Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 124
124 / 251
eo 9
120 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370
Upon this Haas responded, “Judge, we can’t cover up
the cover-up.” Haas continued that that was part of their
complaint, that they covered up. The judge immediately
eld him in contenipt of court. All of the above was in
the presence of the jury. After the jury retired Haas
continued:
All right, Judge. I think all the people who have
spoken the truth have always ended up in contempt,
and the cover-up goes on and on and on.
It appears obvious to me, as it must have to the jury,
that Haas in his first statement about a cover-up was
not referring to something which had happened back in
the early 1970’s but was referring to the court
participating in a further cover-up. His meaning was
made clear by his subsequent statement that the cover-
up goes on and on and on. A charge in the presence of
the jury that the presiding judge is participating in a
“cover-up” is particularly damaging during the course of
trial. On the one hand the jury may come to the
conclusion that the judge thinks there is no merit in the
answer which counsel js attempting to elicit and
therefore he is curtailing the pursuit.-On the other hand; -
the jury may think just the opposite, i.e., that the trial
judge is improperly covering up for the defense, in
which case the judge’s necessary authority in further
trial matters such as instructions is diminished. In
either event a fair trial is hampered.
A charge that the trial judge engaged in a cover-up
made in the presence of the jury is clearly an affront to
the court and disruptive to the administration of justice
and the order of contempt as to Haas should be
affirmed. See United States v. Wilson, supra; United
States v. Sacher, supra.
The case as to Taylor is closer although possibly with
some significance it was Haas who was examining the
witness but it was Taylor who engaged in the conduct
charged as_ being contemptuous. Tne case is closer
because it simply should not have occurred in the first
place. This all began because defense counsel objected to
a question which included the word “raid” and said that
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic