Testimony of Eden Shea
(Eden Shea was a security guard at the Hibernia Bank)
Testimony of Thomas Matthews
(a high school student kidnapped by Hearst and and the Harrises after the shooting at Mel's)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNING:
Q. Miss Heart, may we assume that the tape recorded message which you referred to earlier in your testimony was recorded a day or two before it was discovered on April 24th, of 1974, to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Q. In other words, you late learned, did you not, that it had been broadcast on the same day that it was received, and I believe that was April 24, 1974, and I take it your recollection is that you had recorded that message a day or two prior to that time, April 22 or 23, a day along in there?
A. I don’t know when it was received.
Q. All right, but you do recall, do you not, that it was recorded in an apartment on Golden Gate Avenue at 1827. Were you familiar with that address?
A. Not the address but it was on Golden Gate.
Q. Were you familiar with the apartment complex, Apartment No. 6?
Q. All right, and if I showed you a photograph, I believe you made reference to having recorded the message in that closet, it that correct?
Q. Miss Hearst, I will show you two photographs which your attorney has handed to me and ask whether this appears to be the closet in which the tape recorded message was made?
Q. Now, could we have these two photographs marked for identification.
THE CLERK: Plaintiffs 88 and 89 marked for identification.
THE COURT: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 88 and 89 for identification, photographs of the closet.
[Plaintiff's Exhibits 88 and 89 marked for identification. Photographs of closet.)
MR. BROWING: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Now, was the closet door closed when hyou made the recording, Miss Hearst?
Q. And you testified, I believe, that DeFreeze was in the closet with you at the time you made the recording?
Q. Was there anyone else in the closet at that time?
Q. Pardon me?
Q. You and Mr. DeFreeze?
Q. Now, approximately how long had you been at the apartment on Golden Gate at that time?
A. A month, a month and a half.
Q. A month, a month and a half?
Q. So this was April, around April 21st, 22nd, so you had been there about March, late March?
Q. Pardon me?
A. No, I think the middle of March.
Q. The middle of March, Okay. As a matter of fact, when you got to 1827 Golden Gate, or this apartment on Golden Gate, you were not being held in that closet all the time, were you?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You were?
Q. Was there a previous closet in which you were held?
Q. Did you later ascertain that that closet was the 37 Northridge in Daly City?
Q. A place in Daly City?
Q. And you were kidnapped, were you not, on April 4, 1974?
MR. BAILEY: February.
THE COURT: Better get the month right.
MR. BROWNING: Q. February 4, is that correct?
Q. And you were held at Daly City from that date until the time you moved to Golden Gate, is that correct?
Q. And you moved in a car, I take it?
Q. Were you blindfolded?
Q. And whose car was it, do you know?
A. I don’t know. I was put into a garbage can that was tied up and put in the trunk of the car.
Q. And then, was the garbage can taken into the apartment on Golden Gate when you arrived?
Q. Were you in it?
Q. And you were placed in a closet immediately, is that correct?
Q. Do you remember signing an affidavit in this case earlier, Miss Hearst, in connection with your motion for boil?
Q. You state in this affidavit, do you not: “She was then carried from the house,” that is your house in Berkeley, “and thrown into the trunk of the automobile. This car proceeded some distance when it was stopped, and she was then transferred to the body of another vehicle?”
Q. “She was then taken to another house where she was placed in a closet on the floor; the closet was approximately five to six feet in length and about three feet in width. For several days she remained in this closet with her hands bound, blindfolded, and with no lights. The closet was hot and extremely uncomfortable. She was given food but was unable to eat any for a period of about ten days, and for all that period was unable to dispose of her body wastes. During the first week nobody talked to her except the man who called himself Cinque, who brought a tape recording device to the closet and taped into this device the early communiqués which were broadcast.” Now, is that true?
Q. And again directing your attention to the affidavit, the bottom of Page 2, you say: “After an interminable length of time, which seemed to here to be weeks, she was released from the closet and was then seated with the gang of captors, who were discussing the robbery of a bank, and was instructed by them that she must accompany them to the bank; that she must allow herself to be photographed by the bank camera, and in addition, that she must announce her name aloud so that everyone would know she was participating in the holdup. About three to four days after her release from the closet, she was put in an automobile and taken to a site, which she now understands, was a branch of the Hibernia Bank; she was given a gun and directed to stand about in the center of the bank counter.” In truth and in fact, Miss Hearst, that was the same closet that you were referring to there? There were two closets, is that correct?
Q. And who wrote that material for you, was it Angelo Atwood and William Wolfe?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did others write some of the material for you on other tapes?
A. They'd bring in a sheet of paper, and I would read it.
Q. In other words, it was not always William Wolfe and Angelo Atwood who gave you the material that you were to speak into the recorder, is that correct?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Were there others?
A. Were others there, yes.
Q. Yes. But I mean, was it always Mr. Wolfe and Miss Atwood who --
THE COURT: She said she doesn't know. MR. BROWNING:
Q. You don't recall?
Q. You also said, Miss Hearst -- or I will ask you whether you said, quote, "I've become conscious" -- pardon me -- I'm directing your attention to this same earlier tape, and ask whether this will refresh your recollection: Did you make an earlier tape around the early part of April in which you said, "I've become conscious and can never go back to the life we had before." Do you recall saying those words?
A. I don't recall seeing the transcript of that tape.
Q. Do you recall, now that I read those words, whether you said them or not on the tape?
Q. You do not recall. You also stated, I suggest, that you had been given a choice of release to a safe area or joining the SLA, and you had chosen to stay and fight. Weren't you in fact offered that choice?
