January 23, 1970
MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please identify yourself for the record?
THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall the first time you came to the city of Chicago?
THE WITNESS: The first time I came to the city of Chicago was to visit the international Amphitheatre in a poultry judging contest in 1956. It was the international contest and I had just won the Eastern United States Poultry Judging Contest in 4-H and I came to Chicago to participate at the International Amphitheatre in the contest here.
MR. WEINGLASS: How old were you at that time?
THE WITNESS: I was, I guess, sixteen.
MR. WEINGLASS: Your present age?
THE WITNESS: Twenty-nine.
MR. WEINGLASS: What is your occupation?
THE WITNESS: Since 1967 my primary work and concern has been ending the war in Vietnam. Until the time of this trial I was the national coordinator for the National Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the early evening of November 20, 1967, do you recall where you were on that night?
THE WITNESS: I was at the University of Chicago in an auditorium called Judd Hall. It was a meeting of a group called The Resistance. I was a speaker with Bob Ross and David Harris who is the husband of Joan Baez.
MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate now to the Court and jury the words that you spoke, as best you can recall, on that particular night?
THE WITNESS: I began by holding up a small steel ball that was green, about the size of a tennis ball and I said, "This bomb was dropped on a city of 100,000 people, a city called Nam Ding, which is about sixty-five miles south of Hanoi."
I said, "It was dropped by an American fighter jet, an F-105," and that when this bomb exploded over Nam Ding, about 640 of these round steel balls were spewed into the sky. And I said, "When this ball strikes a building or the ground or slows up in any way, these hammers are released, an explosion occurs which sends out about 300 steel pellets."
"Now one of these balls," I explained, "was roughly three times the power of an old fashioned hand grenade and with 640 of these bombs going off, you can throw steel pellets over an area about a thousand yards long, and about 250 yards wide.
"Every living thing exposed in that 1000-yard area from this single bomb, ninety percent of every living thing in that area will die," I said, "whether it's a water buffalo or a water buffalo boy."
I said that if this bomb were to go off in this room tonight, everyone in the room here would die, but as quickly as we could remove the bodies from the room, we could have another discussion about Vietnam.
I said "This bomb would not destroy this lecture podium, it would not damage the walls, the ceiling, the floor." I said, "if it is dropped on a city, it takes life but leaves the institutions. It is the ideal weapon, you see, for the mentality who reasons that life is less precious than property."
I said that in 1967, the year that we are in, one out of every two bombs dropped on North Vietnam was this weapon. One out of every two. And in 1967 the American Government told the American public that in North Vietnam it was only bombing steel and concrete.
Then I said, "I went to Vietnam not as a representative of the government and not as a member of the military but as an American citizen who was deeply perturbed that we lived in a country where our own government was lying to American people about this war. The American government claimed to be hitting only military targets. Yet what I saw was pagodas that had been gutted, schoolhouses that had been razed, population centers that had been leveled."
Then I said that I am going to the Democratic National Convention because I want the world to know that there are thousands of Young people in this country who do not want to see a rigged convention rubber stamp another four years of Lyndon Johnson's war.
MR. WEINGLASS: I show you an object marked D-325 for identification and can you identify that object?
THE WITNESS: Yes. This was the bomb that I brought back from Vietnam.
MR. WEINGLASS: If the Court please, the defense would like to offer into evidence D-325, the antipersonnel bomb identified by the witness as the object held by him on the night in question.
MR. FORAN: Your honor, the Government objects to this exhibit for the following reasons.
The Vietnamese war, your honor, has nothing whatsoever to do with the charges in this indictment. The Vietnamese war, which is a major difficulty of this country and a major concern of every citizen in this country, has nothing whatever to do with whether or not people in the United States have a right to travel in interstate commerce to incite a riot.
The methods and techniques of warfare have nothing whatever to do with that charge. The methods and techniques of the seeking of the end of the Vietnam war have nothing to do with the charges of this indictment.
The very purpose of the governmental system of the United States is to handle in a purposeful way within the Constitution of the United States the disposition of such complex and difficult and tragic problems that this notion has lived with for about two hundred years. The charges in this indictment your Honor, have nothing to do with this type of testimony or this kind of concept. and for that reason your Honor, the Government objects.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, at this point I would like to move for a mistrial
THE COURT: I deny the motion.
MR. RUBIN: You haven't heard it yet.
THE COURT: Oh, there is no ground for a mistrial.
MR. KUNSTLER: But, your Honor--
THE COURT: I direct the marshal to have this man sit down.
MR. KUNSTLER: Every time I make a motion am I going to be thrown in my seat when I argue it?
MR. DELLINGER: Force and violence. The judge is inciting a riot by asking the marshal to have him sit down.
THE COURT: That man's name is Dellinger?
MARSHAL JONESON: Will you be quiet, Mr. Dellinger?
MR. DELLINGER: After such hypocrisy I don't particularly feel like being quiet. I said before the judge was the chief prosecutor, and he's proved the point.
THE COURT: Will you remain quiet? Will you remain quiet, sir?
MR. DELLINGER: You let Foran give a foreign policy speech, but when he tries to answer it, you interrupt him and won't let him speak.
There's no pretense of fairness in this court. All you're doing is employing a riot--employing force and violence to try to keep me quiet. Just like you gagged Bobby Seale because you couldn't afford to listen to the truth that he was saying to you. You're accusing me. I'm a pacifist.
MARSHAL JONESON: Sit down, please, and be quiet.
MR. DELLINGER: I am employing nonviolence, and you're accusing me of violence, and you have a man right here, backed up by guns, jails, and force and violence. That is the difference between us.
MARSHAL JONESON: Will you sit down?
(applause)
THE COURT: Will you continue, please, with the direct examination of this witness?
MR. DELLINGER: There goes the violence right there.
MR. KUNSTLER: That's the Government in operation, your Honor, as it has been throughout this trial.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that's my sister they are taking out of the courtroom.
THE COURT: Even your sister--
MR. RUBIN: Bill, they are taking out my wife.
(cries of "Hey, stop it!")
MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, must we always have this, the force and power of the Government?
MR. FORAN: Your Honor--
MR. RUBIN: They are dragging out mv wife--will you please--
THE COURT: We must have order in the courtroom.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, traditionally in American law, cases are tried in a courtroom by the participants in the trial, not the audience, not spectators, not by shouting and screaming. This is the American judicial system, and it's worked very well for two hundred years, and it's not going to change now for these people.
MR. DELLINGER: Yes, kept the black people in slavery for two hundred years and wiped out the Indians, and kept the poor people in problems and started the war in Vietnam which is killing off at least a hundred Americans and a thousand Vietnamese every week, and we are trying to stop it.
MARSHAL JONESON: Sit down.
MR. DELLINGER: And you call that ranting and raving and screaming because we speak the truth.
MARSHAL JONESON: Mr. Dellinger, sit down, please.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, in the American system there is a proper way to raise such issues and to correct them.
MR. DELLINGER: That was the proper way with Fred Hampton, wasn't it?
MR. FORAN: And to correct them, your Honor, by the proper governmental system, and there is a proper way to do that.
MR. KUNSTLER: This is as to Mr. Rubin's wife. She was thrown out of the courtroom, and he is a defendant here. We would like her returned to the courtroom.
THE COURT: No. As long as the marshals are in charge of the behavior of spectators in this courtroom, they will determine who misbehaves.
MR. RUBIN: Am I entitled to a public trial?
THE COURT: No--you have a public trial.
MR. RUBIN: Does a public trial include my wife being in the courtroom? Am I entitled to a public trial?
THE COURT: I don't talk to defendants who have a lawyer.
MR. RUBIN: You didn't listen to my lawyer, so I have to speak. Am I entitled to a public trial?
THE COURT: You may continue with the direct examination of this witness. If you don't, I will just have to ask him to get off the witness stand.
MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the witness has seen from his vantage point his sister forcibly taken from this room. I wonder if we could have a short recess to resolve that?
THE COURT: No recess. No, no. There will be no recess, sir. You will proceed to examine this witness.
MR. WEINGLASS: I direct your attention to February 11, 1968, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: I was in Chicago at what later became the Mobilization office, 407 South Dearborn.
MR. WEINGLASS: What was occurring in the office?
THE WITNESS: I believe it was a planning meeting to talk about the conference that I had requested of the National Mobilization, a bringing together of all groups interested in Chicago.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you talk about Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I said that the key questions before us today was what to do in Chicago, what to do at the Convention itself. Then I listed four positions that I proposed as a kind of agenda.
I said position number one would be we should go to the Democratic Convention to disrupt it.
