|
|
Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-JamalPCRA-Anhörung vom 30. Juni 1997 |
|||||||||||||
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
- - - - - PCRA Hearing - - - - - Monday, June 30, 1997 - - - - - BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J. - - - - -
- - - - - TRANSCRIBED BY: CHARLES M. GORGOL |
|
Page 2.
EXHIBITS
Page 3. - - - - - (At 10:15 a.m. the hearing was convened in the - - - - - MR. PIPER: Your Honor, on Friday morning, on Friday morning I spoke to U.S. Attorney Joel Goldstein who prosecuted the 39th District cases requesting authentic copies of the interview statements of Tom Ryan, the witness, and Pamela Jenkins. He said that under the Federal Secrecy Act he could not provide me -- this is the U.S. Attorney Goldstein said he could not provide me these statements. However, he told me that at a non-public proceeding he had been ordered to give them to Arlene Fisk and had in fact given these statements to her on Thursday morning. He said he thought we would be able to get the documents from Ms. Fisk, and from the conversation it was my understanding that he meant that he expected that we were entitled to get them from Ms. Fisk. But we also have subpoenaed those documents from the Assistant District Attorney because we have not in the past been able to rely on their Page 4. fulfilling those obligations. Under our subpoena, the Brady doctrine, and Commonwealth versus Ulen, we are entitled to receive these statements of Mr. Ryan and Ms. Jenkins, and we request that they be produced pursuant to our subpoena. MS. FISK: Your Honor has previously ruled that Rule 305 discovery does not apply in PCRA proceedings. And Counsel cannot do by way of subpoena what they are not due by way of discovery. This was not documents that related to Brady, there was no exculpatory material in them, they were not even mainly the statements of a witness, they are merely summaries of reports of FBI agents based on matters completely unrelated to this one. For that reason I ask that the discovery request be denied and the subpoena served upon us for discovery of these documents be quashed. THE COURT: All right. MR. PIPER: Your Honor, as we have noted, even the recent Bracey case indicates the -- THE COURT: Counselor, I am not going Page 5. Thomas Ryan - Direct to waste time. I will make a decision, you take it back up to the Supreme Court. If they want to give you the information, fine. But I am not going to get involved in all of that. Okay. It is denied. The subpoena is quashed. - - - - - Thomas F. Ryan, having been duly sworn, - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Mr. Ryan, good morning. A. Good morning. Q. Are you still a police officer of the City of Philadelphia? A. No, sir. Q. When did you cease being a police officer? A. 1991. Q. And was that as a result of a resignation on your part? A. That's correct. Q. Now, when you appeared here last Thursday, you knew you were going to be testifying in this case about matters that have occurred some 15 or 16 years Page 6. Thomas Ryan - Direct ago: isn't that true? A. I wasn't sure what I was going to be testifying to, sir. Q. Did you review any records or statements or documents prior to your appearance here last Thursday? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any conversations prior to your taking the stand last Thursday with representatives of the District Attorney's Office? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any conversations prior to taking the stand with members of the Philadelphia Police Department? A. Yes, sir. Q. And who did you have a conversation with? A. Detective Walsh. Q. And is he seated here in Court today? A. Yes, he is. Q. As a matter of fact, did you have a conversation with Detective Walsh this morning? A. Yes, I did. Q. And aside from your conversation with Detective Walsh -- was that last Thursday? Or was that prior to last Thursday? Your first conversation Page 7. Thomas Ryan - Direct with Detective Walsh. A. Prior. Q. What day was that? A. I don't recall. Q. It was just last Thursday, you don't remember what day before last Thursday? MS. FISK: Objection, Judge. THE COURT: He said he didn't so let's proceed. Come on. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. You can't recall a conversation last week but you do recall events that happened in 1982? MS. FISK: Objection, Judge: That is not what he said. THE COURT: Well, your witness had the same thing, Pamela Jenkins. Her memory wasn't too good either. MS. FISK: And I would note, Your Honor, that this is also their witness. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, when you spoke with Detective Walsh the first time, what did you talk about? A. Coming to Court. Q. And did you talk about what you were coming to Court for? Page 8. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. Yes; your private investigator served me a subpoena. Q. And did you talk to Detective Walsh about anything to do with Pamela Jenkins? A. Just that she would be testifying in Court. Q. And did Detective Walsh and you talk about your relationship with Pamela Jenkins? A. No. Q. Did not? Did Detective Walsh and you review any documents or testimony? A. Yes. Q. What documents or testimony did you review? A. The statement of Pamela Jenkins from January the 9th, 1997. Q. Did you and Detective Walsh review any statement or statements that you might have made? A. No, sir. Q. Now, how long did you talk to Detective Walsh? A. Approximately an hour. Q. And in that hour, recall for us as best you can what was discussed? A. Within that hour we discussed what I have been doing since 1991. What he has been doing. We discussed his house. Umm... and I read the statement. Page 9. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. And did you discuss the statement? A. No, I just read it. Q. And after you read it you and Detective Walsh had no discussion about the statement; is that correct? A. No, he just offered it to me to read. Q. And after you read it, you and he had no discussion about that statement; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did you indicate to him that it was true or untrue? A. Sir, we didn't discuss it. He handed it to me, he said this is the statement of Pamela Jenkins, and he asked me to review it and I read the statement. Q. And you had no reaction that you gave to him verbally? A. No, I just read it. Q. Okay. And aside from Detective Walsh, did you meet with any other police officers prior to testifying last Thursday? A. No. Q. You just came to Court and you took the stand when called and testified without meeting any other police officers? Page 10. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. Sir, when you say meeting, could you define that for me? Q. I mean face to face. THE COURT: Well, he is asking you, do you mean discussing this case or what? He may have said hello to somebody. Be more specific. THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. On this floor did you have occasion to be in a room with other police officers? A. Yes. In this room. Q. Pardon me? A. In this room. Q. Right, and any other room? A. In the building generally. Q. Right. A. The building's full of police officers, sir. Q. Right. But you didn't have any meeting with other police officers relative to this case? A. No. Q. All right. And when you took the stand last Thursday you were wearing a button, were you not? A. Yes. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Page 11. Thomas Ryan - Direct And what did that button say? THE COURT: Sustained. MS. FISK: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. I am not interested in a button. MR. WEINGLASS: It goes to the bias of the witness. THE COURT: No, it doesn't. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness was wearing a button for Officer Faulkner. Now, when a witness comes into this Courtroom and testifies and has a button for one side, that should go on the record. THE COURT: Why didn't you tell him to take it off? MR. WEINGLASS: I have no authority to do that. THE COURT: It is your witness. MR. WEINGLASS: I have no authority. THE COURT: It is your witness. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness was wearing a button for Officer Faulkner. THE COURT: All right, he was wearing a button. But let's -- I'm not here to hear all about his life. I am not concerned about his Page 12. Thomas Ryan - Direct life. MR. WEINGLASS: You are the Judge that is going to -- THE COURT: I am only here to hear what he had to do with the Mumia case. If he had nothing to do with the Mumia case, I don't want to hear about his case. Somebody else heard that case. MR. WEINGLASS: You have to judge his credibility. THE COURT: I could judge his credibility without that. MR. WEINGLASS: Without knowing a bias? THE COURT: Without that, Counselor. MR. WEINGLASS: I think we can all agree he was wearing the button to Court. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Unless Mr. Weinglass would like to testify, Your Honor, and subject himself to cross-examination, we can't agree with anything Counsel says. MR. WEINGLASS: I am being blocked from questioning a witness and I have to put it on the record. THE COURT: No, you could get on this Page 13. Thomas Ryan - Direct stand, swear to tell the truth and tell under oath that you saw a button on him and what he was wearing. MR. WEINGLASS: And I am not allowed to ask him that? THE COURT: No. MR. WEINGLASS: Okay. THE COURT: That's what she is saying: She says you are making statements that can't be challenged. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, prior to today's hearing you met with Detective Walsh again, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you discuss anything about your testimony? A. No, not about my testimony. Q. How long did you meet with him? A. We spoke for about ten minutes. Q. Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, prior to today you talked to Detective Walsh for about an hour and 10 minutes total. Have you talked to anybody from the District Attorney's Office prior to today? A. Prior to today, no. Q. Prior to Thursday? Page 14. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. No. Q. Have you talked to any representatives of the defense? A. When? Q. Prior to today. A. Only your private investigator. Q. And when was that? A. When he served me the subpoena. Q. And how long did you talk to him? A. About ten minutes. Q. And did he ask you any questions relative to your testimony? A. Not at that time. When he came to my door the second time he did. Q. And what was your response to that? A. Tell the attorneys to ask me on the witness stand. Q. In other words, you refused to talk to him about your testimony? MS. FISK: Objection. THE COURT: Counselor. MS. FISK: Asked -- THE COURT: The objection is sustained. He told you what he said. It is not for you to interpret it. Page 15. Thomas Ryan - Direct BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, Mr. Ryan, would it be fair to say that you favor the District Attorney's Office in this hearing over the defense? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, would it also be fair to say that your recollection of the events about which you have been questioned on Thursday was better nine years ago than it was last Thursday? MS. FISK: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question, only because it is overly broad: The events of nine years ago. There have been no events that have been admitted to by this witness. I object to the form. MR. WEINGLASS: Counsel misheard my question, unfortunately. THE COURT: I would suggest that you rephrase your question. Lay the groundwork if you have any. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, you testified Thursday about events that happened in 1982; isn't that correct? A. Yes, there was testimony about 1982. Page 16. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. And you gave that testimony? A. I responded to questions regarding 1990 -- 1982. Q. Okay. Nine years ago in 1988 was your recollection better about events in 1982 than it is today? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know if you recalled events of 1982 better in 1988 than you do in 1997? A. Sir, if you could tell me specific events maybe that would help me recall. Q. Right, I am just asking you in general? A. You're asking me about a chronological year, do I recall events from nine years ago? Q. No. Again, I am asking you about your recall of events in 1982, was it better in 1988 than it is today? A. Again I say I don't know. Q. In other words, you think your recollection has improved in the last nine years? MS. FISK: Objection, Judge. Perhaps Counsel doesn't understand the meaning of I don't know but it is fairly clear and I object. He has answered the question. THE COURT: Objection is sustained. Page 17. Thomas Ryan - Direct BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Is your recollection better today than it was in 1988? MS. FISK: Objection, Judge: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Please, this is not a guessing game. If you have something specific to ask give it to him. Don't expect him to answer general questions like that. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, in 1988 you did testify under oath; isn't that correct? THE COURT: In which case? What are you talking about? THE WITNESS: I was a police officer, I went to Court a lot in 1988. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. In the Carter case you testified -- THE COURT: Counselor, I am not interested in the Carter case. I don't care what he did in the Carter case. I want to know what he did in this case, the Mumia case. That's all I am interested in. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. In 1988, in the case of Commonwealth V Carter, Page 18. Thomas Ryan - Direct did you testify? THE COURT: I just said I am not interested in the Carter case. MS. FISK: And, Your Honor, I would note for the record that questions with regard to Officer Thomas Ryan's testimony in 1988 were asked and answered on direct examination on Friday before we broke. Notes of testimony were read from, referred to, they are on the record. And just because Counsel wants to ask them again doesn't mean he has a right to. These questions are asked and answered, that area has been covered. THE COURT: I am not going to go over it a second time. I am not here, you are not here to delay this Court or the Supreme Court. They want a reply immediately and I am going to give it to them. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, have you given sworn testimony previous to today about your relationship with Pamela Jenkins who testified in this hearing? (Pause) A. I'm not sure if I have or not. Q. Right. I want to show you, then, you're Page 19. Thomas Ryan - Direct testimony about Pamela Jenkins in which you were asked this question. How long had you known Pamela Jenkins as of September -- MS. FISK: I have another objection: This is asked and answered. THE COURT: It's already been asked and answered. MS. FISK: On Thursday. THE COURT: Objection is sustained. Strike it from the record. Now, come on, Counselor, you are wasting my time. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, you were also questioned, were you not, about Pamela Jenkins who testified in this hearing in another proceeding in 1996, that was last year, in a deposition that you gave in a civil suit? A. What is your question, Counselor? Q. Were you questioned about Pamela Jenkins in 1996 in a deposition that you gave in a civil suit? A. Specifically, I don't recall. Q. You don't recall that deposition either? A. If you have the information I would be glad to review it. Page 20. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. Do you recall giving a deposition? A. Sir, I have given many depositions. Q. Do you recall giving a deposition in 1996 about Pamela Jenkins? THE COURT: Is it in reference to Mumia? MR. WEINGLASS: It is about Pamela Jenkins. THE COURT: I don't care about Pamela Jenkins. Was it about Mumia? MR. WEINGLASS: It was about his relationship with Pamela Jenkins. THE COURT: I am not interested in his relationship. I already know what his relationship was: He was sleeping with her. So what.. MR. WEINGLASS: It was about when it began, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't care when it began or when it ended. MR. WEINGLASS: That issue is very much a factor. THE COURT: No, it is not a factor. If he didn't talk to her about Mumia, I am not interested in it. Page 21. Thomas Ryan - Direct MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, in this Courtroom Mr. Jamal is Mr. Jamal. I think it is extremely disrespectful for the Court to refer to the Defendant by his first name. THE COURT: Well, it's the only name I could remember offhand. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It is Mr. Jamal. Mumia -- THE COURT: Mumia Abu-Jamal, okay. If it is not about that I am not interested. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Do you remember saying under oath in 1996 that you first met Pamela Jenkins in 1983? A. No, I don't remember that, sir. Q. I want to show you this testimony. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness -- THE COURT: Is this important when he met her? MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, was Mumia's case over with? MR. WEINGLASS: It is important because Pamela Jenkins said she met him in '81. THE COURT: I don't care what she Page 22. Thomas Ryan - Direct said. MR. WEINGLASS: That's why he brought her down to Richard Ryan three days after it occurred for an interview. When he testified he said that he met her in '82, which we contend is false. Previously he had said under oath that he met her in '81 and now a second time under oath he says he met her in '83. THE COURT: So what, people have lapses of memory. You're own witness Pamela Jones, she couldn't -- I mean Pamela Jenkins -- she couldn't remember everything either when it came to dates. MR. WEINGLASS: She remembered the date that they met. MS. FISK: She also remembered seeing a dead woman three months ago, Your Honor. THE COURT: You see. You see what you are up against. People have lapses of memory as far as dates. And that's not going to help me in deciding this case. If you want to argue that to the Supreme Court, fine, be my guest. But I don't want to get involved in unnecessary discussions in this matter. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, peoples' lapse Page 23. Thomas Ryan - Direct of memory is a factor the Court should consider in determining whether or not they are credible. THE COURT: I know that, I realize that people have lapse of memory, but when they come up with specific evidence like a death certificate, well, you know, I don't have any trouble with her testimony. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, you might after you hear the rebuttal to it. But -- THE COURT: Let me tell you this: I am not going to get too far into rebuttal. Because if you wanted further, to present further testimony, you go back to the Supreme Court and get permission. I am here specifically for what they said here in their Order and I am not going to go beyond that. If you need to go beyond that, go back up to the Supreme Court. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Following up on the Court's observations: Would it be fair to say, Mr. Ryan, that your recollection of when you met Pamela Jenkins today is not very clear? A. No, my recollection today is very clear. Q. And when is that date? Page 24. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. That date is June the l0th, 1982. Q. Do you remember saying under oath that it was '83? A. No, I don't, sir. Q. Do you remember saying under oath that it was '81? A. No, I don't, sir. Q. Okay, let me show you your sworn testimony. MR. WEINGLASS: May the witness be handed this document. Which is the sworn testimony of Thomas F. Ryan, June 3rd, 1996, in the matter of the 39th Police District. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. I refer you to page 347, the testimony that's highlighted, where you indicated that you met her in '83 (handing). THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing). (Pause) MS. FISK: Thank you (handing). Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing). THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Okay, do you remember, reading the highlighted portions, being asked this question under oath? Page 25. Thomas Ryan - Direct How did Pamela Jenkins become an informant for you. Answer: Way back in around 1983, early '83, I was still in 3 squad in uniform working the patrol wagon, and she was one of a number of juveniles arrested at Gratz -- G-R-A-T-Z -- High School for truancy. And she lived in the neighborhood in Tioga. And after that would contact me and/or my partner regarding criminal activity in the street. Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer? A. I don't remember it but this refreshes my, ahh, my recollection. Q. Did you indicate then in '83? A. Yes; specifically I said in around 1983. Q. Right. A. Which was an approximation. Q. Right, and then you qualified it to say early 1983? A. That's another approximation. Q. Right. A. Yes. Q. And was it also an approximation when you told the Carter jury in 1988 that it was 1981 that you had Page 26. Thomas Ryan - Direct met her, was that an approximation? A. I don't believe I testified 1981. Q. You said you have known her for five years as of September 1986. Doesn't that bring it back to September of 1981? A. You said that I testified that I met her in 1981. That was not my testimony. Q. The question was how long had you known Pamela Jenkins as of September of 1986. Having heard that question, your answer was five years. Do you remember that question and answer? A. Yes; that's an error. Q. That was an error? A. That's an error: 1981. Q. Right. And this one that you gave in 1996 when you said around '83, that was also an error? A. No, this was an approximation. Q. That is an approximation? A. Around. I was asked this question in '96. Q. Right. A. And I answered around 1983. Q. Right. So, Mr. Ryan, we have one approximation and one error with respect to when you met Pamela Jenkins; is that correct? A. Along with one fact. When my memory -- my Page 27. Thomas Ryan - Direct recollection was brought back clearly through the 75-48 that was provided on Thursday, and also the testimony of Lieutenant Clarkson who was my partner at the time when I met Pamela Jenkins. That refreshed my memory on Thursday. Q. Right. But Officer Clarkson didn't say that's when you met her. He said that's when you and he arrested her? A. Yes, sir, that is the information that refreshed my memory. Q. Is it your testimony you never arrested her prior to that time? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. I would ask that the word arrest not be used. There was an argument with regard to that. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness just used it. The witness used it. THE COURT: Well, he used it because you have been using it. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I will withdraw my objection. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. In 1996, when you were questioned in that document that's right before you -- Page 28. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. Yes, sir. Q. -- didn't you say there that you arrested Pamela Jenkins? A. Yes, I used that term. Q. Right. Okay. And you did arrest her, didn't you? A. I transported her to the 39th District. Now, it was an arrest, to what definition of arrest are you referring? Q. You are the police officer, you used the word arrest? A. Okay, Counselor -- MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I note that this is direct examination. And I have not yet heard a question that did not have an answer suggested, and I would object. THE COURT: He is your witness, you know. You called him. I will sustain the objection. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, it's true, is it not, Mr. Ryan, that we have your testimony last Thursday that you met, you arrest her in '82, we have your testimony in '96 that it was '83, we have your testimony in '88 that it was '81? Page 29. Thomas Ryan - Direct MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I impose an objection to this form of question. This is direct examination, Counsel is providing testimony. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Let me just ask you this question. Did you take -- did you transport Pamela Jenkins prior to June 10th of 1982 in a vehicle? A. No, sir. Q. And what have you examined by way of other documents that makes your recollection certain of that fact? A. I just testified to what refreshed my memory on Thursday. The 75-48 from that incident on June l0th, 1982, and the testimony of Lieutenant Clarkson, who was my partner on that date. Q. Incidentally, on that date, according to your testimony in 1996, she was one of a number of juveniles who were taken into the vehicle at that time; is that correct? A. That's correct, sir. Q. Was there ever a time when you had picked up Pamela Jenkins and she was alone, prior to June 1982? Page 30. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. No, sir, that was the date that I met her. Q. How many other juveniles were there, if you can recall, that were picked up? A. Sir, that would only be a guess at this point. Q.You can't recall? A. Not matter of factly, no. Q. Would it be more than five or fewer than five? THE COURT: He said he can't guess. MR. WEINGLASS: I am trying to assist the witness. THE COURT: Don't try to assist him. He is your witness. And you called him, you're bound by his answers. MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, that's why I am trying to assist him. THE COURT: Well, you don't have to assist him, he is your witness. Just ask him questions. But don't ask him to guess. Would you remember how many people you defended back in 1982? Of course you wouldn't. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness indicated his recollection was refreshed on Thursday. THE COURT: Well, it was refreshed because they had the 94 -- what do they call it? MS. FISK: 75-48, Your Honor. Page 31. Thomas Ryan - Direct THE COURT: 48. MS. FISK: It is Commonwealth Exhibit 7. THE COURT: Sure that's what refreshed his memory. Because that was taken down right at the time of the incident. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Before becoming a police officer you were a correction officer: is that true? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when did you start becoming a correction officer? A. I was only a correction officer for six months. I had gone into there and finished their training and then resigned from there and went to the Police Department. Q. And what six months, do you recall? A. Six months prior to my starting the Police Academy. Q. And that would be six months prior to August of 1981? A. That's correct. Q. And at that time when you were a correction officer you were issued a badge; is that correct? A. Yes. Page 32. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. And you had that badge since June 22nd, 1981; isn't that correct? A. Somewhere around there, sir, I don't remember matter of factly. MR. WEINGLASS: Let me assist you with this document if I may. It is defense 5. It may be shown to Counsel. THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing). (Pause) MS. FISK: Thank you. (Philadelphia Prisons record was marked THE COURT OFFICER: Judge, would you like this? THE COURT: No. THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.) THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Looking at the one-page document that is defense 5, does that refresh your recollection that on June 22nd, 1981 you were issued a badge? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you signed for it. Did you ever sign that you returned that badge, by the way? Page 33. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. I don't know. I returned it when I resigned from the prison system. Q. Does the document indicate that you returned the badge? A. No, this says issues receipt. Q. Does it have a column for returned? A. Sir, it says issued receipt and that's all it refers to is issues. Q. There is no column there for -- isn't there a column, Mr. Ryan, that says date returned? A. Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, -- 8-14-81. Q. Mr. Ryan, on that document D-5 you never returned that badge, isn't that true, according to the document? A. Well, according to the document I signed for it and it is initialed by the person that received it from me. Q. Okay. But the box for date returned is blank? A. Yes, it is. Q. Now, in 1981 you were what age? A. 25. Q. And prior to working as a correction officer what was your employment? A. I was district manager for the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper. Page 34. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. Okay. And prior to that? A. I was at that occupation since 1977. Q. How long were you district manager -- what do you mean by district manager? A. I was district manager in the circulation department. Q. Is that for delivery of newspapers? A. Yes, circulation department, sir. Q. I see. So you were a manager of delivery system for the newspaper? A. Part of it, yes. Q. Right. And you had left college? A. Yes. Q. In 1977? A. Yes. Q. After one year at Penn State? A. That's correct. Q. Do you recall if you applied to become a police officer prior to being a correction officer? A. Yes, I did. Q. And could you explain to the Court how that happened, you applied to be a police officer and then you became a correction officer while your application was being considered? A. No, sir, I -- Page 35. Thomas Ryan - Direct MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I impose an objection. This is simply irrelevant. THE COURT: Yes. I suppose he maybe filed a lot of applications for a police officer, different departments, different counties. So what. We are only interested in Philadelphia here since that's where he became a police officer. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. When you said you applied, you applied in Philadelphia; is that correct? A. Yes, that was an application I submitted. Q. And that was your only, you only applied here in Philadelphia? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: It is irrelevant. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. I don't know where this is going, but... BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Were you rejected by any other police department? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Page 36. Thomas Ryan - Direct Q. Now, the testimony that's in front of you, which is your, your testimony in 1996 about Pamela Jenkins, you indicated that she contacted you and/or your partner with information. Who is your partner that you were referring to there? A. In 1983, sir? Q. When you testified here you referred to a partner. I am just asking who was it that you were referring to? A. That would be an officer by the name of Ted Ryan. Q. Ted Ryan? A. Yes. Q. No relationship? A. No, sir. Q. And you are not related to Richard Ryan, are you? A. No, sir. Q. And when did you and Ted Ryan become partners? A. 1983. Q. And you and Ted Ryan were brought into squad 5 together? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: It's irrelevant. We are at a date well beyond Page 37. Thomas Ryan - Direct the date that Ms. Jenkins alleged she met this witness, beyond the date of the trial, beyond the date of the alleged improper acts committed. It is irrelevant. THE COURT: Objection is sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, when you picked up Pamela Jenkins -- let's deal with the June l0th, 1982 incident that's recorded in the document -- where to your recollection was she taken? MS. FISK: Your Honor, objection: This was asked and answered on Thursday. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you take her home? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. This was asked and answered on Thursday. Questions were made -- THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Okay. MS. FISK: Questions were asked with regard to that stop. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. The romantic portion of your relationship with Pamela Jenkins, over what period of time did that Page 38. Thomas Ryan - Direct relationship last? A. That was sometime in '83 or '84, I don't remember exactly when it was. Q. And it was over a period of those months? A. No, it occurred during that time frame. Q. The relationship occurred? A. Yes. Q. And how long did the relationship of a personal nature last? A. I wouldn't even qualify it as a relationship, sir. Q. Well, how would you describe it? A. An encounter. Q. I see. And how long did that last? A. One time. Q. And you don't know whether that was '83 or '84? A. No, sir, it was sometime in that time frame. Q. And at that time she was providing you information as well? A. I'm sure at some point during that time frame she gave me some sort of information. Q. And you were paying her for that information? A. Sometimes. Q. Incidentally, the money that you were paying Page 39. Thomas Ryan - Direct to her, was that from your own pocket? Where did you get that money? A. From my own pocket. Q. And was that money you had taken from others? A. Excuse me? Q. Was that money that you had taken from other people? A. Yes; from the City of Philadelphia in my paycheck. Q. I see, okay. Did you plead guilty to a felony? A. Yes. Q. What felony did you plead guilty to? A. One count of conspiracy to violate civil rights. Q. And for the record, what was that, what civil rights, whose civil rights? A. Whose civil rights? Q. Yes. A. A male by the name of Arthur Colbert. Q. Arthur Colbert? Prior to your plea of guilty, did you provide any law enforcement agency with false information about your involvement with him? A. No, sir. Q. You never did? Page 40. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. No, sir. Q. You had always acknowledged what you had done to him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Incidentally, what had you done to him? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. That's been resolved by another tribunal. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. The count that you pled guilty to, did you acknowledge that you had injured, oppressed, threatened and intimidated an individual in the free exercise and enjoyment of his Constitutional rights? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Have you ever been charged with an offense by the Assistant District Attorney of Philadelphia against Mr. Arthur Colbert for what action you took against him? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. He was prosecuted and pled guilty Federally. MR. WEINGLASS: Only by Federal authorities but never by the District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia. Page 41. Thomas Ryan - Direct MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Are you a defendant now in a civil suit relating to your activities as a Philadelphia police officer? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. WEINGLASS: It goes to motive for testifying, Your Honor. And bias. The witness has a financial interest in giving the testimony he is giving here today. THE COURT: Yes, how? MR. WEINGLASS: Because he is being sued personally. THE COURT: So? MR. WEINGLASS: In another case. So he has to conform his testimony in such a way that it will not injure him in the civil suit that's pending against him. THE COURT: That's not for me to resolve. That is another tribunal. MR. WEINGLASS: It certainly is a factor the Court should take into consideration in assessing his credibility. Page 42. Thomas Ryan - Direct THE COURT: I know how to assess credibility. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, you should have the information to do it properly. THE COURT: You have already told me the information. MR. WEINGLASS: It would be helpful to get it from the witness. THE COURT: It's just as well getting it from you. He is your witness. MR. WEINGLASS: Well; if the Court will accept it as established fact I will move on. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Are you a defendant again in a lawsuit by Raymond Carter? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. MR. WEINGLASS: A different lawsuit. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. You were present at your sentencing hearing in the Federal Court, were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. And you were present when Joan Downs testified Page 43. Thomas Ryan - Direct as a character witness for you? A. Yes, I was. Q. And it's true that she was a crack addict? A. That's a fact. Q. Was she a prostitute? MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I object on the basis of relevancy. This was not a person who has offered testimony or from whom there has been any offer of proof with regard to her relationship to this prosecution of Mr. Jamal or testimony with regard to Mr. Jamal. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, faced with a Federal sentence, this witness presented a character witness who was a crack addict and prostitute who he had worked with and had involvement with and I think the Court should know this. THE COURT: You mean he can't have that kind of a character witness? MR. WEINGLASS: I think it is something the Court should know in assessing his credibility. THE COURT: You told me about it, so what. I am not going to decide that Federal case. Whatever happened there happened there Page 44. Thomas Ryan - Direct and he was sentenced by the Federal judge. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of it. MR. WEINGLASS: But the Court's -- THE COURT: I am not here to rehash it. MR. WEINGLASS: Right. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Was Joan Downs another prostitute who provided you with information? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Was Joan Downs another prostitute who you had sex with? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. I am not here to go through his whole life. Besides, he is your witness. If you don't want me to believe anything he says that's all right with me. You have the burden of proof. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you begin cooperating with Federal authorities in an investigation in August of 1994? MS. FISK: Your Honor, objection. That is irrelevant to this proceeding. When -- Page 45. Thomas Ryan - Direct THE COURT: Sustained. MR. WEINGLASS: I think the record should reflect that the witness keeps stopping before he answers to look to the Assistant District Attorney for an objection and she complies. THE COURT: Well, he is a smart witness, see. And you called him so don't be surprised about that. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, obviously working in conjunction with the Assistant District Attorney. THE COURT: You should have instructed him to do otherwise. He is your witness, you know. If you want to criticize your own witness, go ahead. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you report to the Federal judge at the time of your Federal sentencing that you felt that your life was threatened by people in the Philadelphia Police Department because you were helping the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an investigation of the police? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. He is still Page 46. Thomas Ryan - Direct alive today, the police didn't do anything to him. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you agree to and in fact wear a wire to record a conversation that you had with a fellow Philadelphia police officer named Jack Baird? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. I am not going to rehash that. That's been done down in Federal Court, it's over with and that's it. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. How much money had you paid Pamela Jenkins in the time that she provided you with information? A. I would be guessing at that. Q. Over how long a period of time did you pay her, let me start with that? A. Well, it was off and on, sir, it wasn't a continuous length of time. Q. Right, give us a beginning when it began and a date when it probably ended? A. It was around '83 or '84, and then she had disappeared for a number of years. And then she reappeared in the late '80s. So it was on again, off again. Q. Over a period of a number of years? Page 47. Thomas Ryan - Direct A. Off and on, yes. Q. Right. And although you were charged and pled guilty in Federal Court, to your knowledge Pamela Jenkins has never been charged nor has she pled guilty to any Federal offenses? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: We are not here to try Jenkins. MS. FISK: And this is direct examination. MR. WEINGLASS: The testimony of two people, one is a convicted felon. MS. FISK: This is direct examination. THE COURT: Counselor, I don't care what happens to Jenkins in Federal Court. If they didn't do anything that's their problem, not mine. MR. WEINGLASS: Right, but in weighing the testimony of two people, one is a convicted felon, the other is not convicted. THE COURT: Well. MR. WEINGLASS: I think the Court ought to take that into account. Page 48. Thomas Ryan - Direct THE COURT: Yes, I will take it into account, okay. MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have just a moment. (Pause). (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Just one last question. Am I correct in assuming that prior to last Thursday when you sat here in Court and heard the other testimony and saw the document, you had no recollection as to when you had met Pamela Jenkins? A. Not an accurate matter-of-fact recollection, no. MR. WEINGLASS: Fine. I have nothing further. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. FISK: Thank you. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Mr. Ryan, prior to last week, am I correct Page 49. Thomas Ryan - Cross that you had on previous occasions testified that you met Pamela Jenkins when you stopped her on a truancy stop at Gratz High School? A. That's correct. Q. And in fact, the document which the defense put in front of you today, that deposition from 1996, under oath at that proceeding you testified that you met her when you stopped her as a truant when she was a student at Gratz High School; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in fact, last Thursday were you present in the Courtroom when Pamela Jenkins testified? A. Yes, I was. Q. And did you hear Pamela Jenkins testify in great detail, both on direct and cross-examination, that the first occasion when she met you was when she was a student at Gratz High School and you were a police officer in a police wagon; did you hear that, Mr. Ryan? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you hear her testify that when you and another uniformed police officer in a police wagon stopped her for being a truant while she was at Gratz High School, that that was the first occasion when she met you? Page 50. Thomas Ryan - Cross A. Yes. Q. And did that confirm your recollection as to the first occasion, that is opportunity, you had to meet Pamela Jenkins, and that was an accurate recollection? A. Yes, that refreshed my memory regarding that event. Q. Now with regard to that, you have always recalled that you met Ms. Jenkins when you stopped her when you were a uniformed police officer for being truant, but the precise date of that stop was something which was just sometime in the past; would that be fair to say? A. Yes, the date and time were vague. Q. And was the production last week of Commonwealth Exhibit 7, a 75-48 that was prepared by the uniformed officer that you were a partner with on that date, was that the document which refreshed your recollection with regard to the precise date on which you met Pamela Jenkins? A. Yes, it was. Q. Would it be fair to say that without that document you would still be guessing as to whether it was '81, '82, or '83, when you made that truancy stop of Ms. Jenkins? Page 51. Thomas Ryan - Cross A. That's very much correct. Q. But that document Commonwealth Exhibit 7, which was marked last week, was a document, is it fair to say, that was prepared by the officer who was your partner, then Officer Clarkson, on the day that you first came into contact ever with Pamela Jenkins? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And it's because that document clearly bears the date of June the l0th, 1982 that you now know absolutely that that indeed was the actual day on which you met Ms. Jenkins? A. Yes. Q. Now, in fact we have also learned through other documents marked last week that you graduated the Police Academy on December the 2lst, 1981. Prior to that time did you ever impersonate a police officer? A. No. Q. Prior to that time were you ever in possession of marked police vehicles off the lot of the Police Academy in order to pretend that you were a police officer? A. No. Q. Prior to that time did you ever use any extra badges to make other people think you were a police Page 52. Thomas Ryan - Cross officer? A. No. Q. And just so the record is clear -- and I note that defense Counsel did not ask any questions about it -- did you ever speak to Pamela Jenkins regarding the murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner? A. No, I have not. Q. Did you ever investigate the murder of Officer Faulkner in any way at all? A. No, I did not. Q. Or participate in the investigation of the murder of Officer Faulkner in any way at all? A. No; this is my first contact with that incident. Q. Now, you were questioned last week with regard to your ownership of a red pickup truck. Do you recall that, sir? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did there come a time where you divested yourself that have red pickup truck? A. Yes. Q. When was that, please? A. Sometime in 1994. Q. And how is it that you divested yourself of that pickup truck? Page 53. Thomas Ryan - Cross A. I purchased another vehicle. Q. And did you sell the red pickup truck? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, you were also present when Ms. Jenkins testified to an observation she made of Cynthia White running into a red pickup truck being driven by you at 9:45 p.m. on March -- I don't want to misstate the date -- on March the 7th of this year. Did you hear that testimony, Mr. Ryan? A. Yes, I did. Q. Can you tell us, please, sir where you were living on March the 7th of this year, please? A. On March the 7th of this year I was living in a halfway house as part of my Federal sentence. Q. When had you arrived at that halfway house? A. January the 10th, 1997. Q. And until when did you remain at that halfway house? A. March the l0th, 1997. Q. As a resident of that halfway house, were you permitted to leave? A. On occasion we were given a pass. Q. Were there periods of time during the day that you were required to be back in the halfway house? A. Yes. Everyday the curfew was at nine o'clock, Page 54. Thomas Ryan - Cross 9:00 p.m. Q. And during the period of time that you were a resident of that halfway house did you ever violate that curfew? A. No, I did not. Q. Can you tell us, then, whether or not you were outdoors at 9:35 p.m. on March 7th of this year? A. No; I would have been in violation of the curfew. Q. And you never were in violation during the period of time that you were there? A. No, ma'am. Q. You told us on direct examination last week that you had one contact with a Detective Richard Ryan; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you estimate that that was from an incident or arrest that you had made, you estimate approximately in 1986 or 1987? A. Yes. Somewhere in that time frame was a burglary arrest at 11th and Ridge Avenue. Q. What were you doing at 11th and Ridge Avenue if you were assigned to the 39th District? A. I was en route from the 39th District to police headquarters at 8th and Race and that was my Page 55. Thomas Ryan - Cross travel route: Ridge Avenue, southbound. Q. So you just happened to see something happening and stopped and made an arrest? A. Yes, it was a sight arrest. Q. And as a result of that sight arrest, was the person who was arrested then taken to a particular detective headquarters? A. Yes; he was transported to the Central Detectives. Q. Oh, and incidentally, where is Central Detectives, or where was it back then? A. At 20th and Pennsylvania Avenue. Q. Is that at the Roundhouse? A. No, Roundhouse is at 8th and Race. Q. Well, when you took the person that you arrested in '86 or '87 to Central Detectives, was that case assigned to a line squad detective who handled the arrest? A. Yes, it was. Q. And who was that detective to whom it was assigned? A. Detective Ryan. Q. And was that the first opportunity you had to meet Detective Ryan? A. Yes, it was. Page 56. Thomas Ryan - Cross Q. And in fact did that remain notable to you because your partner was named Ryan and you were named Ryan and the detective was named Ryan? A. Yes; all the law enforcement in that case were named Ryan. Q. And there were three of them? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you and Detective Ryan ever work together in the investigation of the murder of Daniel Faulkner? A. No, ma'am. Q. Was this meeting with him in 1986 or 1987 the first meeting and working you had with him? A. Yes; that was the first time I ever met him in my life. Q. And since the prosecution of that case, that sight arrest that you made, have you ever had any further contact with him? A. The next time I saw him was Thursday here. Q. This past Thursday when you were subpoenaed to the Courtroom? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, Mr. Ryan, you told us that you had two contacts with the investigator who served you with a subpoena for last Thursday's proceeding? Page 57. Thomas Ryan - Cross A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you told us that you had some brief contact with him on those two occasions? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what the nature of that contact was? A. The first contact was when he served me a subpoena and identified who he was. There was some general conversation about police work and he gave me his card and told me to call him in reference to a job. Q. I'm sorry, you said there was general conversation with regard to police work? A. Police work. Q. Could you tell us as best you can recall what the nature of the conversation was that you had with that investigator? A. He had told me that he was a former law enforcement and correction officer. Q. Yes? A. In his past, and that he had gotten into private investigations. Q. Yes, sir? A. And that he asked me did I know Philadelphia well. And I said yeah, I know Philadelphia very Page 58. Thomas Ryan - Cross well. And he says well, here is my card and give me a call and I will give you a job in Philadelphia to serve subpoenas. Q. When he suggested giving you a job to serve subpoenas, were you advised whether or not you would be paid for such work? A. Yes, he said the pay rate would be $25 per hour. Q. Incidentally, that person who offered you this job when you were served with a subpoena, is he present in the Courtroom? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Would you please point to him so the record could be clear as to who that was? A. The gentleman with the mustache and gray hair seated to the rear of the Courtroom (indicating). MS. FISK: May I ask, Your Honor, that that individual stand up and identify himself for the record. MR. BURTON: Donald Burton. Private investigator from New Jersey. MS. FISK: Could you spell your last name? MR. BURTON: B-U-R-T-O-N. MS. FISK: Thank you. Page 59. Thomas Ryan - Cross (Pause) BY MS. FISK: Q. So in addition to giving you a subpoena, Mr. Burton offered you a job and gave you his card so you could call him when you decided whether or not to take him up on that offer? A. Yes, ma'am. (Discussion was held off the record MS. FISK: I have nothing further, Your Honor. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Prior to December 2lst, 1981, you were in possession of a badge, were you not? A. Yes. Q. And incidentally, do you know to your knowledge if Pamela Jenkins ever met with Richard Ryan? A. I have no knowledge of that at all. Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Pamela Jenkins about Richard Ryan? A. No. Page 60. Thomas Ryan - Redirect Q. Do you know why of all the police officers in the City of Philadelphia she would say she met with Richard Ryan? A. You would have to ask her, Counselor. Q. Okay. When you said your red truck was divested in 1994, had you told that to anyone prior to testifying today? A. Such as who, Counsel? I am not sure -- Q. Any representative of the District Attorney's Office or the Police Department? A. Prior to today? Q. Prior to just now. A. Yes. Q. Who did you tell? A. Detective Walsh. Q. Yes, when I asked you before about your conversations with Detective Walsh you couldn't remember that, could you? A. No, I -- MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, he couldn't remember. He remembers now and he is telling you that's what he told him. MS. FISK: My objection is that was not what he was asked by Counsel. Page 61. Thomas Ryan - Redirect MR. WEINGLASS: I asked what did you talk to Detective Walsh about. His house. MS. FISK: Right. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. You didn't say your house, you didn't say the red truck? A. I didn't remember, Counselor, that refreshed my memory. Q. Okay. A. You just asked me a specific question did I tell anybody about divesting my red truck. Yes, I did. Q. Now you remember you told Detective Walsh? A. Well, you asked me a specific question. Q. Did you tell anyone about the conversation that you had with Mr. Burton about subpoenas? A. Yes. Q. Who did you tell? A. Detective Walsh. And I said it to somebody else but I'm not sure. Q. Right, and you forgot that when I asked you but your recollection was refreshed by the Assistant District Attorney; isn't that correct? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Remember, he Page 62. Thomas Ryan - Redirect is your witness. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Why didn't you tell me that when I asked you what you talked about? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you have any conversation with anyone prior to your being questioned by Counsel about where you were on March 7th, 1997? A. Yes. Q. Who did you have that conversation with? A. Assistant District Attorney. Q. Did I ask you if you had talked to the Assistant District Attorney before today? A. Yes. Q. And what did you tell me? A. I don't recall, could you read it back? I just don't remember, Counselor. If you ask me specific -- MS. FISK: I would note for the record, Counsel, the question was did you speak with the Assistant District Attorney prior to today. The answer was no. In fact he had not. And the first time that Mr. Ryan and I had any Page 63. Thomas Ryan - Redirect substantive contact with regard to this matter was today, which was not prior to today. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, could the Assistant District Attorney be sworn and give that and testify to that? THE COURT: No, I am giving her the same leeway I am giving to you. You could speak for yourself, she could speak for herself. If the Supreme Court thinks it's material, fine. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. When did you talk to the Assistant District Attorney today? A. Prior to the beginning of this session. Q. And how long did you talk to her? A. Oh, approximately two minutes. Q. Right. And do you recall my asking you if you had any conversation with her prior to today? THE COURT: Well, prior to today he didn't have any. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Right, and isn't that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Just so that we are all very accurate. THE COURT: We are accurate on that one. Page 64. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. WEINGLASS: May I have just a moment. (Discussion was held off the record MR. WEINGLASS: Okay, I have no further questions. MS. FISK: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MR. WEINGLASS: Lawrence Boston. - - - - - Lawrence Boston, having been duly - - - - - MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, before we begin: We subpoenaed the employment record of Mr. Boston. And there was a motion from the City to quash that subpoena on the really false grounds that what we were looking for was a full personnel file. All we were requesting was the Page 65. same type of employment record that was submitted by the prosecution concerning Thomas Ryan. So we would request that this employment record, which I presume at this point Ms. Fisk has in her possession, be given to us prior to the questioning of Mr. Boston. MS. FISK: I do not, Your Honor. And I would note that Ms. Smyler, who was here on behalf of the City Solicitor, was here on Thursday, was advised that the subpoenas were quashed, and I do not see her here today. I don't have any records with relation to former Officer Boston. THE COURT: Why are we interested in Boston? MS. FISK: He was mentioned in Ms. Jenkins' testimony. That's why I am not objecting to this witness. Ms. Jenkins testified that Officer Ryan told her that a police officer named Boston was one of the officers on the scene. I assume that Counsel is alleging that that is this officer. That is why I am not objecting. THE COURT: What does that have to do with this case? Page 66. MS. FISK: I presume it goes to the credibility of Ms. Jenkins, Your Honor. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It goes to the fact that Ms. Jenkins testified that he was one of the individuals on the scene that night during the shooting of Mr. Faulkner, Officer Faulkner. And we want to examine former police officer Boston as to that matter. THE COURT: Well. MS. FISK: And I have no objection with regard to those questions. I have no records with regard to his employment with the police and I am sure that he would be happy to answer the questions that Counsel asks him. THE COURT: The Supreme Court said no discovery. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This is in reference to the testimony of Pamela Jenkins. She testified on this on direct examination, and we are further pursuing the question of Pamela Jenkins' testimony. THE COURT: Did you object to her? Just a minute. Did you object to her testifying on this point? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, they did not. Page 67. MS. FISK: No, I have no objection on the part of the Commonwealth to Officer Boston testifying. And I am sure if Counsel wants to ask Officer Boston when he became a police officer and when he stopped being a police officer, he could provide that information. THE COURT: Oh, okay. MS. FISK: I have no records or documents. That subpoena was quashed last week and the representative from the City Solicitor's is not again here. And I assume it is that person who is in possession of those records. I have never had them. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I want to make the point again to the Court that that subpoena was quashed before the Court heard any argument about it. And the arguments being made in the papers by the corporation counsel was that in fact we were asking for personnel records, which we never were asking. Our subpoena was very explicit. It said employment history of Officer Boston. It had the same title on the subpoena per talking to Counsel at the Police Department before we drew up the subpoenas as the very document that was submitted to this Court with Page 68. the employment record of Police Officer Ryan. THE COURT: Well, who is he, this gentleman? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This is, I presume, former Police Officer Lawrence Boston. THE COURT: Well, he is the guy that could tell you. MS. FISK: Right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We would like to be able to have the document to confirm what he is saying. Which we have a right to have. THE COURT: Well, you can get that after awhile. Maybe he knows. Or maybe he has copies. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor is saying that we have the right, that our subpoena will be honored? THE COURT: I didn't say you have a right to anything. Because the City Solicitor isn't here. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, Your Honor, the City Solicitor doesn't need to be. THE COURT: You called him. Ask him questions. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Fine. So we just Page 69. want to make the record that we had a subpoena outstanding that this Court quashed. THE COURT: All right. I didn't quash anything. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I believe almost the first words out of your mouth on Thursday -- THE COURT: I said discovery. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All subpoenas are quashed. THE COURT: All right. Then I quash it. Ask him questions. If he can answer them, fine. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Mr. Boston, were you ever employed as a police officer in the City of Philadelphia? A. I was. Q. Yes. Do you recall the date of your employment beginning and ending? Just give us a year. A. I was appointed June the 27th, 1967. I think it was May two years ago I retired. Q. 1995? Page 70. Lawrence Boston - Direct A. Yes, around that time, yeah. Q. So you were, were you an active-duty police officer in December of 1981? A. That's correct. Q. And do you recall what your assignment was in December of '81? A. I was assigned to the 6th District, I believe. Q. Yes. And in what capacity did you serve in the 6th District? A. Policeman. Q. Would that be a patrolman? A. Yeah, policeman. Q. I see. And were you assigned in December of '81 to any particular part of the 6th District? A. Ahh, I walked the 6th foot beat 3A and 3B. Q. And what are 3A and 3B? A. The walking beats on 13th Street. Q. And 13th between any particular cross streets? A. Actually, it went I think from -- I may be mistaken -- from Chestnut to the bus terminal. Q. Okay. Do you recall the hours of your assignment in December of 1981? A. I couldn't tell you without a squad card. Q. I see. Is there a record of your assignment in December of 1981 anywhere to your knowledge? Page 71. Lawrence Boston - Direct A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. Would there be a record anywhere of the hours that you served in December of 1981? A. There may be. Q. To your knowledge where would that be? A. I have no idea. Police records. Q. Would that be your employment records or your personnel records? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. He said he did not know, and frank -- well, objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Where are you trying to go? MR. WEINGLASS: Well, we don't have the records, Your Honor. So I am trying to see, I am following the Court's suggestion that the witness himself might know without his records when and where he was employed at the time of this incident. MS. FISK: Your Honor, this officer's testimony is only relevant if indeed he was present on the scene when Officer Faulkner was killed. THE COURT: Yes, why don't you -- MS. FISK: If in fact he was, perhaps Page 72. Lawrence Boston - Direct we could pursue it. And if he wasn't his testimony is unnecessary. THE COURT: Why don't you ask him that. MR. WEINGLASS: We will get to that in a moment. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Were you subpoenaed to testify here today? A. I was. Q. Right. On June 24th, 1997? Is that when you were subpoenaed? A. No, that was sometime last week, I remember that. Q. Tuesday of last week? A. Sometime last week. Q. Right. And do you recall the individual who subpoenaed you? A. The gentleman right there (indicating). Q. Mister -- do you recall who it was? A. I don't recall his name but he is sitting right in the back of the Courtroom there (indicating). THE COURT: Same person who served Ryan. MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you. Page 73. Lawrence Boston - Direct BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, at the time that you were served with the subpoena, did you have a conversation with the individual who served you? A. Yes. Q. Did you indicate to that individual that you knew the whereabouts of the woman who the defense was seeking who had testified and changed her story? A. No. Q. Did you indicate that you knew that she was in New Jersey living in a condominium near a golf course? A. I knew that she was living there prior to that. Q. When? A. This was years ago. Q. How many years ago? A. Oh, it must be back in the '60s. I mean -- not '60s, excuse me -- '80s. Q. You didn't indicate that she was there for the last two years? A. No. No. I haven't seen her in years. Q. And who are we talking about? A. Who are you talking about, sir? Q. Are we talking about Cynthia White? Page 74. Lawrence Boston - Direct A. Correct. Q. Right. And is it your testimony that you didn't tell the investigator that she's been there for the last two years? A. No. Q. And that she's changed her story? A. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, sir. No, sir. Q. And that she wants to make money on the deal? A. No, sir. Q. Is Cynthia White's whereabouts known to you? A. I guess she's in the graveyard, from what I heard the other day. Q. Where did you hear that? A. Here. Q. You were sitting in Court? A. Correct. Q. Is that why you're now changing your testimony? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. There is no foundation for that. Except your own imagination. MR. WEINGLASS: And the report of our investigator who had a conversation with this witness. Page 75. Lawrence Boston - Direct THE COURT: And, well, he has denied that conversation. MR. WEINGLASS: Of course. THE COURT: Okay. BY: MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you know Richard Ryan? A. Personally, no. I've seen him around. Q. Did you know Richard Herron? A. Excuse me, sir? Q. Richard Herron, H-E-R-R-O-N. MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: I will sustain it. I don't know where you are going with all of these names. BY: MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you know a Joseph Geoffrey? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. MR. WEINGLASS: G -- THE COURT: Sustained. BY: MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Did you know Daniel Faulkner? A. Very well. Q. Okay. Did you know Gary Bell? A. Very well. Q. Do you recall where you were on December 9th, Page 76. Lawrence Boston - Direct 1981? A. I was in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Do you recall where you were at approximately 4:00 in the morning, December 9th of 1981? A. I should have been asleep. Q. Okay. You weren't near, at or near the intersection of 13th and Locust? A. No, sir. Q. At 4:00 in the morning? A. No, sir. Q. Either in uniform or out of uniform? A. No, sir. Q. Have you checked your employment records to verify where you were? A. I remember that date very well. Q. Where were you? A. I should have been home in bed. Q. I don't know if I have this correct, did you know Cynthia White? A. Yes. Q. And how did you know her? A. From the streets. Q. And was she a working prostitute at that time? A. I never caught her, no. I couldn't say. I couldn't say, no, I don't know. Page 77. Lawrence Boston - Direct Q. You don't know? A. I never caught her. Q. Right. Did you see Cynthia White after December 9th, 1981 and before January lst, 1982? (Pause) A. I think it was around Christmas time of that year. Q. And where did you see her? A. Around 13th Street. Q. She was working? A. Counselor, I don't know what you mean by working. Q. Okay, what was she doing when you saw her? A. Walking. Q. Was it daytime or nighttime? A. I think the time I saw her was at night. Q. So you were working nights in December of 1981? A. I could have been. It could have been at daytime too because I covered that beat. Q. Is there any reason why you said nighttime a moment ago? A. Because most of the time I did see her was at night. Q. So that refreshes your recollection that you Page 78. were working nights in December of 1981? Lawrence Boston - Direct A. Counselor, no, it does not. It could have been in the daytime. I could be mistaken, I could have seen her in daytime. I could have seen her on 4:00-to-12:00 shift. I could have saw her any time. I don't know which time during that time. Q. What were the different shifts that you were working in 19 -- A. 8:00 to 4:00, 4:00 to 12:00, and 12:00 to 8:00. Q. So 12:00 midnight to 8:00 in the morning was one of the shifts you worked? A. Correct. Q. And you don't know if you were working that shift in December of '81? A. I tell you I would have to look at my squad card. Q. I'm sorry, when you say -- squad card? A. Correct. Q. Right. And where would that card be lodged? A. I have no idea. Q. Have you talked to the Assistant District Attorney prior to taking the stand? A. I did. Q. Who did you talk to? Page 79. Lawrence Boston - Direct A. I don't know. Q. Was it the Assistant District Attorney who is here? A. I don't know. I didn't see her. Q. It was on the telephone? A. Correct. Q. It was a woman? A. Correct. Q. When was that conversation? A. I think around the 24th or the 25th, I'm not sure. Q. Either the day you were served or the day after? A. Yeah, it was around that time, yeah. Q. And did you review the substance, the kinds of questions that I'm asking you? A. To who? Q. With the Assistant District Attorney. A. I talked to a person on the phone. Q. The person on the phone, did you review the kinds of questions that I'm asking you? A. Yes. Similar. Q. Did you ask about your squad card? A. No. Q. Were you asked if you recalled if you worked Page 80. Lawrence Boston - Direct that night on December 9th, 1981 into the early morning hours? A. I believe I did. Q. And what was your answer to that: You couldn't remember? A. Are you asking me or telling me to say something? Q. Could you remember? A. Could I remember? I told them I wasn't working. Q. Right. Okay. Have you since that time had occasion to seek your squad card to verify your recollection? A. I have no reason to. Q. When was the last time you saw Cynthia White? A. As I stated, it could have been Christmas time, I think, the year '81. Q. That was 15 years ago? A. It's been awhile. Q. Right. And how did you know that -- how did you have any information about her living in a condo in New Jersey? A. Well, the word was out in the street that she was living in Jersey. Q. Near a golf course? Page 81. Lawrence Boston - Direct A. That's what they told me. (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. The golf course near Pine Hill? A. Yeah, that's what I heard. Q. And do you remember when you were told that? A. No, I don't. It was, it was a long time ago. Q. Not in the last two years? A. No, no, no. Q. It was sometime after the trial of this case, though; isn't that correct? A. No, no, this is prior to the incident with Mr. Faulkner. Q. It was prior to the incident with Mr. Faulkner that you heard that she was living in New Jersey? A. Well, during that time. After that time, after. Q. After that time? A. After that time. Q. Right. You also said that she was being taken care of? A. No. Q. The information you got was she, were you given information that she was being taken care of in Page 82. Lawrence Boston - Cross this condo? A. No. MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. Good morning, Officer Boston. A. Good morning, ma'am. Q. This information about Cynthia White, did this come from other ladies who -- A. Yes. Street people, yes, correct. Q. This was just what other ladies or street people told you about her? A. Con -- average conversation between me and the women on the street. Q. Now, Officer Boston, you told us that you were appointed to the Police Department in June 1967? A. That's correct. Q. Was there a period of time when you were a Transit police officer as opposed to a Philadelphia police officer? Page 83. Lawrence Boston - Cross A. Oh, that is part of the Philadelphia Police Department, when I was assigned to the Transit unit. Q. Until when? A. I can not give you the dates, ma'am. But it was before I got transferred to the 6th District. Q. Which was approximately when? A. Around 1980, 1979, 1981, in, it was in that area. Q. All right, when you were in the Transit unit, did you work specifically in the area of 13th and Locust? A. I did, I had that beat. That was the Patco Line. That covered from 15th and Locust to approximately 12th and Locust or 13th and Locust, underground. Q. I apologize, I didn't mean to cut you off. When you were transferred to the 6th District, is that when your assignment moved north, that is on 13th Street from you said Chestnut to the bus terminal? So the record is clear, the bus terminal is on Filbert between Market and Arch; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And was that when you were transferred to the 6th District, in '79 or '80? Page 84. Lawrence Boston - Cross A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Is that when your beat moved north on 13th Street? A. That's correct. Q. Between Chestnut and Arch? A. That's correct. Q. So that your opportunities to have met Cynthia White occurred prior to that time when you worked the Patco Line; would that be fair to say? A. That's correct. Q. And for how long a period of time during the time that you were a Transit, assigned to the Transit unit was it that you knew Cynthia White? A. I was sent to Transit because I lost my driver's license, I wasn't allowed to drive a police car. And during that time is why I was put on that beat. And I would come upstairs because the smell of the subway, I would come upstairs a lot and so I met a lot of these people. Q. Right. Did you also meet other people who knew Cynthia White during that period of time? A. Yes, a lot of people. Q. Let me ask you this. Was she ever referred to by herself or by others in the course of speaking to her in your presence or about her, was she ever Page 85. Lawrence Boston - Cross referred to by the nickname of Lucky? A. Yes. Q. Cynthia White was referred to by that name? A. Was Lucky, right. Q. Who was Lucky? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Question was asked and answered. Cynthia White. MS. FISK: No, I am asking who was Lucky. MR. WEINGLASS: The witness just answered. Cynthia White was Lucky. MS. FISK: May I ask the question, Your Honor? MR. WEINGLASS: No, I object to it, it was asked and answered. Counsel doesn't like the answer, that's no reason to repeat it. THE COURT: What's the answer? MR. WEINGLASS: The answer is Cynthia White was Lucky. MS. FISK: That's what I am asking. THE COURT: Was that who Cynthia White was? THE WITNESS: To me she was called Lucky, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Page 86. Lawrence Boston - Cross BY MS. FISK: Q. Did you know any other persons in that area known as Lucky? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. THE WITNESS: No, no, no, I didn't, no. BY MS. FISK: Q. Did you speak to a detective here last week before taking the witness stand, Officer Boston? A. Yeah; Mr. Welsh. Q. And did you tell Mr. Walsh that you knew Lucky to be a male, a transvestite who was in the area of 13th and Locust Street? A. Yeah, he point both ways. Q. And that is my question. A. Yes, he went both ways. Q. So that was another person who you knew as Lucky? A. Right. Q. And that was a male? A. It was a male, right. Q. Who sometimes dressed as a woman and sometimes dressed as a male? A. Yes. Q. Did Detective Walsh ask you whether Cynthia Page 87. Lawrence Boston - Cross White was ever known as Lucky? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Question has been asked and answered, Judge. MS. FISK: Not that question. THE COURT: Not that question, not that specific question. Go ahead. BY MS. FISK: Q. Did Detective Walsh -- A. Yes, he did. Q. -- ask you whether or not Cynthia White was -- A. Was known as Lucky, right. Q. And did you tell him that Cynthia White was never known as Lucky? A. Not to me, no. Not to me. Q. She was not? A. Not to me. Q. I am getting confused now. That was my question: Was Cynthia White ever known to you as Lucky? A. No. Q. Did any other persons ever refer to Cynthia White as Lucky? A. No, not to me. Q. So the person you knew as Lucky, you knew Page 88. Lawrence Boston - Cross someone in that area? A. Yes, as Lucky, right. Q. And Lucky was this transvestite who went both ways? A. Both ways. MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. Counsel didn't like the answer that she got from the witness. THE COURT: We are trying to get it clarified. Don't get excited, please. MR. WEINGLASS: It is not clarified, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let the witness -- MS. FISK: I will do it again. MR. WEINGLASS: They are inducing the testimony of a former police officer. MS. FISK: If Counsel wants to talk about inducing testimony, Your Honor, we could review Ms. Jenkins' testimony. THE COURT: Okay. Fight nice. MS. FISK: May I continue, Your Honor? THE COURT: Go ahead. MS. FISK: Thank you. BY MS. FISK: Q. Just so I am clear, Officer Boston: Did Page 89. Lawrence Boston - Cross Cynthia White have any nicknames on the street in the period of time that you knew her? A. Not that I know of, no. Q. You just knew her as Cynthia White? A. Cynthia White. Q. And the person who you knew as Lucky was a transvestite? A. Transvestite, right. Q. You were served with a subpoena by the gentleman who was in the Courtroom last week. Did you make any written statement to that person? A. No, I did not. Q. So you had some brief contact with him? A. Conversation. Q. And received a subpoena? A. That's correct. Q. Incidentally, did he offer you a job? A. No. We talked about his past employment, what he did. Q. Yes, sir. A. And talked about me going fishing all the time. And that's just about it. Just a few things about the case. MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. I have nothing further, Your Honor. Page 90. Lawrence Boston - Redirect - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, could you describe for us Cynthia White? A. Describe her? Q. Yes. A. She was a black female. Q. How tall? A. I have no idea now. Q. Was she heavy? A. I have no idea now. Q. Complexion? A. I have no idea now. Q. You knew a lot of women who were working on the street, I mean acquaintances, you will meet them? A. I knew tons of them. Q. Right. Do you know the name Mildred Saunders? (Pause) A. That name rings a bell in my head. Q. Could that have been Cynthia White? A. Could have been. Q. Not unusual for the people who you met to have several different names? A. No, it wasn't, no. It wasn't unusual at all. Page 91. Lawrence Boston - Redirect Q. Right. Did you know Veronica Jones? A. I cannot remember that name, not now. Q. Did you know Pamela Jenkins? A. No. Q. You say that with some emphasis. A. Right, because I looked at her in the face the other day when she's testifying. I have never seen or heard of that woman before. Q. Okay. Now, you at one point served under an officer named DeBenedetto? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Where are you going, Counselor? MR. WEINGLASS: I will ask, the follow-up question will indicate. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Were you present when Officer DeBenedetto had a meeting of policemen in the 6th District and spoke about organizing vice payoff money in the 6th District? MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I will sustain that. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. You do recall that there was a Federal Page 92. Lawrence Boston - Redirect investigation into the payoff to police officers? MS. FISK: Your Honor, why don't we just empty the prison and take everybody out, because as far as defense is concerned, if you have a uniform you are corrupt. That's not the way it works. This is a man who served 20 years in the Police Department, retired, works security now at the Art Museum. And I object to questions regarding other officers' misdeeds and other improper actions. It is irrelevant, it is improper, and it is insulting. MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record reflect Counsel is shouting. MS. FISK: Because Counsel is pissed off -- excuse the expression -- for the disgusting attitude that defense has towards law enforcement people, that's right, that's why I am shouting. THE COURT: Well, I mean not here. MS. FISK: I apologize, Your Honor, for raising my voice. THE COURT: For investigating the Police Department, the objection is sustained. MR. WEINGLASS: May we have comment from the Court about Counsel reverting to Page 93. Lawrence Boston - Redirect language of the street? MS. FISK: And I apologize, Your Honor, for that. MR. WEINGLASS: Without comment from the Court. MS. FISK: I don't need comment from the Court in order to apologize. I apologize for my improper language, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you let him get you all excited. Don't get excited. BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. Now, in the time that you were walking the beat in that area in the 6th District, you were in uniform, were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. Were there also plainclothes officers who were working this area in 1981, in December? A. There were some. Q. And they were on the street as well? A. They were. Q. And they would be on the street in the early morning hours as well when there was a... A. I do not know. Q. Right. Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further Page 94. Lawrence Boston - Recross questions. MS. FISK: I have some, Your Honor. - - - - - RECROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MS. FISK: Q. How did you learn about Officer Faulkner's murder, Officer Boston? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Outside the scope of the Redirect. THE COURT: Oh, I don't know, you talked about it. MS. FISK: I will rephrase it. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. FISK: Q. Officer Boston, back at the time Officer Daniel Faulkner was murdered, do you remember what squad you were assigned to? A. I can't remember a squad. I knew me and Danny were in the squad together prior to him being transferred to another squad. That's why we -- Q. So at the time he was murdered you were in separate squads? A. That's correct. Q. And does that by definition mean you're Page 95. Lawrence Boston - Redirect working different times? A. That's correct. Q. So therefore, if he was working at the time he was murdered, you were not working? A. That's correct. Q. And how is it that you learned then that he was murdered? A. KYW. Q. And that was the morning following the murder? A. That's correct. MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WEINGLASS: Q. What squad were you in at that time? A. 1 or 3 squads, I can't remember, it's been so long. Q. You can't remember? A. No. MR. WEINGLASS: Okay, I have no further questions. THE COURT: You are excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. PIPER: We would now call Douglas Page 96. Douglas Culbreth - Direct Culbreth. - - - - - Douglas Culbreth, having been duly - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. PIPER: Q. Good morning, Mr. Culbreth. A. Good morning, sir. Q. How are you presently employed? A. I am an investigator. Q. And were you formerly a member of the Philadelphia Police Department? A. Yes, I was. Q. When did you join the Philadelphia Police Department? A. April '66. Q. And when did you leave the Philadelphia Police Department? A. February '96. Q. What was your rank in December 1981? A. I was a detective. Q. And which division were you assigned to? A. The Homicide unit. Page 97. Douglas Culbreth - Direct Q. When did you become a detective in the Homicide unit? A. As I recall, somewhere like 1979 or '80, is my recollection. Q. And how long did you remain a detective in the Homicide division? A. Until I retired. Q. As a Homicide detective, did you come to know someone named Cynthia White? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And when did you first come to know Cynthia White? A. On the 9th of whenever, whenever this incident occurred. Q. The night that Officer Faulkner was shot? A. That's correct. Q. When was the last time that you saw Cynthia White? A. About, oh, I don't know, it's been a few years. Q. Where was that? A. As I recall, it was at 11th and Winter, a police station. Q. And what caused you to be at 11th and Winter at the police station? Page 98. Douglas Culbreth - Direct A. I went there as a result of either a phone call from her or information of a phone call from her. Q. She called the Homicide unit; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. She spoke to you or someone else in the Homicide unit? A. I've been thinking about this. It's my recollection that she called me. But I don't want to say that because the possibility is I could have got it from somebody else. But it is my recollection that she called me. Q. What did she say to you in that conversation? A. Well, the information that I received from her or from the message was that she was in jail and she was sort of threatened there. Q. And she was looking for help from you; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you gave her help, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. You went down to 11th and Winter to help her get out of jail; is that correct? A. No, that's not correct. Q. What did you do to help her? Page 99. Douglas Culbreth - Direct A. Well, you have a, I understand you have a transcript of the, when I went there. Can I see it? Q. Why don't you tell us what you recall doing to help Ms. White? A. I went there to report what she told me to the Court. Q. And did you tell the Court anything else about Ms. White? A. I didn't tell the Court anything other than what she told me. Q. Did you tell the Court that she was a very important witness for the Commonwealth in a high-profile case? A. Yes, I did. Q. And the very high-profile case you were talking about is this case; is that correct? A. That's correct, that:s correct, sir. Q. Was this in 1987? A. I don't recall, sir. If you show me, whatever date it says there, it would be the date. MR. PIPER: If I could mark the next defense witness. THE COURT OFFICER: Next defense exhibit would be D... MS. FISK: D-6. Page 100. Douglas Culbreth - Direct THE COURT OFFICER: D-6. (Court transcript was marked THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.) (Pause) MS. FISK: The only portion of these notes which Counsel had provided to us in their Petition to the Supreme Court was the last four pages of a 30-page document. They are seeking to mark the entirety of the notes of testimony, so if I can just have a moment to review them. I have only reviewed the last five pages. MR. PIPER: We would also be happy to submit just the last four pages, where Douglas Culbreth appears. MS. FISK: Fine. I have no objection to that, Your Honor, and I don't challenge the authenticity of the cover sheet or the pages 29 through 33, which is what was attached in the defense request to the Supreme Court. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FISK: 29 through 33 and the cover sheet. THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing). (Pause) Page 101. Douglas Culbreth - Direct BY MR. PIPER: Q. Detective Culbreth, is this the transcript of the Court appearance that you made on behalf of Cynthia White? A. Yes, that's what it appears to be, sir. Q. And what's the date on the cover of this transcript? And for the record, this is a transcript in Commonwealth V Cynthia White, 11th and Winter Streets, MC number 8706-2351. A. The date is June 29th, 1987. Q. And does that refresh your recollection that it was in 1987? A. That's about, that's about when it happened. Q. Did you make the decision on your own that you would go down to Court for Ms. White? A. I most certainly did. Q. Did you discuss that decision with anyone else before you went down? A. No, I did not. Q. Now, 1987 was not your first... (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) BY MR. PIPER: Q. Do you recall that Ms. White was let out on bail on her own signature after you appeared in Page 102. Douglas Culbreth - Direct Court? A. I learned -- I've learned, yes, I've learned later, yes. Q. And that was based on your representations to the Court? A. I don't know why she was let out. Q. Could you turn to the last page of the transcript in front of you? A. (Witness complies with request.) Q. And what are the last words of the Court? A. From Mr. Gilson? Q. Following that the Court says SOB? A. The Court says SOB. Q. What does that mean? A. I would imagine sign own bail. Q. And you were in Court when that happened, weren't you? A. No, I don't recall being there then. Q. But you do recall giving, making the statements that are ascribed to you on pages 31 and 32? A. Yes; and I don't see any place there where I'm asking for bail. Q. Not but do you see that immediately after you spoke she was allowed to sign her own bail? Page 103. Douglas Culbreth - Direct MS. FISK: Well, Your Honor I would note that the notes speak for themselves, that Mr. Culbreth has testified with regard to his recollection. THE COURT: He doesn't make that decision, the Court does. Why don't you subpoena the Court officer or whoever was down there. BY MR. PIPER: Q. And you were in Court during this proceeding that is transcribed here, weren't you? A. As I testified, I don't recall being there then. My recollect -- Q. I'm sorry. A. It is my recollection I left after I said whatever I had to say. Q. You did learn that she had signed out on her own bail; is that correct? A. It's... I don't remember anything -- when I learned of that was this. I don't know anything about her signing out her bail. I haven't heard from her since this. This is the last I heard from Cynthia. Q. In fact, that is the last the Philadelphia Courts heard from her, isn't it? Page 104. Douglas Culbreth - Direct A. I have no idea. Q. You don't know that she was issued a bench warrant in 1988 for her failure to appear after signing her own bail? A. I haven't heard from her. Q. And can you think of any reason why that bench warrant would not have been reported to the NCIC tracking system? A. I don't work -- sir, I don't work with NCIC and don't know too much about computers. But, not to answer you, no, I have no idea. No, sir. (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) MR. PIPER: No further questions at this time. MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. FISK: Q. Detective Culbreth, since your retirement from the Philadelphia Police Department you have been working as an investigator with the Defender's Association of Philadelphia; is that correct, sir? Page 105. Douglas Culbreth - Cross A. That's correct, ma'am. Q. And it was in that capacity that you received a subpoena about a week or a week and a half ago from the defense to appear at today's proceeding? A. No, not in that capacity. Q. I'm sorry, it was within the last week, week and a half that you received a subpoena to come to this proceeding? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And at the time you were served, sir, the gentleman who is sitting here in the Courtroom (indicating) is the gentleman who served you? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And did you discuss with him or did he discuss with you the fact that as a retired or former Philadelphia police officer there was a great deal of work that he could have for you in terms of serving subpoenas in the Philadelphia area? A. He mentioned something about being a subpoena server but he didn't offer me any job. Q. Did he discuss with you the fact that as a retired Philadelphia police officer he has lots of work in the Philadelphia area? A. I don't remember him saying he was a Philadelphia police officer. Page 106. Douglas Culbreth - Cross Q. I'm sorry, I apologize. What do you remember him saying with regard to the availability of work? A. He had some small, small talk about whatever. I am not going to say where he worked, that's his business. Q. Yes. A. But it wasn't Philadelphia. But he just mentioned small talk, a police retiree talk. You know, there's work here in Philadelphia. Q. But since you are currently employed you didn't follow up on that? A. No, ma'am. Q. Now, you met Cynthia White on the night, or actually the morning that Officer Faulkner was murdered, and you in fact are the detective who took her statement down at the Police Administration Building? A. Yes, as I recall, I believe I was the first. I'm not sure about that. Q. Okay. A. But I believe I was the first detective she spoke to. Q. Now, at the time that she testified at trial in June 1982, were you present when Ms. White was brought into the Courtroom and testified? Page 107. Douglas Culbreth - Cross A. Yes. Q. Now, can you please tell us whether or not there was any fear on the part of Ms. White -- I'm sorry, not fear -- whether you detected any kind of attitude on the part of persons in the Courtroom when Ms. White testified? MR. PIPER: Objection to that question. How can you have a witness detecting attitudes in a Courtroom. MS. FISK: I will rephrase it. BY MS. FISK: Q. Did you note any hostility directed towards Ms. White when she testified at this trial? MR. PIPER: Objection to the form. How can someone sit in the Courtroom and notice hostility being directed. I mean it's just -- THE COURT: Oh, it happens everyday with me. Especially in this case. So I will let him answer it if he can. THE WITNESS: I wasn't in the Courtroom but I waited outside the Courtroom for Ms. White and I escorted her away. And there was some level of hostility directed towards her. MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. I ask the Page 108. Douglas Culbreth - Cross answer be stricken. The question was in the Courtroom. The witness indicated, I think, honestly that he wasn't in the Courtroom. MS. FISK: Right, and then he said that out of the Courtroom there was, and that is an appropriate response. May I continue my cross-examination, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the question was in the Courtroom. THE COURT: I know what the question is. And I know what he answered. So let's go. We will be here forever. BY MS. FISK: Q. What kind of hostility was directed towards Ms. White out of the Courtroom, Detective? A. I don't remember the exact but there were remarks made. I don't remember exactly what they were, but they were negative remarks made. Q. Now, were those negative remarks made by Philadelphia police officers or law enforcement officers? A. No. I didn't hear any. Q. Were those remarks made by persons who were in the Courtroom on behalf of Mr. Jamal? Page 109. Douglas Culbreth - Cross MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. The witness has no way of knowing who was in the Courtroom on behalf of Mr. Jamal, because unlike the police officers, they didn't wear buttons. THE COURT: They didn't? They didn't? MR. WEINGLASS: The Court -- THE COURT: They didn't? MR. WEINGLASS: They didn't. THE COURT: You weren't there. MR. WEINGLASS: Right. Your Honor recalls buttons? THE COURT: Oh, yes: Free Mumia. Come on. MR. WEINGLASS: Right. Well, they may ask questions about the buttons but not questions other than that. MS. FISK: Your Honor, I am not asking any questions about buttons. My question is whether the hostility directed towards Ms. White was by persons who were in the Courtroom on behalf of Mr. Jamal. And I would ask that the former detective be permitted to answer that question. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't know who the Page 110. Douglas Culbreth - Cross people were but they were people in the crowd with -- outside in the hallway there were people, spectators. I don't know who they were, but they were making, there were negative remarks made. BY MS. FISK: Q. Now, as a result of that, were you afraid for Ms. White's safety? A. I was afraid for hers and mine. Q. Now, you have told us that sometime in 1987 you received information, either a call from Ms. White or someone told you about a call that Ms. White placed, indicating that Ms. White was in custody and again was afraid? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Would you explain to us why once receiving that information you went to a preliminary hearing listing to tell the judge about that? A. I did it because that was Ms. White's right to have that reported to someone who could handle it. Q. And based on what you had observed at the trial in 1981, did you believe that her fear for being in danger was legitimate? MR. PIPER: Objection, Your Honor: That is beyond the scope and relating to aPage 111. Douglas Culbreth - Cross different event. MS. FISK: No, Your Honor, it explains the action taken by the detective. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe it was possible that her fears were -- I believe it was possible for her to be upset. BY MS. FISK: Q. And that her fears while being in jail -- I'm sorry -- that her reporting that she had received threats while in custody was legitimate? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And that -- MR. PIPER: Objection. The objection is to his state of mind, that has no bearing. MS. FISK: Your Honor, my -- well. Your Honor, this witness was called by the defense in an attempt to show improper -- THE COURT: I know that. MS. FISK: Something he did was improper. I have a right to show -- THE COURT: This is cross-examination. So the objection is overruled. Page 112. Douglas Culbreth - Cross Go ahead, proceed. MR. PIPER: This was six years -- THE COURT: You are bringing in six years. You are bringing all the way back to 18 years ago, so what. Come on. MS. FISK: Thank you. BY MS. FISK: Q. Detective, as a Homicide detective from 1979 until 1996, were there other occasions where you received contacts from witnesses who had provided information or testified after they completed testimony in a particular case? MR. PIPER: Objection. Is she talking about this case? Other cases? This has no relevance. MS. FISK: Again, Your Honor, it explains the actions of this detective and proves that what this detective did was not improper, was not in violation of discovery, was not part of a pre-agreed arrangement which defense Counsel may want to claim at some later time was not disclosed. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PIPER: They could ask what Page 113. Douglas Culbreth - Cross arrangements there were in this case. If they want to go into the pattern of dealing with prostitution witnesses, we have been shut down on going into that issue. THE COURT: They didn't do that. The Supreme Court did. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, you did. THE COURT: I did. MR. PIPER: You did. THE COURT: I did. Well, there was a good reason for it. MR. PIPER: It was in our Petition which was granted, Judge. THE COURT: Oh, all right, that's what it says in there. MS. FISK: I will restate the question, Your Honor. BY MS. FISK: Q. In 1982 did you agree with Ms. White that you would help get her out of jail five years later? A. No, ma'am. Q. Her call to you in 1987 was, so far as you know, placed by her or someone on her behalf to you or someone in Homicide? A. That's correct. Page 114. Q. And as a result of the information which you received, that being that she had been threatened while in custody, you went to a preliminary hearing listing and advised the judge that she had been threatened or that she reported to you that she had received threats while in custody? A. That's correct. Q. Was that pursuant to a deal or an agreement with Ms. White? A. No, I think it was pursuant because she knew I would do it. Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. A. I think she called me because she knew I would do it. MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. I have nothing further, Your Honor. MR. PIPER: I have some questions. (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) MR. PIPER: The witness may be excused, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Thank you. (Witness excused) Page 115. (Discussion was held off the record among defense Counsel.) MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, may we break early and come back early from lunch? THE COURT: What do you mean break? How many witnesses do you have? MR. WEINGLASS: Three very short. And one longer. MS. FISK: May I inquire as to who they are, please? THE COURT: Yes, who are they? MR. WEINGLASS: We will provide the District Attorney's Office the same courtesy accorded to us last Thursday. THE COURT: Well, I am asking you now who do you have. Give me the names so she could hear them. If she has any objections I will have plenty of time to think about it while I eat my lunch. Come on, who are they? Who are the short ones and who is the long one? MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Corbett. THE COURT: He was just here, wasn't he? MS. FISK: No, this was Culbreth. THE COURT: Oh, another one. Okay. Page 116. MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Cannon. Mr. Grant. Larry Johnson. These are the short witnesses. Don Hudson, longer witness. Don Burton, longer witness. MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I address each of those? Because I would object actually to each and every one of them. Mr. Corbett, Detective Corbett is the assigned detective on the matter which Ms. Jenkins has recently been held for Court on. And it is simply collateral. She has in fact been arrested and held for Court on a theft from February. I know defense claims it is retaliatory, nevertheless she has been held for Court on it. And she could certainly claim that, but beyond that, that is irrelevant to her testimony and the substance of her testimony which has to do with what she claims are improper contacts in 1981. Frankly, I have no idea, there has never been any offer made with regard to Mr. Cannon. I would ask that offer be made. Mr. Grant, I am assuming, is Charles Joseph Grant, former Assistant District Attorney. And I would object to any testimony Page 117. he would give. He hasn't been involved in this matter since 1995 and had no contact with this case when it was tried in 1982. Larry Johnson and Don Burton are both defense investigators. And again, as I understand it, defense investigators involved with this matter now, in the past two years. And with regard to the substance of the defense claims alleging improper police conduct in 1981 and 1982, their testimony is irrelevant. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, as to Detective James Corbett, his testimony is relevant because we have raised the substantial allegation that Miss, Ms. Jenkins' arrest was retaliatory. She was here on the stand, she indicated her involvement or the extent of her involvement in an art theft which took place in February of 1997. It also was her testimony, and we want James Corbett in here to testify that it was in March, early March of 1997 that she contacted voluntarily the FBI to provide information to the FBI concerning that art theft and retrieval of the painting. That conversation was then related to Detective James Corbett in the Page 118. Central Detectives Division of the Philadelphia Police Department. Ms. Jenkins was in the company of Detective Corbett and the FBI agent and I believe the date was March 6th or March 7th, 1997. At that time after assisting the authorities in the retrieval of that stolen art painting, she was told that she would be, there would be no further prosecution, no further involvement of her for any alleged participation by her in this art theft. It was only after the defense filed its papers for a supplemental remand hearing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on March l0th, some four or five days later, with the accompanying publicity, including Ms. Jenkins appearing at a press conference when we filed those papers, that the prosecution pursued some sort of arrest of her and prosecuted her for these charges. And in fact, it took them another two-and-a-half months before they ever effectuated any arrest on her, despite the fact that she was in P.I.C.C., she was in the, she was in the institutions of the City of Philadelphia, arrested on a detainer, available from April 14th on. Page 119. Prior to that she was available and had been in the custody, or at least in the company, of a detective from the Central division -- that's Detective James Corbett -- and an FBI agent in early March. It is not until May 17th, after the Assistant District Attorney has filed it's Answer to the Supreme Court on our remand papers saying they have done an investigation on this case and they would be oh so welcome to have a remand hearing that a warrant of arrest on May llth, 1997 was sworn out for Ms. Jenkins. And it was not until after the Supreme Court actually set the remand hearing in an Order dated May 30th, 1997 and filed in the Court on June 2nd, 1997 that there was any attempt to arrest Ms. Jenkins on these charges. It is our position that this was retaliation. It was an attempt to threaten her against testifying on Mr. Jamal's behalf and providing the information that she has given to the Court and was contained in her verified statement. We believe this is absolutely relevant to these proceedings, it is absolutely part of the behavior of the prosecution and the Page 120. police towards any witness who comes forward on Mr. Jamal's behalf with any sort of information which would be possibly helpful to the defense. It is the same type of thing that was done to Veronica Jones, only a little bit of a reverse. This time the prosecution effectuated arrest prior to the witness appearing on the stand instead of while she was on the stand. I think they figured out that that created such an uproar that they had to try something with different means. The means was different but the intent was the same and that was to intimidate, harass, punish, retaliate against a defense witness. MS. FISK: May I note, Your Honor, that Ms. Jenkins' testimony, which was, frankly, shown to be, I submit, perjured on the basis of documents which were produced last Thursday, included her statement that no one at any time when she was prosecuted and charged with art theft ever asked her about her testimony in this matter, ever sought to have her change her testimony in this matter. And that her arrest on the art theft was unrelated to her testimony in this matter. Page 121. I would note as well that Ms. Jenkins was in custody prior to her arrest and I don't know if Counsel is claiming we also had her locked up on a violation of probation for New Jersey as well, maybe that's our fault too. In any event, the testimony of Ms. Jenkins, which was proffered to the Supreme Court, and the reason for which this matter was remanded to this Court, was to allow Ms. Jenkins to give testimony regarding allegedly improper efforts by Philadelphia police officers to have Ms. Jenkins provide false testimony against Mr. Jamal at his trial. Whether or not something is done 15 years later is not relevant to the claims made by defense in their affirmation and their Petition to the Supreme Court for activities then. Their allegation was conduct was improper then. The woman has been held for Court and charged with a theft. Whether or not the defense considers that retaliatory has nothing to do with anything. Ms. Jenkins' testimony was I am providing this testimony without regard to what anybody has said to me or done to me, and anything anyone has said to me or done to me Page 122. with regard to this most-recent arrest has not changed my testimony. It is, therefore, irrelevant and I ask that it be barred. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There is one correction I want to make here. Very clearly, Ms. Jenkins testified that when she was brought into the Central Detectives division for booking on this charge, that she encountered Detective Richard Ryan and he said to her to the effect keep my name out of what you have to say about this case. MS. FISK: Well, I note that -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I want to make that very clear and I want to indicate that it has everything to do with this case to show the type of intimidation and harassment that witnesses are subjected to. MS. FISK: And I note that Detective Richard Ryan's name is not one of the names Counsel has listed on their five remaining, though he too has been subpoenaed by the defense and as I understand it is present in the Courtroom. He is a witness to whom I have no objection: He is mentioned in the affidavit, he Page 123. has been referred to by the witness. And I would agree that his testimony pursuant to Ms. Jenkins' affidavit would be proper. And I understand that he is available. But whether or not a subsequent arrest is retaliatory is not relevant. And I would ask Counsel if they are calling Detective Richard Ryan? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could we have a ruling on Detective -- THE COURT: Are you going to call Richard Ryan? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, Detective Colbert is before the Court right now. That's -- THE COURT: I am denying your request on Colbert. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you think I'm wrong. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Oh, Cannon, okay. I will proceed since the Assistant District Attorney wants us to give proffers for each of the witnesses. One of the witnesses that we intend to call, subject to any contrary order from the Court, is Marcus Cannon. He is a life-long Page 124. resident of the City of Philadelphia, gainfully employed for many years, a father, no criminal record. And he has very critical testimony in connection with reference to the testimony given here in Court by Pamela Jenkins. He has testimony that he was in Whispers on December 9th, 1981 -- that is a club at the corner of 13th and Locust -- and upon leaving that club and walking north on 13th Street from the corner of Locust and, Locust and 13th, he passed two men, white men, one who appeared to be like a bum, sitting near Whispers on the side, on the store side, another one a little bit further down, also white, just leaning along the side. And as Mr. Cannon proceeded north on 13th Street he heard shots, he saw a flash of light, he turned and looked back towards 13th and Locust Street. And as he turned back he saw a black male fleeing very fast east on Locust Street, away from 13th and Locust Street. And as he continued turning he saw these two men, white men appear, suddenly stand up, look erect and pull out weapons and proceed very quickly to the corner of 13th and Locust Page 125. Street. He was frightened, he was scared, having seen this, having seen virtually a transformation of a man who appears to be a, who appeared to be a bum, suddenly turn around there, taking an aggressive stance with weapons out. And he immediately turned and continued up, up 13th Street towards Walnut. As we know, former Police Officer Boston just confirmed that there were plainclothes officers certainly working in the 6th District. We have asked for discovery many times. We believe that the two men that Marcus Cannon saw that night were plainclothes policemen. They are either on duty or off duty. And we believe we are entitled to know their identities, and we believe we are entitled to get the reports of what they saw. Because we find it extremely strange that two white men with weapons at approximately four o'clock in the morning, at the time of the shooting, were there on the scene and we have heard nothing about them. And we find it further strange that this case is based largely -- I am not going to Page 126. argue about primarily or predominantly -- but with the, with the testimony of a very known prostitute, now a police informant, Cynthia White, who was allegedly on the scene. This is a case being made against Mr. Jamal, who is facing execution, when there are obviously other men, quite likely police officers on the scene, who were in a position to see what happened. We find it extremely strange that we have not had any disclosure of any information of any, of any policemen on foot. And I will just further say and we will conclude and we could see what Ms. Fisk has to say to this, that of all the reports that we have gotten, there is not one report from any police officer who arrived on the scene or near the scene at that time who was on foot. I maintain that there were some police officers on foot that night, on duty or off duty. And we need to hear from Mr. Cannon to get this into the record. MS. FISK: Your Honor, the allegations which have been continuously raised by the defense throughout these proceedings are far more than strange, but I have already exhausted Page 127. my use of foul language for the morning and will not make comments with regard to it. I will note only that the proffer on Mr. Cannon as noted by Ms. Wolkenstein is to suggest, far beyond the Petition for remand with the Supreme Court, doesn't even begin to, has nothing to do with the Petition for remand, it is a little bit closer. And I would note as well that since these proceedings began in 1995, there was absolutely no averment made by Ms. Wolkenstein in that very full and detailed and complete proffer which explained why Mr. Cannon was unavailable to the defense in the 1995 proceeding, or the 1996 remand, or at the time in March of this year when the defense sought further remand. In so far as Mr. Cannon has not even been alleged to have been unavailable previously, and was clearly not the subject of the remand by the Supreme Court, I would ask that his testimony be barred. THE COURT: All right, his testimony is barred too. What about the rest of them? MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Grant, Mr. Grant Page 128. has been subpoenaed by the defense. We are not going to question him about 1997 or 1982, because he was not involved in the case. We are going to question him about 1995, when he was involved in the case and conducted on behalf of the District Attorney's Office the post-conviction hearing heard by this Court. And at that time -- and I represent to the Court we have information on this -- Mr. Grant was involved personally in an active search for a Cynthia White, contacting authorities as far away as Boston, Massachusetts to locate Cynthia White. Now, his testimony is relevant because if in fact Cynthia White was a deceased person as of 1992, and that information was contained in official documents readily available to the District Attorney's Office that were valid, the Assistant District Attorney conducting this hearing in 1995 would not have been involved in a frantic search to locate Cynthia White. So his testimony about his own personal involvement in a search for Cynthia White in 1995 going so far as Boston, Massachusetts in the search for that individual belies the fact that in 1992 she Page 129. was deceased and that documents that were valid supported that conclusion. In fact, everything that Mr. Grant has to say indicates what we feel the rest of our case will show, and that is that Cynthia White was not a deceased person in 1992 -- the District Attorney's Office knew it, we know it -- and Mr. Grant is the best witness to be called from the District Attorney's Office to reflect the fact that they knew that although there was an individual who was apparently deceased in Camden, that individual was not the Cynthia White who was involved in this case. And so we wanted to call Mr. Grant to establish the fact that that office was proceeding in 1995 on the assumption that Cynthia White was alive, even though they now produced records going back to 1992 that allege that she is deceased. MS. FISK: Your Honor, it is simply ludicrous. The fact that someone is being looked for does not, is not proof that that person is not alive. You have to discover that that person is dead before you stop looking for that person. Page 130. Mr. Grant as the prosecutor handling this proceeding in 1995 frankly provided to defense each and every one of the witnesses they sought in the course of those proceedings. My recollection is that they were unable to proceed at one point because they did not have witnesses served. Mr. Grant was able to get those defense witnesses served so the proceedings could go on. In that capacity, Mr. Grant, along with persons working with him, were looking for each and every one of the parties sought by defense. The fact that he did not discover a death certificate which has been marked and entered into this record does not prove that that death certificate is irrelevant, or improper, or forged, or unauthentic, or does not relate to a particular individual. It is simply not relevant to the testimony and the documents which have been offered in this matter. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, it is not just the death certificate. There is a document which has been marked as Commonwealth 2. There is an NCIC printout. The printout that was given to this Court is not a complete document. Because if the Court has the Page 131. complete document, the Court will see that in the complete document the fact of Cynthia White being deceased was not, I emphasize not, confirmed by fingerprints. That's why they were still looking for her in '95. Now in 1997 when we make the claim that Cynthia White is alive and produce a witness to support it, now they come to Court with a part of an official document, leaving off the remainder of the document, to convince this Court that there was FBI national data indicating that the witness was deceased. But I believe the full record will show that this Court has been misled -- I won't say deceived -- but the Court has been misled. And that's what we want to rebut. We are going to call not just Mr. Grant for that fact, we are also going to call Mr. Burton and we are going to call another investigator named Larry Johnson. And those three will provide the rebuttal to the documents that have been provided to this Court, which are not valid documents in the sense of what they convey. That is that Cynthia White is deceased. This record, by the time the Court hears our last Page 132. three witnesses, will reflect the fact that there is no verifiable proof that Cynthia White was deceased in 1992. As a matter of fact, our investigator Mr. Burton will testify that in 1997 he took photographs of Cynthia White into the City of Philadelphia where she was last known to be, and that various persons -- two, three, four people -- identified those photographs as someone who they had recently seen. And seen alive in the City of Philadelphia. This testimony is very crucial rebuttal testimony to the death certificate. Beyond that, Your Honor, the death Certificate that you have been shown is not properly authenticated. Because there is attached page 2, which has nothing to do with the death certificate, and attached page 3, which has nothing to do with the death certificate. You have not been shown the information by the Assistant District Attorney, either as a result of negligence or as a result of willful intent, to establish the fact that documentation shows that that Cynthia White died in 1992. Page 133. Beyond that, the death certificate itself is not complete. And we have an affidavit from the next of kin who was contacted in 1992 and asked if she would identify the body as that of her stepdaughter. And she never identified the body. So there is no identification that that body is Cynthia White. This is no fingerprint verification that that body was Cynthia White. The death certificate is a document pertaining to another individual. And evidence shows that Cynthia White was alive and well in Philadelphia in 1997. That's what we are going to show with our last three witnesses: Joey Grant, Mr. Burton and Mr. Johnson. MS. FISK: Your Honor, unless Counsel is offering to produce-members of the New Jersey State Troopers and the AFIS unit which does fingerprint identifications, or members of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office which has custody of the file regarding Cynthia White, I would suggest that any testimony they are offering with regard to Ms. White's death, the death certificate, the manner of her identification, is hearsay. Because those are Page 134. the agencies involved in the identification of the decedent. Ms. White's fingerprints were taken at the Office of the Medical Examiner in Camden, her fingerprints are sent to the New Jersey State Troopers, where they are matched against master fingerprints. Her death is verified as a result of fingerprint identifications at the New Jersey State Troopers and AFIS, the computerized fingerprint office. And thereafter the county in which she was found dead is verified or is told that their death has been verified, and because she is dead her records are purged. Unless Counsel wishes to call persons from those offices, any private investigator, any prosecutor from outside that county is testifying on the basis of hearsay and it is inadmissible. If Counsel would like to have produced the people from the New Jersey State Troopers office who can verify the manner in which a death verification is made, I would be happy to present those witnesses to Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Those subpoenas are denied also. Page 135. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: She is giving you an opportunity. Go to New Jersey, get the proper people in here and I will listen to you. MR. WEINGLASS: Will the Court sign an order for us to bring -- THE COURT: How can I sign an order for New Jersey? MS. FISK: Your Honor, as Mr. Grant did in 1995, I would be happy to produce persons from the New Jersey State Troopers office who can verify the manner in which a death is verified in the State of New Jersey. THE COURT: Okay, she is going to get them for you. MR. WEINGLASS: Will they be produced here in Court? THE COURT: She is saying she'll produce them if you want them. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We also want the Medical Examiner's full file. We attempted to get that. MS. FISK: Well, I don't have that, Your Honor. MR. WEINGLASS: And we were told it Page 136. was turned over to the Assistant District Attorney here, Arlene Fisk. MS. FISK: I do not have it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We would appreciate getting it. THE COURT: Wait a while. She says she doesn't have it. That is enough for me. MS. FISK: I would note that the Medical Examiner, Your Honor, is currently on vacation, and I am advised that she is due back next Monday. MR. WEINGLASS: But his report is available and they have it. THE COURT: No, she said she doesn't have it. MS. FISK: That's why I am objecting to Mr. Grant's testimony. He is not a Camden County prosecutor. THE COURT: Okay, well, then there is nothing else we could do today. MS. FISK: Is the defense calling Detective Ryan? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, you are saying we cannot call our investigators to explain the types of things that Mr. Weinglass Page 137. has laid out, that we had evidence that Cynthia White was alive? MS. FISK: That is all hearsay, Your Honor. MR. WEINGLASS: It is not hearsay. It's his personal work here in the City of Philadelphia, walking to various areas where she was last seen. THE COURT: Well, let me tell you this: If she's dead then he is looking at the wrong person. Now, if you want to prove that she's not dead, call the proper authorities in New Jersey and we will conduct a further hearing. MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry. Your Honor, I didn't hear. THE COURT: What do you mean, how many times do I have to repeat that? MR. WEINGLASS: Just once. THE COURT: You have to call the people from New Jersey. That's what I told you. MR. WEINGLASS: But we also wanted Mr. Burton as a rebuttal witness to the things testified to by Mr. Ryan. THE COURT: Well, I want to find out Page 138. if she's dead, if she's really, legally dead. Forget about it. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor, in order to find that out you have to hear from Mr. Burton. THE COURT: No, I don't have to hear from him. I have to hear from the people in New Jersey who say she is dead. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We need the full NCIC report. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor needs to see a part of a document that is NCIC, you need the whole document. THE COURT: I don't need the whole document, she'll bring in the people from New Jersey. MR. WEINGLASS: Bring in the NCIC document which says fingerprints were not established to confirm the death. MS. FISK: Frankly, I don't know what Counsel is talking about, but. MR. WEINGLASS: There is an NCIC document. MS. FISK: Well, apparently Counsel has it, then. Maybe he would like to have it Page 139. marked. MR. WEINGLASS: We are not permitted because we are not law enforcement. They have the document. Could they bring the whole document in? The Court was only given a part of it. THE COURT: Counselor, you talk to the D.A. If she could do it, she will do it for you. MS. FISK: Your Honor, is Counsel calling Detective Ryan? Who was here, as I understand it, pursuant to a defense subpoena. THE COURT: Are you calling -- MR. PIPER: Your Honor, at this time we would like to move into evidence the Court files. THE COURT: Wait a while. There is a question. Are you going to call that -- Who is he? MS. FISK: Detective Richard Ryan. THE COURT: Are you going to call Richard Ryan? MR. WEINGLASS: We are not. THE COURT: He is not. So you could tell him he could go home. Page 140. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Joey Grant is right here. MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Grant is here. THE COURT: I know Mr. Grant is here. MR. WEINGLASS: May we call him after the lunch break? MS. FISK: Your Honor, our position is that is hearsay, it is irrelevant, it is unnecessary, and it is not the manner in which to prove that which Counsel is seeking to prove. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: We are establishing -- MS. FISK: Does Your Honor -- MR. WEINGLASS: -- that the District Attorney's Office in 1995 was seeking Cynthia White. THE COURT: Well, so what? MS. FISK: And other witnesses in this case. THE COURT: So what? She was seeking a lot of persons. But the person is dead. You prove to me that that person is not now dead, then we will hear some more. All right. MR. PIPER: We would also like to move into evidence the Court files of Cynthia White Page 141. which shows that her alias was Lucky, which was offered at the Veronica Jones hearing. And it would show that she was repeatedly arrested by Officers Geoffrey and Herron of the 6th District. As well as their indictments and conviction. THE COURT: Counselor, I am not hearing anything right now. I am trying to get to lunch. But I will give you an opportunity to work it out. MS. FISK: When shall we reconvene, Your Honor, this afternoon or tomorrow, with regard to those persons from New Jersey? If Counsel in fact wants them. THE COURT: Well, you talk that over. MS. FISK: Is Your Honor available both this afternoon and tomorrow morning? THE COURT: Yes, I am available. MR. GRANT: May I address the Court, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, come on. MR. GRANT: Because I don't know that I will be available tomorrow. But I received a subpoena this morning at 9:30 to be here at nine o'clock. There was no phone number by which I Page 142. could contact Counsel or to ask to be placed on call, or any comment or even professional courtesy. If Counsel who have subpoenaed me wishes me to testify, I would appreciate it -- because I have clients just like they do -- that they give me some kind of notice and allow me to tell them what my schedule is like. This afternoon I have to be at the airport. I am not going to be here tomorrow. And this morning I was in the middle of a serious conference on the orders of Judge Bonavitacola. So I would like to know who subpoenaed me and what their intentions are. THE COURT: He subpoenaed you (indicating). MR. GRANT: Well, I assumed as much based on the lack of courtesy. Mr. Weinglass, what could I do for you? MR. WEINGLASS: Be here two o'clock. THE COURT: No, he says he has someplace to go this afternoon. MS. FISK: It is my understanding that Your Honor has denied the defense the Page 143. opportunity to call Mr. Grant from the fact of what they want is hearsay and irrelevant. THE COURT: Yes, if they wanted the people from New Jersey who could clear up this matter for us. MS. FISK: Does the defense want representatives from the New Jersey State Troopers and AFIS? MR. WEINGLASS: No, we want the full documents. THE COURT: I know you want everything. Let me tell you this -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We want the fingerprint cards. MS. FISK: I would like the defense to call a witness to tell the truth but I am not getting that even. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: If there was one. And when we have all those things we would be able to determine. THE COURT: You will never be satisfied in this case. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, we want the entire prosecution file. THE COURT: Well, you go back up to Page 144. the Supreme Court. I am making a ruling they are out. Except she'll get the New Jersey authorities for you. If you want them to come over here to prove that she is the one that's dead. All right. MS. FISK: My understanding, Your Honor, is that Counsel does not want that witness produced. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, we want the documents first. When we get the documents first we will make an evaluation of what witnesses. MS. FISK: I don't have documents. THE COURT: She doesn't have -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The documents that are produced are incomplete. THE COURT: Whoa, whoa. He can't take you down and me at the same time. When I begin to speak, you shut up, okay. Do you understand that? When I start to speak, you shut up. Okay, we are recessing. You call me whenever you're ready. MS. FISK: Your Honor, it is my understanding that Counsel does not want that witness produced. In light of the fact that Page 145. Counsel does not have any additional witnesses to call -- THE COURT: Well, I am not hearing any additional witnesses now. But if they want those people from New Jersey and you could get them over here, I will be glad to hear them tomorrow. MS. FISK: Fine, Judge. THE COURT: Shall we reconvene tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, we want the files. On the records -- THE COURT: I have made a ruling. Go back up to the Supreme Court. I made a ruling, that's it. If you want those people from New Jersey, they will come. MR. WEINGLASS: Without the documents, without the documents we don't want the witnesses. MS. FISK: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BURNS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Without the documents you don't want the witnesses. It's all right with me. Counselor, take it up to the Supreme Court. I am ruling if you don't want the witnesses, you Page 146. want the documents first, and I can't force them to give you the documents first, you have to have those witnesses in here. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: D.A. has documents. MS. FISK: I have no documents from New Jersey. Perhaps Counsel doesn't listen. THE COURT: I know, I heard you say that. MR. WEINGLASS: Are we reconvening at two o'clock? THE COURT: No. What for: We will reconvene whenever you people decide who is going to come in here. I am not going to come over here at two o'clock for nothing. - - - - - (The hearing was adjourned at this time.) - - - - - Page 147. I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same. Official Stenographer Date The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Judge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||