A. Sort of, yes.
Q. Well, tell us what you mean by, "sort of"?
A. Well, a few weeks before, DeFreeze told me that the war council had decided or was thinking about killing me or me staying with them, and that I better start thinking about that as a possibility. Then he came in later and said that I could go home or stay with them. And I didn't believe them.
Q. You didn't believe him when he said you could go home or stay with them?
A. That's right.
Q. You thought he was not sincere in what he said, you could be released if you wished?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, do you recall making another tape recording on or about June 8th, 1974 in Los Angeles, or which was received in
Los Angeles in which a female voice -- and I will ask you whether you were the voice who spoke these words -- says, "Neither Cujo or I had ever loved an individual the way we loved each other, probably because our relationship wasn't based on bourgeois hepped-vp values, attitudes and goals. Our relationship's foundation was our commitment to the struggle, and our love for the people. It's because of this that I still feel strong and determined to fight." Do you recall you spoke those words, Miss Hearst?
A. Can I see the transcript?
Q. We'll get you a transcript of that. I don't have one right at the moment. Do you recall, just from my recounting of those words, whether you said them or not?
THE COURT: You can say no, if you don't recall without looking at them. You have the right to look at them first.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. BROWNING: Q. It is a fact, is it not, Miss Hearst,
that Cujo was the SLA name taken by William Wolfe?
Q. Were you in fact in love with William Wolfe at that time? A. No.
Q. Now, with respect to the manuscript for the book that you testified about, many of those pages bear your handwriting, do they not?
Q. And it's your testimony, as I understand it, that with respect to the recounting of events, other than your early life and background, anything in your handwriting and anything -- did you typewrite any of those chronicles, by the way, yourself?
Q. Anything that you typewrote was false and forced, is that correct?
Q. Let me ask you this, Miss Hearst: Didn't you participate in other activities with Mr. Harris with respect to banks?
MR. BAILEY: I object.
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, now we're going into a new subject matter.
MR. BROWNING: Not entirely, Your Honor.
MR. BAILEY: For beyond the scope.
MR. BROWNING: May I have just a moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BROWNING: Perhaps I could ask a few more questions.
THE COURT: That's onto the same subject matter?
MR. BROWNING: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, you withdraw that question?
MR, BROWNING: Yes, I withdraw that question.
Q. Miss Hearst, in addition to the materials that you participated in writing with respect to the manuscript for the book, did you also participate in writing certain other documents which were held by the Harrises together with the manuscript, do you recall?
MR. BAILEY: What line, please?
MR. BROWNING: I'm referring to a document entitled Bakery, which is a typewritten document.
Q. Miss Hearst, I will show you a copy of two typewritten pages entitled Bakery. Can you tell me whether you recognize those -take all the time you need.
Q. All right. Let me direct your attention to a subsequent page which appears to be a diagram. And at the top it's labeled B of A Marysville, and direct your attention to some handwriting on the bottom of that page. Do you recognize that handwriting?
Q. Is that your handwriting?
Q. Do you recall writing that?
A. I mean I wrote it, it's my handwriting.
Q. All right. Do you recall the circumstances under which you wrote that sentence?
MR. BAILEY: I am going to object to this, Your Honor, it's beyond the scope of this hearing.
MR. BROWNING: If Your Honor please, my offer of proof is yhat these pages were found together with the manuscript and the documents. I think I am entitled to go into her recollection of her own handwriting found together with the materials that she testified about.
THE COURT: I will have to overrule the objection. I think here my duty is to find out what was the intent and frame of mind of the defendant at the time she wrote the documents. Now, this may tend to show that.
MR. BROWNING: That's certainly my intention.
MR. BAILEY: First of all, Your Honor, there has been no showing they were written anywhere near the same time. Second, before we go near these matters, it would require a consultation with the defendant.
THE COURT: Let him find it out. Let him get to it. I will overrule the objection. Proceed.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you recall, Miss Hearst, when you wrote the sentence, "Saw seven employees, five women, two men, one young and nervous, manager is fat and black." Do you recall when you wrote that?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Wasn't it in fact after you had returned from Pennsylvania and when you were residing in Sacramento, California?
MR. BROWNING: Yes.
MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, I object. This is a completely different time and has nothing to do with the writing of the document that's been testified to. I will instruct the defendant not to answer.
THE COURT: Well, you may instruct her as you see fit. But I will overrule! the objection.
MR. BAI LEY: All right. You are instructed not to answer.
MR. BROWNING: I beg your pardon? You are instructing your witness not to answer?
MR. BAILEY: That's right.
THE COURT: All right. Now, then, the abjection is overruled. I will instruct the defendant to answer.
MR. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR, BAILEY: All right. I will advise the defendant to invoke her Constitutional rights. This is turning into a fishing expedition and not a hearing. I am sure Your Honor knows the problem.
THE COURT: I am aware of the problem. But I am also aware that the issue in this case involves the subject of coercion.
MR, BAILEY: That's right.
THE COURT: And you are seeking to prohibit certain testimony which the Government claims goes to that issue.
MR, BAILEY: That's right,
THE COURT: You are seeking to have me declare inadmissible on the grounds that it was involuntarily taken.
MR, BAILEY: Which has nothing to do with anything in Sacramento, California.
THE COURT: It may have -- that is where I tend to disagree with you.
MR. BAILEY: Very well.
THE COURT: Because there's a whole course of conduct here that has to be evaluated, rather than a single incident. Now, on that basis, I would overrule the objection.
MR. BAILEY: All right. Miss Hearst, you are instructed to refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate.
THE COURT: Miss Hearst, I will instruct you to answer the question.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you have the question in mind?
MR. BAILEY: I will ask for a recess. Your Honor has no right to enforce her to incriminate herself.
THE COURT: I am not going to force her to incriminate herself. She doesn't have to --
MR. BAILEY: To tell the girl to answer immediately after counsel advised her not to answer has this tendency.