I said there may be people in this room who do believe that the Democratic Convention, which is responsible for the war, should be physically disrupted, torn apart. I said I don't think that is the MOBE's position--but I think that it is essential that we put it on the agenda, It is an issue that has been created in the press and that we vote it up or down so that we can make ourselves clear on this issue.
So issue position number one would be disrupt the Convention.
Position number two, I said, that has been talked about, is that the peace movement should support a candidate. Maybe we should support Eugene McCarthy.
Then I said position number three, that had been talked about by some organizations, was what we called stay-home. This was a position that said that Daley is so concerned about the Convention and having demonstrators come into Chicago that he'd bring in the troops, he'd bring in the police, he'd start cracking heads. And in fact this might play right into Johnson's hands. It might show that the Democratic Party is the party of law and order.
So I said position three, that we should talk about here, is whether or not we should have a demonstration at all.
Then I said position number four is a campaign that begins in the spring, it goes into the fall, it goes into the summer, and then finally brings to Chicago literally every possible constituency of the American people.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, after you outlined these four alternatives, did you say anything further about them then?
THE WITNESS: Well, there was a very long discussion of these four proposals, and I guess at the end of that discussion I said that it was clear that in this meeting of representatives of major national groups across the country there was not a single person who did not favor position number four.
Then Tom interrupted me, and he said he thought that was wrong.
A group of so-called leaders of organizations shouldn't just get together and decide what position to present to everyone. Tom thought that we should now talk about calling a very large conference of organizations to consider all four alternatives, and then he said that each one of these positions should be written up in a paper and presented to--to this conference.
MR. WEINGLASS: Was such a conference called?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was. It took place at a place called Lake Villa. It was a YMCA camp, just beside a big lake.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now I show you a document which has been marked D-235 for identification, and I ask you if you can identify that document?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. Tom Hayden and I wrote this paper. It's called, "Movement Campaign 1968, an Election Year Offensive."
The paper was mimeographed in our office and then presented to every delegate at this Lake Villa meeting outside of Chicago. This was alternative number four that was agreed upon.
MR. WEINGLASS: I offer into evidence D-235 as Defendant's Exhibit Number D-235.
THE COURT: Show it to counsel.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, this document was offered once before. This document is some twenty-one pages in length. It contains in it a number of broad summary statements that are not supported by factual data.
Each statement in itself has elements in it that are both irrelevant summary statements of a gross character totally unprovable by evidence, and self-serving in nature, and the law, your Honor, is clear that a self-serving declaration of an act or a party is inadmissible in evidence in his favor.
MR. WEINGLASS: If the Court please, the first time this document was offered, it was through the testimony of the witness Meacham. At that time the Government objected on the ground that the authors of the document were the only persons who could qualify the document for admission. The author is now on the stand, and of course now we are met with the objection that it is self-serving.
If you deny this document then you are proceeding on the assumption, your Honor, that the defendants are guilty and they are contriving documents. That has to be the beginning premise of your thinking if you feel this document is self-serving. If they are innocent, which is what the presumption is supposed to be--then I don't know why the Court would consider that this document would be possibly contrived.
THE COURT: You have here as a witness a very articulate, well-educated, seemingly intelligent witness; why can't he be questioned about his participation in the composition of that document? .
MR. WEINGLASS: The defendants are entitled to the benefit of all of the legal evidence they have indicating their innocence, writings as well as spoken words. If this document contained plans to bomb the Amphitheatre or to create a disturbance or riot in the city streets, we clearly would have had this document in evidence in the Government's case, but it contains the contrary and that is why it is being offered. I think they are entitled to the benefit of anything that indicates their innocence as well as their guilt.
THE COURT: I shall not take it in. I sustain the objection of the Government.
MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor has read the document?
THE COURT: I have looked it over.
THE WITNESS: You never read it. I was watching you. You read two pages.
THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, will you instruct that witness on the witness stand that he is not to address me.
You may continue sir, with your direct examination.
MR. WEINGLASS: Without referring to the document, what did you say about Chicago, if anything?
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, the form of the question is bad.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion to speak at the conference?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I spoke at a workshop Saturday evening. Tom and I were both present because we were presenting our paper.
MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and to the jury what you said at the workshop respecting Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Tom spoke about the paper and what was in it and then someone asked Tom why there was an entire page devoted to the issue about disruption and I answered that question.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall your answer?
