady in Baltimore? A. Yes. Page 257. Christopher Milton - Cross Q. And then from September of 1995 to April of 1996 you were without success until you located her in April of '96? A. Yes. Q. Do you keep internal records regarding your time and how you are spending it when you are hired by a client? A. Yes. Q. Do you have those records with regard to these efforts to locate Miss Jones with you today? A. No, ma'am. Q. Were you asked to bring them? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did it occur to you that perhaps you might want to refer to them in order to answer questions today? MR. WILLIAMS: I would object to that: Did it occur to him. He is here testifying from his memory. MS. FISK: And unable to give me some precise information. THE COURT: If he had those papers he would be in a better position to answer questions. MR. WILLIAMS: We've had numerous Page 258. Christopher Milton - Cross police witnesses here who didn't occur to them to bring their police reports in. THE COURT: He is your witness. Did you ask him to bring his records? MR. WILLIAMS: What for? He is here to testify from his knowledge. THE COURT: But he -- MR. WILLIAMS: He hasn't said -- THE COURT: No, there are a lot of things he doesn't know. He is not sure of dates, et cetera. If he had the notes he would be in a better position to tell us when he did certain things. After all, I don't expect him to have a computer mind. BY MS. FISK: Q. I'm sorry, I apologize if I asked you this. I know I asked you about the Department of Probation from Philadelphia. Did you ever contact the Department of Probation from Camden County with regard to whether or not this lady was on probation from Camden? A. No, ma'am. Q. And again, you never contacted the prison with regard to records regarding her arrest in 1982 or in 1988? Page 259. Christopher Milton - Cross A. No, ma'am. Q. You never contacted welfare in Camden? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you ever contact Camden police officers to determine whether or not this lady was known to them, either as a complainant or a defendant? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And how many police officers did you speak to in Camden? A. Just the one gentleman that was at the window when we went over to Camden. Q. How long have you been a private investigator, for three years, sir? A. I have been licensed for three years. Q. And you worked under someone else's license for how many years before? A. Since 1988. Q. During that period of time you have undoubtedly developed resources in government agencies and cities and police departments all throughout this area; would that be fair to say? A. Ask that question again. Q. Certainly. Throughout the period of time that you have worked as a private investigator, either under your license or under other licenses, you have Page 260. Christopher Milton - Cross developed resources and sources of information throughout the area; would that be fair to say? A. Ahh, I guess so, yes, ma'am. Q. And do those resources include police officers and law enforcement officers in the Camden, New Jersey area? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you attempt to develop any persons or ask any police officers other than the person at the window who you said wasn't very cooperative regarding Miss Jones? A. No, ma'am. Q. And again so I am clear: Did you make any efforts to have any records from Camden subpoenaed or ever ask the attorneys to assist you in your inquiry by subpoenaing any records in Camden? A. No, ma'am. Q. And did you ever ask the attorneys to subpoena any records anywhere to assist you in this search? A. No, ma'am. MS. FISK: I have no further questions of Mr. Milton, Your Honor. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - Page 261. Christopher Milton - Redirect BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Milton, once your office got the real Veronica Jones address in Camden, New Jersey, you went there and you were able to locate her; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, if you, with your modest company, if you had a bench warrant or a copy of a bench warrant that had her address in Camden back in 1994 -- strike that -- back in 1985, you could have found her immediately, couldn't you? A. Yes. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, if that bench warrant had that address, that Camden address, somebody from your modest private investigating office could have found her pretty quickly; isn't that right? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: What is the basis of your objection? MS. FISK: Because that's supposition. We don't know. MR. WILLIAMS: He just testified that once he got the address he was able to locate Page 262. Christopher Milton - Redirect her. THE COURT: I don't know, how did you get that address? THE WITNESS: How did I get what address? THE COURT: Where you made the arrest. MS. FISK: No. THE COURT: Or where you located her. THE WITNESS: It was faxed to me from Mr. Newman. THE COURT: Mr. Newman, who is he? MS. FISK: The man in San Diego doing computer searches, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, he is the guy that found the address. THE WITNESS: He gave me quite a few of them, Your Honor, I just ran to them. THE COURT: Once you got that address from Mr. Newman on a piece of paper, you marched right over into Camden and you found her? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So presumably, if law enforcement from Camden or some other jurisdiction had that address on a piece of paper they could have done the same thing Page 263. Christopher Milton - Redirect you did? MS. FISK: Objection. Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. What they could have done and what they did do are two different things. MR. WILLIAMS: What they did do was they went in there after she testified to arrest her. That's what they did. THE COURT: Counselor, all I am saying to you is bring them in from Camden, find out what they did. I don't know that they did anything. MR. WILLIAMS: They did nothing is what they did. All you -- THE COURT: I don't know that. MR. WILLIAMS: All you have to do is go to the house, which is what Mr. Milton did. Very simple. But it took a call from the D.A. here in Philadelphia to go to her house to arrest her after she testified. THE COURT: They didn't go to her house to arrest her, they came here. MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly right, they could have went to her house but they waited Page 264. Christopher Milton - Redirect to -- MS. FISK: Is Counsel now claiming that they purposely waited? This is getting even better. MR. WILLIAMS: They came here because Ms. Fisk wanted her arrested on this particular day, that's why. THE COURT: You keep talking about what Camden County Police Department does. I don't know if they did anything. But besides that, they have the State Police in there helping them out. They have so much crime there I don't think they could find anybody. You know that. They have State Police helping them out. They are overloaded there in Camden County. They have more crime there than any place I think in the world. MR. WILLIAMS: So with all that crime it was important for them to be able to come and arrest Miss Jones here. MS. FISK: Is this important to the examination of Mr. Milton? THE COURT: I thought it was. MR. WILLIAMS: But with all that crime it was important enough for them to come to this Page 265. Christopher Milton - Redirect Courtroom. THE COURT: Do you have any questions you want to ask this man? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I do. THE COURT: All right, ask him and let's get moving, we will be here forever. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, this Mr. Newman that you mentioned: Do you actually know when he was retained by the defense team? MS. FISK: Objection. THE WITNESS: No, I don't. MS. FISK: Withdraw that objection. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Miss Fisk. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. And if the District Attorney's Office offered you the address of Miss Jones, would you have found Miss Jones immediately? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were you ever told by anybody to withhold the fact that you knew where Miss Jones was located? A. No. MS. FISK: Objection, Judge: I frankly don't understand the question, don't understand it's relevance. The testimony of the Page 266. Christopher Milton - Redirect witness is that when he located her in April he located her and told everybody, that is those who hired him, that he found her, and there has been no claim otherwise. MR. WILLIAMS: I am just rebutting any suggestion that there was bad faith here by the defense that we sat on this witness and withheld her from this Court prior to April of 1996. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Sir, did you use your best efforts in locating Miss Jones? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were you ever told not to use your best efforts? A. No, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. MS. FISK: I have no recross-examination, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Milton. THE COURT: I guess they don't want to ask you anymore questions. You can go. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: All right, I think, do you have anymore witnesses today or do you want to bring them in tomorrow? Page 267. MR. WILLIAMS: I got the sense that Your Honor is tired. We are tired. I think we could adjourn for tomorrow. MS. FISK: Your Honor, before we break, I have had a number of retired Philadelphia police officers who may still need to testify. May I just check to make sure that they are available tomorrow? THE COURT: Oh. All right, go ahead. MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we do have one very quick witness, Floyd Jackson, and I think we can -- THE COURT: How long? MR. WILLIAMS: He is much shorter than Mr. Milton. THE COURT: Well, how long? Here is a clock. It's almost ten after 4:00. MR. WILLIAMS: I would say ten minutes. THE COURT: 10 minutes. Okay. Call him. Who is he? Counselor, who is he? MR. WILLIAMS: Oh. Floyd Jackson. MS. FISK: He was identified by Page 268. Mr. Milton as the other person who assisted in locating Miss Jones, Your Honor. THE COURT OFFICER: Floyd Jackson. - - - - - Floyd James Jackson, having been duly sworn, - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson. A. Good afternoon. Q. Can you tell the Court where are you employed? A. Philadelphia Protection Service. Q. Are you associated with Mr. Milton, who just testified here? A. Yes, I am. Q. And in what way are you associated with him? A. I'm an affiliated agent of his. Q. You are an agent of his? A. Yes. Q. Did you have occasion to embark on an assignment to locate a woman by the name of Veronica Jones? A. Yes, I did. Page 269. Floyd Jackson - Direct Q. Was it your understanding that Miss Jones had aliases as well? A. Yes. Q. And did there come a point where you did find Miss Veronica Jones? A. Yes. Q. When did that occur? A. April 15th, 1996. Q. This past April? A. Yes. Q. And tell me how did that come about that you located this Miss Jones? A. Umm, basically we had a, me and Mr. Newman had a printout, we went through various residences in Pennsylvania, which we discarded, and ended up checking a couple residences in Camden, and eventually found I believe a relative's residence. Upon which finding the relative's residence we were able to contact Veronica. Q. Can you be more specific about this relative? A. I believe it was her mother's residence. Q. So you found the home of Miss Jones' mother? A. Correct. Q. And upon finding the home of Miss Jones' mother, you were able to locate Veronica Jones Page 270. Floyd Jackson - Direct herself? A. Through her mother. Q. Through her mother? A. Correct. Q. And all of this took place, by the way -- could you speak up a little bit -- by the way, this took place -- A. April. Q. -- all in April of '96? A. Correct. Q. And once you had that address of Veronica Jones in Camden, New Jersey, did you have any difficulty in locating her at that point? A. No, we did not. Q. You just went to her home and she was there? A. I believe. Q. I'm sorry, her mother's home, you went to her mother's home and you were able to locate her then? A. I believe the first time was encountering, she wasn't actually physically there. I believe the first day that we went there we actually left a message with her mother and then the proceeding day we was able to actually contact her at the residence. Q. At her mother's home? A. Correct. Page 271. Floyd Jackson - Direct Q. Okay. Once you located her was the defense team notified? A. Yes, they were. Q. Okay. And that was quickly after, immediately after? A. Certainly, yes. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. I am interested to know, Mr. Jackson, about this printout that you and Mr. Newman had. What is it, sir? A. Basically, that would be some information that Mr. Newman had. So I'm not actually sure exactly where he actually got the information from. Q. You don't know the source of that information? A. No, I don't. Q. You don't know when it was developed? A. No. Q. You don't know how long Mr. Newman had that printout? A. No. Q. It was a printout of addresses? Page 272. Floyd Jackson - Cross A. Yes. Q. Was it from credit card records? Criminal records? Welfare records? A. I don't know. Q. You have no idea? A. No. Q. And then you don't know how long he had it? A. No. Q. Or how he had obtained it? A. No. Q. When did you begin working, sir, on this matter, that is to locate Miss Jones? A. April the 13th. Q. And you told us that she was located on April 15th? A. Correct. Q. So you spent two days? A. Correct. Q. And specifically, then, on April 13th, as a result of this list that Mr. Newman gave you you went to the address of Miss Jones' mother? Would that be fair to say? A. Eventually. Q. Was that on the 13th, the day that you started your efforts? Page 273. Floyd Jackson - Cross A. No. Q. It was on April 14th? A. Yes. Q. So on April 13th you went someplace else? A. Yes. Q. And on April 14th you went to this address and discovered that you had located the person you were looking for? A. Yes. Q. And on the following day you found her; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. So your efforts involved going to two addresses, one which was not hers and one which was and locating her? A. No. Q. What else did you do? A. It was more than two addresses. Q. Oh. You went to other addresses on the 13th? A. Yes. Q. How many? A. I would say approximately five. Q. And were those all in the Camden area? A. No. Q. Other than the one -- well, were any of those Page 274. Floyd Jackson - Cross on the 13th in the Camden area? A. Pardon. Q. Were any of those addresses that you went to on April 13 -- A. No. Q. -- in Camden, New Jersey? A. No. Q. On April 14th when you discovered her mother's address, was that the first address you went