MR. BROWNING: I think there is an easy answer, if counsel would stipulate, that would be to strike Miss Hearst's testimony --
MR. BAILEY: She is not --
THE COURT: I think I have to hear this issue. I am not going to strike this testimony. Let's quit this business about outdoing one another about whether certain documents are admissible. Let's get down to the business here about the issue at hand. And what I want to do is hear all of the relevant testimony that goes to that. I don't want to limit that. I think I have the duty and the right to do that. It's imperative upon me to go into this whole question. And I do not see this as a segmented proposition; I see it as a whole proposition. Now, you want to close the door here. I want to get into this in more detail. Now, what is the claim of self-incrimination, what is the nature of it, that she faces charges?
MR. BAILEY: Your Honor is well aware of the claim of self- incrimination, well aware.
THE COURT: I know she might be subject to charges, but it seems to me what you're saying is that she's putting under charges -- herself in violation of charges of Federal and State law. Is that what you're telling me, if she answers this question?
MR. BAILEY: She has been under suspicion, as you know. It's been published. And I do not propose to have her sit there –
THE COURT: That is not evidence in this case. I want you to tell me what you think, what your point is, Mr. Bailey. And if you have one, state it.
MR. BAILEY: Yes. My point is that you're forcing her to answer these questions which could expose her to further charges, and I will not permit her to do it.
THE COURT: I want you to tell me what charges they are.
MR. BAILEY: I will not tell you what charges they are, nor do I have any obligation to. That would feed the Government, I would have to violate the attorney-client privilege. ,
THE COURT: I didn't say that -- :
MR. BAILEY: If I have the information, and you don't, it must be because I got it in a privileged way.
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, Mr. Bailey, I am not asking you to disclose the information.
MR. BAILEY: You are asking me for it.
THE COURT: You are not --
MR. BAILEY: How can I describe possible charges?
THE COURT: I am not asking you to describe it. Tell me the nature of the charge so I can rule on it. I don't rule on these things en banc.
MR. BAILEY: You are requiring the defendant to answer questions on the subject matter now sought, fished out by the prosecution, which would expose her, or might, to charges, State and Federal, for felonious crimes, which I will not further allow.
THE COURT: You said what I asked you, if that's what you are talking --
MR. BROWNING: My position on that, Mr. Bailey has waived any privilege against self-incrimination by putting the defendant on the stand.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Browning, I would have to disagree with you on that. I don't think the defendant ever waives her right of self-incrimination by taking the witness stand, and she has the right -- or she has the right to assert that privilege in any proceeding at any time in any place under the Constitution of the United States. So I will have to rule she has not waived.
MR. BROWNING: Very well, Your Honor. I take it the objection to the question is upheld then?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss Hearst, with respect to the two pages that I first directed your attention to entitled Bakeries or Bakery, B-a-k-e-r-y, do you know of any reason why your fingerprints would have been found on those pages?
MR. BAILEY: Object.
THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Bailey'? What did you object to?
MR. BAILEY: I object, it's the same subject matter, subject of the same set of conditions. Mr. Browning knows it.
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, if you are probing the same subject matter, then I would --
MR. BROWNING: I don't know whether it is or not, Your Honor. All I know, I have a paper entitled Bakery here, that is a typewritten sheet found at the same time and place as the other manuscripts with Miss Hearst's fingerprints on it. I'm simply asking -- she says, as I recall, she doesn't know that she'd ever seen those. I'm asking her whether there's any reason she knows of why those fingerprints should be on those pages. She doesn't recall --
MR. BAILEY: Questions as to those documents have already been excluded.
THE COURT: No, not all questions. And I will overrule the questions as to the document.
MR. BAILEY: All right. Miss Hearst, you are instructed not to answer the question on the grounds it might tend to incriminate you.
THE COURT: All right. On the same basis?
MR. BAI LEY I Right.
THE COURT: All right. I will sustain that objection.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss Hearst, you told your attorney that -- with respect to the manuscript for the book, that, if I recall -- you correct me if I am wrong -- you were asked certain questions, and gave an outline of the answer you were supposed to give by Emily Harris, is that correct?
A. And Bill Harris.
Q. And Bill Harris. And that you wrote out the answer based on the outline that you received. And then did you participate in either typing or writing longhand those -- that full answer?
Q. All right. I direct your attention to a page, which I will show you a copy of, if you like. Let me read it to you first:
"Question: The media has at times put across the theory that you were being brainwashed during this period. How do you feel about that '?
"Answer: I think that that kind of cheap sensationalism is all you can expect from the mediA. From the moment I was kidnapped, they consistently attempted to discredit the revolutionaries. After the first communique was received, the pigs reacted by hauling out stress machines. The machines indicated I was being tortured and kept awake 24 hours a day, and Randy announced I was obviously drugged. I couldn't believe that anyone would come up with such bullshit. I guess that all the pigs expected me to keep my mouth shut, but I was furious. I refuted their lies in the next communique, and they put away their trickology for a while, at least until I announced I was going to stay with the SLA. Then, once again, I was, quote, 'under duress,' unquote. If you believe the media, you'd think I was totally weird. According to them, I never mean anything. Say, and I'll do anything I'm told. "
Now, do you recall, Miss Hearst, writing those words? I direct your attention to this part down there.
Q. Just to the top of this page (indicating).
Q. All right, you wrote those words. And weren't those words truthful when you wrote them?
Q. Let me ask you this, on Page 2 of the manuscript, we find these words:
"None of us were allowed to go to public schools." The reason given for this decision was straightforward: 'That kids who went to public schools were not the kind of people we should have close associations with. As a result, I spent twelve years almost totally surrounded by young people who were busily developing ruling class aspirations. Looking back, the schools were, in fact, training grounds for future fascists, capitalistic values, and individualism, competition, c1assism and racism. I never got along too well with the faculty or students at these schools, because I was always considered a 'rebel'."
