◆ SpookStack

especially note 10). These items are not inconsistent with the direct testimony and were fully explained during the course of the extensive examination of federal appellees. At a minimum if all the improper inferences which Judge Swygert's opinion draws from the activities discussed above in points 1 to 3, supra, were ignored, it is apparent that this evidence standing alone would not justify submission of the case. to. the jury. 5.. Finally, there was not any evidence that any activity of any federal appellee after the December. 4, 1969, incident was such that he should have nnn that he was violating the constitutional norm (Slip Op. 45). The panel bases its conclusion that federal appellees may have been involved in a conspiracy "to cause the false arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution of the survivors" [Slip Op. 45] primarily on the pro- . ceedings before the federal grand jury (Slip Op. 46). Of course, no ' federal appellee was involved in arresting, imprisoning, or prose- cuting the survivors: (Slip Op. 23 and 28) The federal efforts were directed to stopping the prosecutions of the survivors rather than encouraging it (see Slip Op. 28-29), and clearly the federal appellees had no reason to believe that such activities violated the constitutional norm. 10/ Nor was any federal appellee except Johnson (Slip Op. 29) in- volved in presenting evidence to the grand jury which was under the control of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Leonard (Slip Op. 28-29), with special FBI agent Trevarinus desig- nated by the grand jury as its agent (Slip Op. 28). Judge Swygert’s opinion does recognize that the efforts of Leonard and the federal grand jury resulted in the dismissal of the State prosecution against appellants to clear the way for them to testify before the federal grand jury which they refused to do (Slip Op. 31~32). -13 --