to on April 14th? A. I believe not. Q. Were there any other addresses you went to on that day in the Camden, New Jersey area? A. Yes. Q. Prior to that day, do you know whether there had been any information obtained regarding Miss Jones living in Camden? A. No. Q. Were you ever provided on April 113th when you were retained or brought in to work -- let me back up. Were you brought in by Mr. Milton to assist him? A. Yes. Q. And that was because he was engaged in other matters when Mr. Newman presented this list; would that be fair to say? Page 275. Floyd Jackson - Cross A. That would be an assumption. Q. Well, I am assuming but I am asking you if that would be correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So you were never given, am I correct, any other background, you were simply told or assigned to work with Mr. Newman and review these addresses? A. Correct. Q. Would that be correct? And you did that for two days until you found the person you were looking for? A. Yes. Q. How many hours did you spend on this, sir? A. Total? Q. With regard to locating Miss Jones? A. I will say roughly... anywhere from 19 to 23 hours. Q. Now, was your time billed directly to the defense or did Mr. Milton bill for your time, if you know? A. I don't know. Q. Are you paid by Mr. Milton or do you work as an independent contractor? A. Mr. Milton. Page 276. Floyd Jackson - Cross Q. And at what rate are you paid by Mr. Milton, sir? A. It varies. MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to what kind of income or salary he makes. THE COURT: She didn't ask him about his salary. MR. WILLIAMS: She just asked him what -- THE COURT: What does he pay him. MR. WILLIAMS: That is about his income. THE COURT: It is not about his income. MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that question: It's irrelevant. THE COURT: Okay. If it is irrelevant what are you objecting for? MR. WILLIAMS: Because it's irrelevant, that's why I am objecting. MS. FISK: I will make life easy for Counsel, I will withdraw that question. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms. Fisk. MS. FISK: You're very welcome, Counsel. Page 277. Floyd Jackson - Cross I have no further questions of Mr. Jackson, your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly, Your Honor. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Once you got the addresses, Mr. Jackson, I take it that you acted on that information very quickly? A. Yes. Q. Immediately, in fact? A. Yes. Q. And you were directed to go to these addresses with Mr. Newman? A. Correct. Q. And that was because Mr. Milton was not available in your office, right? A. Correct. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. THE COURT: You said that you had what, five addresses you went to on the 14th of April? THE WITNESS: I believe so. I believe Page 278. there was five. I'm not -- THE COURT: All right, did you go to those other four before you went to the one where her mother lives? THE WITNESS: The five addresses were in Pennsylvania. THE COURT: Oh. Did you go there first before you went over -- THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: You want there first? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And then you went over to Jersey to the one address that you had in Camden? THE WITNESS: There was more than one address in Camden. THE COURT: Well, how many addresses did you go to in Camden? THE WITNESS: I believe it was three. THE COURT: All right. Did that include the one with her mother? THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: Or in addition? THE WITNESS: It included it. THE COURT: It included that. So you Page 279. Floyd Jackson - Recross went to two other addresses before you went to her mother's place? THE WITNESS: Actually, one turned out not to be a residence. THE COURT: Okay, then you went to the other one before you went to the mother's house? THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: Why didn't you go to the mother's house first? THE WITNESS: We had no idea it was the mother's house. THE COURT: Well, what was on that paper that lead you to that address, what did it say? THE WITNESS: If I could recollect in my memory, it had just various addresses or locations that were probable as a residence for the subject in question. - - - - - RECROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. And you have no idea -- THE COURT: Go ahead, go ahead. BY MS. FISK: Page 280. Floyd Jackson - Recross Q. You have no idea how those were developed by Mr. Newman or when they were obtained by Mr. Newman; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Is Mr. Newman here today? A. No, he's not. THE COURT: Is that it? MS. FISK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, just as we close: Tomorrow --- THE COURT: Wait a minute. You are excused. (Witness excused.) MR. WEINGLASS: For tomorrow, we would ask the District Attorney to provide us with the address of Cynthia White, who we would like to call tomorrow. She is a key witness. THE COURT: Counselor, I don't have anything on the Order about Cynthia White. MR. WEINGLASS: No, it is a full factual record on Veronica Jones. THE COURT: I don't have anything about Cynthia White. Now, if you wanted to call Cynthia White you go back to the Supreme Court. Page 281. MS. FISK: And, Your Honor, I could make it easy: I don't have an address for Cynthia White. THE COURT: You don't have it? MS. FISK: No, sir. THE COURT: Well. MR. WEINGLASS: So much for the District Attorney's cooperation in producing witnesses. THE COURT: If vou want to do what you want to do, Counselor, go up to the Supreme Court, let them tell me what they want you to present. MR. WEINGLASS: I do want to state that we are still and we have been looking for Cynthia White. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: Over many months. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINGLASS: And we are not getting any cooperation from the District Attorney. And when we find her we will produce her. We were hoping to produce her tomorrow. THE COURT: You will first take it up with the Supreme Court. If they want me to hear Page 282. from Cynthia White, okay. Was she here last time? MR. WEINGLASS: We could not locate her. THE COURT: Oh. MR. WEINGLASS: We were trying to locate her throughout. She was virtually unfindable. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I inquire just for the convenience of the officers who I may bring back tomorrow whether the defense anticipates putting up any additional witnesses tomorrow so I can determine in terms of -- MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. THE COURT: How many? (Discussion held off the record at this time.) MR. WEINGLASS: Three or four witnesses. THE COURT: Who are they? MR. WEINGLASS: I would assume it would be a half a day's testimony. THE COURT: Well, who are they? MR. WEINGLASS: They are Mr. Michael Page 283. Bell from San Diego, Mr. Newman's associate, who did the computer search and developed and provided the final information indicating Veronica Jones' residence. THE COURT: Okay, who else? MR. WEINGLASS: There will be a gentleman named George Edwards who provided information on Veronica Jones' whereabouts in New Haven, Connecticut, which was followed up on because we had a photo of that Veronica Jones and a history and it indicated to us before the PCRA hearing that we had located Veronica Jones. It turned out to be a false lead. We have subpoenaed witnesses named Joseph Brignola and a witness named Lamont Anderson. THE COURT: Joseph...? MR. WEINGLASS: Joseph Brignola is a licensed investigator and Lamont Anderson is a licensed investigator. THE COURT: Joseph what? MR. WEINGLASS: Brignola. MS. FISK: B-R-I-G-N-O-L-A. THE COURT: I thought V, I thought you said Vig. Page 284. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Brignola. And Lamont Anderson. (Discussion held off the record at this time.) MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. And another gentleman named Mr. Childs, who is another licensed investigator. In other words, we have three licensed investigators in this area, plus the computer specialist from San Diego. Plus we have a long declaration for the Court from Michael Newman who is testifying now under subpoena in a proceeding in California and could not be here, but has provided us with a declaration with an exhibit appended concerning his work which preceded the work of the witness who you heard from today. MS. FISK: I can advise Counsel now that the Commonwealth will not agree or stipulate to a declaration that the Commonwealth has not had an opportunity to cross-examine and would object to any declaration being offered. THE COURT: Well, you will have the other, his assistant, won't you? MR. WEINGLASS: We will have his assistant. Page 285. THE COURT: Well, then. MR. WEINGLASS: If the assistant is permitted to testify on the basis of hearsay. THE COURT: What he did, sure. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the assistant will have the declaration with him, the original, and we will be offering it into evidence. THE COURT: They can't cross-examine a piece of paper. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the witness is under subpoena testifying in another matter. He can not be available. He is from California. But we do have his assistant, and we have his assistant bringing a declaration. THE COURT: I know, but a declaration, she can't cross-examine that. MR. WEINGLASS: We offer the declaration as the only available evidence we have from a witness who is in California. THE COURT: Well, sorry about that. MS. FISK: It is absolutely remarkable that last summer when Counsel's witnesses were unavailable they were here each and every day requesting continuances of proceedings because Page 286. the witnesses were unavailable. Quite to the contrary, now we learn half way through this proceeding that they have a witness who was unavailable yet they have never sought to continue the matter, they are simply seeking to admit what they want to admit in writing. I am simply advising Counsel that we would object to any hearsay and we will object to any testimony we can't cross-examine. THE COURT: You can't cross-examine a piece of paper. MR. WEINGLASS: We hereby request a continuance that Michael Newman could be brought to Court. THE COURT: You better get him down here fast. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he is in Court today and tomorrow. THE COURT: What am I supposed to do? You are in Court today. MR. WEINGLASS: You could grant us a continuance so he could be here. THE COURT: Continuance to when? MR. WEINGLASS: I think he could probably be here early next week. Page 287. THE COURT: Oh, come on. Hey, they said I am supposed to have this hearing within 30 days and I am supposed to make my decision within 30 days. I can't do it for his convenience. MR. WEINGLASS: It is not a question of his convenience. THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. WEINGLASS: He was subpoenaed in other cases and he can not be here. THE COURT: Counselor, it is something that I can't correct for you, I'm sorry. MR. WEINGLASS: Then would the Court be willing to hear from Michael Newman? THE COURT: Now. MR. WEINGLASS: He can't come in tomorrow, he is in Court. We ask for a continuance, a reasonable continuance so he can be here. MS. FISK: And my position, Your Honor, is that is untimely when Your Honor scheduled this hearing two weeks ago. It certainly would have been appropriate at that time for Counsel to notify the Court that day or perhaps the day after when they learned of the Page 288. witness' unavailability that several days were needed. But at the time now other witnesses have come, including Mrs. Faulkner, who has flown here from California. It is unreasonable to delay this case further. THE COURT: I don't think what he is going to say is important: He will have his assistant here to tell us what he did, that will be sufficient. Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, there is more to what was done than what the assistant did. The assistant is the commuter specialist in San Diego. Mr. Newman came here -- THE COURT: He is the expert who found the address, right? MR. WEINGLASS: But Mr. Newman is the one who came here and attempted to locate Veronica Jones. He did that before the PCRA hearing. THE COURT: I understand that. But the computer guy is the one who found the address. MR. WEINGLASS: That is correct, but we are -- THE COURT: But Newman didn't have to Page 289. come down here, he could have mailed them this information and they could have gone out and checked it. Okay, tomorrow. Let's go with whatever you have. MR. WEINGLASS: I would like a date if I could get one for Mr. Newman to testify. THE COURT: You do what you want, but the Supreme Court has given me a limit and I am going to go by that limit. If you want to go back up to the Supreme Court and ask them to please give you another extension -- MR. WEINGLASS: It would be necessary to get Mr. Newman's testimony to reapply to the Supreme Court for an additional remand. THE COURT: Counselor, you have gone up there without asking me, you could go up there again without asking me. I don't care what you do. MR. WEINGLASS: We are asking you for a continuance so we could bring him in. THE COURT: I am telling you I am not going to give you a continuance because I'm obligated to start this case today and finish it as soon as I can, and within 30 days I have to give a decision. He has to get the records Page 290. transcribed. And they have to have all of this within 30 days. What do you think I am, I could do that in five minutes? MR. WEINGLASS: Well, we could bring him in here next Monday. THE COURT: You bring him in here before next Monday. MR. WEINGLASS: What date would the Court suggest? THE COURT: Tomorrow. MR. WEINGLASS: He could not be available tomorrow. THE COURT: That is your problem. MR. WEINGLASS: What about Friday? THE COURT: That is your problem. If you want to go to the Supreme Court and say we need this guy and we can't get him until next week, and they want to continue it to next week, it doesn't bother me. MR. WEINGLASS: We have to make a continuance. MS. FISK: Would the record reflect that it is only for the first time at 4:30 p.m. on this first day of the hearing that Counsel has ever made an application to the Court for a Page 291. continuance because of the unavailability -- MR. WEINGLASS: We thought his declaration would suffice. THE COURT: You know that's not. MS. FISK: I believe they are well aware of the law, Your Honor, and know very well that Counsel is permitted to cross-exam -- THE COURT: They can't cross-examine a written statement. All right, see you tomorrow, then. MS. FISK: Thank you. THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning at the call of the Crier. - - - - - (The hearing was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.) - - - - - Page 292. 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||