Miss Hearst, did you write those words?
Q. Were those words true or were you forced to say those words?
A. It is true I did not go to public school but the rest of it is not true.
Q. In other words, you were forced, I take it, to write that "Looking bock, the schools were, in fact, training grounds for future fascists." Is that false or true in your mind?
A. It is false.
Q. I see. When was this manuscript written? Was it written during the Pennsylvania period?
A. It was started during the Pennsylvania period and then I think they were still working on it until September of '75.
Q. All right. The Harrises were still working on it at the time of the arrest, is that correct?
Q. And I take it that in none of the pages contained in this particular affidavit, which is referred to, I believe, as the Tania Interview -- are you familiar with that?
A. With the what?
Q. The Tania Interview. Was there a portion of what the book was to consist of known as the Tania Interview?
A. I guess so. I mean -
Q. Or Tania file? With respect to those pages, I take it they were all written subsequent to May 17 of 1974, the shoot-out and fire in Los Angeles, is that correct?
Q. So anyone who was forcing you to write these words or speak those words had to be the Harrises, is that correct?
Q. Was anybody else forcing you to write words at that period of time, Wendy Yoshimura?
A. No, no.
Q. Or J. Weiner (phonetic)?
Q. Mr. Houck?
Q. Jock Scott?
Q. And is it your testimony, Miss Hearst, that for a period commencing with April 22, that is the date that you read the tape or spoke the words into the tape recorder in the apartment on Golden Gate in 1974, until September 18, 1975, the date of your arrest, that for that entire period of approximately a year and a half any reference you made in public or in private as to the SLA and your having joined with the SLA and having joined in their activities was a forced statement?
A. I think it lasted until the time I got to San Mateo County Jail.
Q. And the forcing of you to say these things was done presumably after May 17th by the Harrises, is that correct?
Q. And they forced you, did they, by threatening you with your life unless you went along by saying these things?
A. That, and sometimes they would use other physical duress.
Q. Such as what?
A. I had a black eye.
Q. They would give you a black eye?
Q. Hit you in the eye?
Q. Who hit you in the eye? William or Emily Harris?
A. Bill Harris.
Q. How often did this occur?
A. Oh, maybe four times.
Q. Four times?
Q. During the year and a half?
A. Yes. During the year and a half.
Q. The approximately year and a half between the time you recorded your tape recorded message and the time of your arrest, the tape recorded message of April 22 or thereabouts of 1974 until the time of your arrest, the Harrises were part of the SLA, were they not, at the time you tape recorded the message?
Q. Now, at the time of your arrest, the Harrises were not in the area, were they?
Q. Were they?
Q. Can you tell us whether you were in fear of the Harrises at that time?
Q. And your fear was based upon what they might do to you?
A. I thought they might kill me, and I had finally gotten to a point where I moved into a separate house.
Q. Yes. The Harrises permitted you to do that, did they?
Q. They did not tell you it was dangerous for you to move into a separate house, you might do something stupid like go to the authorities and turn yourself in?
A. Yes, but they always knew where I was.
Q. And as a matter of fact, you knew where they were, too, did you not, their place on Precita, in San Francisco?
Q. And you had been to that place, had you not?
A. I had been there once.
Q. Yes. You knew it was quite a distance between the place you were residing and Wendy Yoshimura, and the place the Harrises were residing, did you not?
Q. You knew that you would have time to go to any police station or substation or any office of anyone in authority and say, "I am Patricia Hearst. Protect me from the Harrises." You could have done it, could you not?
Q. Why not?
A. I don't feel it was possible to do that.
Q. You thought notwithstanding that the Harrises were perhaps a mile away from you that you could not do that, that they would somehow kill you if you did that?
A. They would or that the FBI would.
Q. That the FBI would. And was this your frame of mind far the entire time since the time you began to read the tape recordings into the microphone until the day of your arrest?
A. I’m sorry, I don't understand.
Q. Well, you stated, Miss Hearst, that you were afraid of either the Harrises and I presume before the shoot-out and fire in Los Angeles the other members of the SLA. And you were also afraid the FBI would kill you if you tried to turn yourself in, is that correct?
Q. For the full period of time?
A. From when to when?
Q. From the time you first started recording messages into a tape recorder, saying that you had joined the SLA and that you had voluntarily robbed a bank?
Q. Now, there came a time, did there, Miss Hearst, when you were present in Los Angeles in Inglewood to be precise, parked across the street from Met's Sporting Goods Store, when the Harrises had gone in to do some shopping, isn't that correct?
Q. And you were in a van, parked across a rather wide boulevard from the store, isn't that true, in a parking lot?
A. I am not sure exactly where it was but it was across the street.
Q. It was across the street?
Q. And you were reading a paper, were you not, when they were in the store?
Q. And you looked up from that paper, did you not, and you saw that William Harris was being held on the ground by someone and being detained, isn't that true?
Q. And you picked up an automatic weapon and shot in the direction of Mel's Sporting Goods Store?
MR. BAILEY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Will you answer that question, please?
A. That I picked up a machine gun?
Q. And you fired numerous shots in the area of Mel's Sporting Goods Store, did you not?
Q. And your purpose was to permit the Harrises to get back across the street, to get back into the van, was it not?
A. I guess, yes.
Q. Miss Hearst, does it not seem strange to you that if you had wanted to get away from the Harrises and get out from under their threats to kill you, that you rescued them when they were being held down, when you are in an automobile and could have left, there was not anybody else in that van, was there?
MR. BAILEY: Objection, two questions, first of all, argumentative.
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, the question you are putting is argumentative, and don't argue with the witness, argue to me.
MR. BROWNING: Very well.
Q. Was there anybody else in the van, Miss Hearst?
Q. And did you have the keys with you to the van at that time?
A. I don't recall.
Q. In any event, could you have gotten out of the van and gotten away from the Harrises at that point?
A. Where would I have gone? 1 guess I could have gotten out of the van but --
Q. But you did not do that, in any event?
Q. And what you did do was to rescue the Harrises by firing a weapon at the people who were holding them, or in the direction of the people who were holding the Harrises.
MR. BAILEY: That is two different questions: One is at the people and the other is the direction of --
THE COURT: Will you ask one question.
MR. BROWNING: Q. You did, in fact, fire the weapon in the direction of the people who were detaining the Harrises, didn't you?
Q. Now, can you explain to me, Miss Hearst, why you did that?
A. From the time I took the blindfold off until that happened, there were classes every day, and this was one of the particular ones what to do if something like that had happened, and when it happened I didn't even think. I just did it, and if I had not done it and if they had been able to get away they would have killed me.
Q. Did you prefer staying with the Harrises, who had threatened to kill you, to simply walking away from the Harrises when you had an opportunity to do that?
A. Did I what?
A. You rescued the Harrises, did you not, when you could have walked away?
A. I couldn't have walked away.
Q. Why not?
A. Because if I walked away, the other members of the SLA would have come looking for me and I felt that the FBI was looking for me, too.
Q. I see. Now, following that shooting incident, I believe you testified that you were present in the van of a young man whose name was Thomas Mathews that evening, do you recoil that?
A. And I believe your testimony was that when Mr. Mathews and you were in the van together, that William Harris had a weapon, is that correct?
Q. And that Emily Harris had a weapon, too?
Q. And that you did not have your weapon at that time.
A. It was there but I didn't have it in my hands.
Q. Right. And soon after Thomas Mathews -- strike that, if you please. Soon after you entered that van, Thomas Mathews was already in the van when you entered it, was he not?
Q. Is it not true that you ejected from your automatic weapon a live round and placed it in a dip of that weapon and placed it in the clip?
A. I did not have an automatic weapon.
Q. You did not?
Q. What type of weapon did you have?
A. It was an M-I carbine.
Q. Was that the same M-I you had used at Mel's earlier that day?
A. That one and Bill Harris', which was automatic.
Q. Okay. And is it true, Miss Hearst, that you in the presence of Thomas Mathews ejected a live round from the M-I that you had near you and inserted that in the clip, and put the clip back in the weapon?
A. I don't recall, it is possible.
Q. It is possible you may have. And did you, in fact, also at that time load a couple of live rounds into the chamber of a revolver, a pistol?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you give Bill Harris a pistol in the presence a Tomas Mathews?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You don't recall?
Q. I believe you testified that—
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, when you come to a point that is convenient, we will take a recess.
MR. BROWNING: That is fine.
THE COURT: We will be at recess for ten minutes. (Recess.)
(Following proceedings were had out of the presence and hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: The record will show the defendant is on the stand. Will you proceed with your examination, Mr. Browning.
MR. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Miss Hearst, you recall that I earlier directed your attention to a tape recording that had been received in early April of 1974, and I told you I will show you a transcript of the voice on that tape recording and ask if you can identify the words. I will show you that transcript at this time and ask whether you spoke those words into a tape recording while you were on either Golden Gate or Northridge in Daly City?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You do not recall speaking any of those words, is that correct?
A. No, I didn't say, not on Golden Gate.
Q. Let me ask you this: How many tape recordings did you make prior to the tape recording of April 22nd or 23rd?
MR. BAILEY: If it please the Court, April 18th tape has the note on it. And I don't know why Mr. Browning keeps insisting there's another tape.
MR. BROWNING: Well, my records show it was received the 23rd, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: This tape?
MR. BAILEY: The one that was found by the Government.
THE WITNESS: This tape? This was talking about people being killed.
MR. BAILEY: May the document be marked for identification, some foundation laid?
THE COURT: Yes, so we will know what we are talking about.
MR. BROWNING: You're right.
THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 90 for identification.
THE COURT: Mr. Clerk, Mr. Browning apparently has agreed this is not the proper document.
THE CLERK: Okay. We will withdraw that, Your Honor. MR. BROWNING:
Q. Miss Hearst, would you toke a look at this transcript I now hand you, and ask –
THE COURT: Let's have this marked.
THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 90 marked for identification.
THE COURT: That's the one he's already marked.
MR. BAILEY: Thank you.
THE COURT: It will then be formally more completely marked as soon as the witness finishes reading it. It is Plaintiff's Exhibit 90.
(Plaintiff's exhibit No. 90 marked for Identification. Transcript of tape.)
THE COURT: Have you finished reading, Miss Hearst? THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, now, Mr. Browning.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you recall, Miss Hearst, whether you spoke those words i hto a tope recorder?
Q. All right, And those words were recorded prior to the time of the April recording Mr. Bailey directed your attention to, were they not?
Q. And in those words, you state that you have been given a choice between joining the SLA and staying and fighting, and you had chosen to stay and fight, is that correct?
Q. Now, were you -- were you forced to write those words?
A. I didn't write those.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I didn't write this.
Q. You did not write. Okay. And were you given a script to read?
Q. Who gave you that script?
A. I believe it was Cinque.
Q. And was that recording made in the closet?
Q. Do you recall which closet, whether it was the closet on Golden Gate or the closet on Northridge?
A. The closet on Golden Gate.
Q. All right. And, at that time, did someone tell you what would happen to you if you didn't read those words?
Q. And who was that?
A. Donald DeFreeze.
Q. Pardon me?
Q. DeFreeze. And what did he say that would happen to you if you didn't read them?
A. He said that I'd be killed.
Q. Now, I will hand you next a transcript which begins, "Reading to the People." And I will ask that that be marked for identification at this time, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 91 marked for identification.
THE COURT: It may be marked.
MR. BAILEY: May we have a representation, Your Honor, as to where these came from? Nobody ever released transcripts, they rleased tapes.
MR. BROWNING: If Your Honor please, I would be happy to ask the witness that question. That's what I'm getting at, whether these are her factual recordings or not.
MR. BAILEY: We know how the transcript was made. No transcript was ever released, nor does the Government claim it -if the Government made this transcript, I would like the record so reflect. The witness has never seen it.
MR. BROWNING: This transcript -- I will make this by on offer of proof -- was made from a tape which was received on or about June 7th of 1974. If the Court wishes, I will consult my records and ascertain precise circumstances under which the tape came in.
MR. BAILEY: This is the Government's version of what the tape said, in other words?
MR. BROWNING: Yes.
MR, BAILEY: We have never been furnished these documents, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you been given the transcripts?
MR. BROWNING: They have been given the tapes themselves of everyone of these transcripts.
THE COURT: All right. Well, since the transcripts are going to be used, would you have transcripts made available.
MR. BROWNING: Very well.
THE COURT: Exhibit 91 for identification.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 91 marked for identification. Transcript of tape.) :
MR, BROWNING: This is 90, Your Honor, that I'm directing the witness's attention to.
THE COURT: What is the other one?
MR, BROWNING: The other one has been marked 91.
THE COURT: Which one, the earlier one?
MR. BROWNING: I think it is the other way around. I believe it should be -- this one ought to be 91, I believe that one should be 90, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's clarify this.
THE CLERK: We will change them, Your Honor.
MR. BROWNING: Thank you.
Q. All right. I hand you Plaintiff's Exhibit 91 for identification, Miss Hearst, and ask if you will read the words on that piece of paper, and tell me whether you spoke those words into a microphone?
MR. BAILEY: For the record, Your Honor, the defendant has never seen this document before. It was not offered during the recess, and she has not heard the tapes that were made a year and a half ago, almost two. I suggest the transcript is no answer.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the transcript, Mr. Browning?
MR, BROWNING: Pardon me, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the transcript for Mr. Bailey?
MR. BROWNING: I don't have one right at the moment.
He has the tapes from which the transcript was made.
THE COURT: I know he has. There are innumerable tapes, he hasn't had them all transcribed.
MR. BAILEY: I don't have the Government's version of what the tapes says, Your Honor, maybe it varies.
THE COURT: I understand that. This is what I'm suggesting to Mr. Browning, and I'm ordering him to produce copies for you.
MR. BROWNING: I will hand counsel a copy at this time of the portion of that transcript to which I am directing
Miss Hearst's attention. This is not the entire tape recording--that is --
MR. BAILEY: Is that what she has?
MR. BROWNING: Yes. Everything she has, she has more than what's there.
MR. BAILEY: This is not everything she has.
MR. BROWNING: This is a transcript of Miss Hearst's voice on the tape on that date. Now, it's not the voice of William and Emily Harris, whoever else it may be on that tape. This is the best I can do right at the moment, Your Honor.
MR. BAILEY: Very well.
THE COURT: A full copy will be supplied later.
MR. BAILEY: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Now, proceed. Miss Hearst, do you remember -- Mr. Browning, would you ask the question.
MR. BROWNING: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Miss Hearst, do you recall speaking those words into a microphone?
Q. When you spoke those words, that was at a time after the Los Angeles fire and shoot-out in which you knew that
Mr. DeFreeze had been killed, is that true?
Q. And Mr. Wolfe had been killed, Angela Atwood had been killed, and as a matter of fact, everybody that you knew connected with the SLA had been killed, except William and Emily Harris, right?
Q. And is it your testimony that you were forced to read those words?
Q. By whom?
A. The Harrises.
Q. And where were you when you recorded that message?
A. In an apartment in Oakland, I believe.
Q. In Oakland?
A. (Affirmative nod.)
Q. Was that prior to the time you went to Pennsylvania?
Q. Do I understand that after you left the San Francisco area, you went to Los Angeles; and did you then go from Los Angeles back to the Bay Area, or did you go directly to Pennsylvania?
A. No, back to the Bay Area.
Q. Back to the Bay AreA. Then you went to Pennsylvania from the Bay Area?
Q. And you went with the Scotts, did you not?
Q. And, as I recall your testimony, you were in an automobile, is that correct?
Q. With Jack Scott, right?
Q. And his parents?
Q. And his wife?
Q. Just the four of you, his parents, his mother and father, himself and you, is that correct?
Q. Neither of the Harrises were along on that trip?
Q. You went all the way from the Bay Area to Pennsylvania in an automobile?
Q. Were the Scotts armed?
Q. They had no weapons, did they?
A. (Negative shake of head.)
Q. Were you armed at the time?
Q. Was there some reason why you were unable to -- well, strike that. Let me ask you this, Miss Hearst: When you left Pennsylvania, did you come back across the country with the Scotts again, back to the Bay Area.?
Q. And who was present at that time, Jack Scott, on the trip?
A. Jack Scott.
Q. Anyone else?
Q. Just you and Jack Scott.
A. (Affirmative nod.)
Q. Did you drive straight through or did you stay at motels along the way?
Q. How many stops did you make?
A. I don't recall.
Q. All right. Was Jack Scott armed at that time?
Q. Isn't it a fact that when you got back to the Bay Area, or near the Bay Area, that Jack Scott offered you -- offered to take you back to your parents?
Q. That's not true?
MR. BAILEY: Does the Government intend to produce Mr. Scott to testify to that?
MR. BROWNING: I don't know I have to respond to that.
THE COURT: No.
MR. BAILEY: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss Hearst, where did you last see Jack Scott after you arrived back at the Bay Area? Jack Scott took you back to the Bay Area from Pennsylvania?
A. He took me to Las Vegas.
Q. He took you to Las Vegas?
Q. And is that the last time you saw Jack Scott?
Q. Now, you told me that he did not offer to take you home to your parents when he dropped you off in Las Vegas?
A. No, he didn't.
A. All right, now, can you tell the Court how you again came into the company of the Harrises after Jack Scott left you in Las Vegas?
A. I was met.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I was met.
Q. You were met by the Harrises?
Q. And where did they meet you?
A. I don't recall, it was a motel someplace.
Q. All right. It is your testimony that Jack Scott prevented you during these two trips, one to the East and one back from the East to the West from getting out of the Harrises' control?
A. He was very anxious about writing a book, and that is what his main concern was.
Q. But he wasn't forcing you to go any particular place, was he?
A. He was taking me back and forth for the Harrises.
Q. Yes. But could you have left, say, from one of the motels that you stopped at on the way cross-country and gone somewhere else without him?
A. Where would I have gone?
Q. I don't know.
Q. I say could you have?
Q. Why not?
A. Because I did not feel I would be able to go any place.
Q. Was Jack Scott physically preventing you from leaving during that period of time?
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Did he keep you locked up with him in a room?
A. He was with me the whole time.
Q. Yes. And was there ever a time during that trip that you were out of his sight?
A. I am sure there were moments.
Q. In other words, you were in a room by yourself and Scott had gone out for cigarettes, or food, or whatever?
A. No, he never went out for food.
Q. He never did; but were there opportunities, Miss Hearst, that you had during this period of time when you could have left and gone somewhere else without Jack Scott?
Q. There were not. Is it your testimony that Jack Scott was keeping you there, was preventing you from leaving?
Q. In other words, you know, don't you, that you could have left if you had wanted to, say if you had a place to go, you could have gone to?
MR. BAILEY: Objected to as argumentative.
THE COURT: I will overrule that objection. I don't believe it is argumentative. Proceed.
THE WITNESS: Would you ask the question again.
MR. BROWNING: Q. The question is, you knew, didn't you, at the time, Miss Hearst, if you had a place to go you would have gone there and Jack Scott would not have stopped you from I leaving, isn't that true?
Q. Let me ask you this, Miss Hearst, did Jack Scott at any time during that trip back to the West Coast offer to take you anywhere you wanted to go?
Q. He did not?
Q. Again, directing your attention, Miss Hearst, to the manuscript known as the Tania File, the Tania Interview.
MR. BAILEY: This has not been marked.
MR. BROWNING: Will be marked, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 92 marked for identification.
MR. BAI LEY: Has the defense been furnished a copy of the document?
MR. BROWNING: We will have it for you shortly.
THE COURT: What is this now, 92?
THE CLERK: 92, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 92 for identification.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 92 marked for identification. "Tania Interview".)
THE COURT: Fairly soon, Mr. Browning, we will have to take a recess.
MR. BROWNING: Very well, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed, however, briefly.
MR. BROWNING: Q. Let me read you a question and answer which appears at Page 8, Miss Hearst, and ask you whether you wrote this language:
"Q. Where did you finally end up, what type of a living situation?
"A. I ended up in a closet for about six weeks."
Is that correct, are those your words?
A. That is it. May I see it?
A. Yes, this is from the manuscript.
Q. Now, in fact, were you in a closet for six weeks?
Q. It was a period of time less than that, was it not?
A. There were two closets, and I believe it was a period of time longer than that.
Q. Directing your attention to Page 5, I will read you the question and ask if these were your words, and I will also show you this thereafter. The question was: "Q. What sort of model did your mother provide for you in terms of a pattern for you to follow?" And a portion of your answer is: "Now, my mother, when we were in Atlanta in June of 1973." (Indicating.)
A. Just this?
Q. Just this. .
Q. Okay. In fact, were you in Atlanta in June of 1973 with your mother?
Q. And is this one of those portions of this document which is correct, then?
A. That line is, yes.
Q Yes. Now, had you told the other members, the members of the SLA about that incident, being in Atlanta in 1973?
A. I must have.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. During writing of the book.
Q. Pardon me?
A. It was part of the writing of the book.
Q. In other words, you would volunteer accurate information for the writing of the book?
Q. And why did you do that, Miss Hearst?
A. I don't know.
THE COURT: Mr. Browning, when we have come to a convenient place, we will take a recess. We will be at recess. (Luncheon recess at 11:35 a.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:30 P.M.
(The following proceedings were had in the presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: The record will show that all members of the jury are present and seated in the box. This is now the time for the defense argument. For this defense argument the same rules apply to Mr. Bailey's argument as applied to Mr. Browning's argument. You may proceed, Mr. Bailey.
MR. BAILEY: If I may be permitted to hold the mike, Your Honor, I can't quite stretch myself across the podium.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. BAILEY: Ladies and gentlemen, those of us who do this for a living have a lot of questions about what our function really is when it comes to summing up. It is often called an argument, but I think it is inappropriate, because when you argue with someone, you exchange ideas in an effort to find out who is more persuasive. But in the setting of any trial the final remarks of counsel are not answered by the jury, and what the jury does is not recorded for the first time in this entire proceedings. You will see this gentleman and those who work with him disappear, as you talk together about what you believe you have heard and what you believe of what you heard. There are many concepts in the law. The SLA was so right about so many things that I, as a citizen, am a little bit ashamed that they could predict; so well what we would do. But I think an overview of this case is more appropriate than talking just about bank robbery. This is not a case about a bank robbery. The crime could have been any one of a number. It is a case about dying or surviving --that is all Patricio Campbell Hearst thought about. And the question is, what is the right to live? How far can you go to survive? We all know that it is a human impulse, a generic, irresistible human impulse to survive. People eat each other in the Andes to survive. The big question is, and we don't have it in this case, thank God, can you kill to survive? We do it in wartime, but that is a different set of rules. We allow ourselves all kinds of special privileges when we fight the enemy. G. Gordon Liddy would have been an international hero if it was only the Russians who caught him instead of the reporters and ultimately the Department of Justice.
A novelist once wrote a most disturbing book -- you may have heard about it. It was a best seller and a movie. A man who was condemned to hang for killing his wife killed his executioner to survive, and then it was determined that he had not killed his wife. And a judge had to decide whether or not he could be tried for that second killing. Does one have an obligation at some point to die? It was called A Covenant with Death, and we all have covenant with death. We're all going to die and we know it. And we're all going to postpone that date as long as we can. And Patty Hearst did that, and that is why she is here and you are here. And the manner in which she did it is the subject of this trial, and one of the incidents that arose during that survival, which is the focus of the indictment. There has' been so much contradictory evidence of peripheral matters that I could occupy your time, I suppose, to the full limit that I am allowed by this trial Judge to address you. I don't propose to do that. I don't agree with Mr. Browning that we are in no better position to judge the truth than you are. We are skilled at this sort of thing. We have practiced it for a long time. There are specialists in deception and simulation, and you were privileged to hear from one of the very best, alive today, whose opinion you may accept or reject because, in the end, we come back to a non-person. The reason we don't try these cases, ladies and gentlemen, before one of you is because we don't and have not for hundreds of years trusted a single human being to be that kind of balance that can make this awesome judgment. But we do trust the collective. And we figure despite the fact that we have a transcript of everything that was uttered, and you don't know, and we knew all about this case before you were ever impaneled, that between you you will remember what is important. That is the bet of the law now.
What happened in this case? We all know what happened and we watched it happen. The news media kept us informed of every detail. The interest of the news media in this case has been so intense that it was necessary to protect you from it so that you might be able always to bear in mind what you heard in this courtroom and not the comments of someone else. When you return to your homes you may be very surprised as to what your neighbors thought this trial was all about. But at least you know, that the law provides. A young girl, who absolutely had no political motivations or history of activity of any kind, was rudely snatched from her home, clouted on the side of the face with a gun butt, and taken as a political prisoner. Now in many segments of this whole saga, you are either going to have to take what Patty Hearst says as the truth, or if you buy Mr. Browning's suggestion, you are going to have to disregard it, in which case you have no access to what happened, because she is the only person surviving who is willing to talk about it. But I suggest to you that as to the initial parts of her story the corroboration is overwhelming, and I want you to remember, please, something Dr. Kozol and this morning even Mr. Browning, I think, forgot:
We played those tapes for you in the defense case. The prosecutor offered only the statement of Patricia Hearst, admitting that she had robbed the bank -- and she did rob the bank. You are not here to answer that question, we could answer that without you. The question you are here to answer is why? And would you have done the same thing to survive? Or was it her duty to die, to avoid committing a felony? That is all this case is about and all the muddling and stamping of exhibits and the little monkeys and everything else that has been thrown into morass don't answer that question.
There are some indicators of reliability that I think you are very privileged to have as a jury because juries are by definition a group of citizens with no knowledge -- and you are an exception, you know a lot about this case, as the record shows -- and no interest in the outcome, assembled to listen to people tell different stories and decide which one of them, if any, has told the truth. The regimen under which that function is cost protects against the one thing we don't want and can't stand, and that is a mistake by you that lands on her. The Government can well afford it. Somewhere when the only really important talk is. given to you, and that will come from the bench and not the lawyers, you are going to hear that the Government, and this is a judgment of the Court, that the Government always wins when justice is done. And it would be nice to say we impaneled you to do justice, but please don't get those kinds of grandiose ideas. We know that it is normally beyond the capability of human function. We impaneled you for a very different reason: Patty Hearst has a lot going against her. The escape that Mr. Browning and Dr. Kozol think she should have welcomed, she said, "I had nowhere to do, as resulted in only a change of captors. But at least now, as long as society is her captor, she does not have to worry about being killed. Freedom may be a more awesome alternative -- you are not here to decide that. We have a framework, the SLA predicted this trial. They also predicted your verdict and persuaded her coming back would get her twenty-five years. And if we can't break the chain at some point in their predictions, there are going to be other Patricia Hearsts, the blueprint is plain, it works, get a political gathering by getting food for the people, say this is a political prisoner paying for the crimes of her parents.
Mr. Browning has asked you to convict this young girl. I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in order to bring yourselves to the state of mind where you could have what the Court is going to require you to have, on abiding satisfaction to a moral certainty that she is really guilty, before you are allowed to use that word, you have to resort to something besides the evidence in this case, it's riddled with doubt, and always will be. Perry Mason brings solutions to all of his cases, in open court usually from the ranks of his opponents' witnesses. Real life doesn't work that way. We can't bring home the bacon. We have given you all we have got. No one is every going to be sure. They will be talking about the case for longer than I think I am going to have to talk about it, whether it occurs to me, or probably the only people in the courtroom I haven't had to talk about it so for with. But simple application of the rules, I think, will yield one decent result, and, that is, there is not anything close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Patty Hearst wanted to be a bank robber. What you know, and you know in your hearts to be true is beyond dispute. There was talk about her dying, and she wanted to survive.
Thank God so far she has. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the defense argument....