THE WITNESS: I said that the reason that this document devotes so much attention to the question of violence and disruption at the Convention is because we think that this is not a demonstration where simply the peace movement comes to Chicago. This is, rather, a demonstration where the peace movement is the instrument to bring literally hundreds of thousands of people to Chicago, and I said that is why it is necessary to make crystal clear our position on disruption.
And I said that is why we feel that we have bent over backwards in this document to make our position on violence and disruption very clear, and we think that we should argue with every organization in the country who is for peace that that must be the strategy in Chicago.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the twentieth of July, 1968, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: I was in Cleveland, Ohio, at a meeting in a church in Cleveland.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were any of the other defendants seated here at the table present?
THE WITNESS: Both Dave and Tom were present.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you speak at that meeting?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I said that I thought what was happening in Chicago was that our original plan to bring a half million American citizens to Chicago was so upsetting to the Mayor of Chicago, who was hosting a Convention of his own party, that there was a real danger that the Mayor had made a decision somewhere along the line to try to scare people away, to try to reduce the numbers of people expected, by stalling on permits and through suggesting that anybody who came to Chicago was going to be clubbed or beaten or Maced.
I said, "On the other hand, I don't want to discourage people into thinking that we are not going to get permits. There are several things in the works that give me a considerable amount of optimism. . . .
MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the morning of August 2, 1968, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: I was at the Palmer House, at the coffee shop in the basement. I was meeting with David Stahl, the deputy mayor of the City of Chicago, and with me was Mark Simons.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall, did a conversation occur between yourself and David Stahl?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it did. I said that I felt that given the reports that we had seen in the past, that there was some question about our purposes and intentions in coming to Chicago. I said I did not understand any other explanation for the military sort of saber rattling that was going on at that time, the constant talks in the past about disruption of the Convention.
I indicated that the character of the demonstration that was planned by our coalition was not like the Pentagon, where civil disobedience was called for, but was more like the character of the April 15 demonstration in New York, where we hoped to be effective in our protest by numbers and not by militant tactics.
I said that I thought the problem areas that we had to work out were, first of all. the matter of a march and an assembly to the Amphitheatre, and that when we had applied for a permit for the use of Halsted, that that was negotiable and that we have at this point not even applied for how to get to Halsted because we wanted to make this an open meeting between you and me.
I then said that the second area of concern for us was the whole matter of parks, that we thought that integral to our program was having park space set aside by City officials so that people could meet and sleep throughout the week of the Convention.
Then Mr. Stahl indicated to me that he thought it might be difficult for the city to grant a permit for the use of a park; that there was a curfew at I I :00 P.m., and that this would be a violation of a city ordinance to give a permit for park space beyond I 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Stahl was not sure what the feeling of the City would be with respect to an assembly at the Amphitheatre. I said I thought it was very dangerous for us to even consider an area not adjacent to the Amphitheatre, because people on their own would then go down to the area, they would not have marshals, they would not have organization, and the possibility of disruption and violence would be very great.
Then Mr. Stahl said that he agreed, that it probably would create less problems if people did not march as pedestrians but went in an orderly group.
I then asked him, "Well, how do we begin to talk about these matters?"
And he said, that the mayor's office was not responsible for granting of permits, that these matters were the responsibility of the Park District, the Streets and Sanitation Department and the Police Department and the other agencies directly involved, and then I said, "Mr. Stahl, you're not dealing with an out-of-towner. I live in Chicago, and you can say this to the press, but I really wish you wouldn't say it to me." I said, "Everyone knows in this town who makes decisions like this. You can't tell me that the Streets and Sanitation Department head that's appointed by Mayor Daley is going to make a decision independent .of the Mayor," and he sort of smiled at that point and didn't say anything.
Mr. Stahl was very cordial at the end and said, "Thank you very much for what you've said, and I'll relate this back to the appropriate bodies."
MR. WEINGLASS: At approximately six o'clock that night, still on August 21, 1968, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: I was on my way to the Mobilization executive committee meeting, an apartment in Hyde Park.
MR. WEINGLASS: As you were outside, about to enter the apartment, did you have occasion to meet with anyone?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I met with Irv Bock.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, without going into your conversation with Mr. Bock just now, do you recall what Mr. Bock had in his hand, if anything?
THE WITNESS: He went to his car and he came back and he had--it is hard to describe. It was a very large balloon, and attached to the balloon was a small tube, and stuck in the tube was a cloth fiber, and he took the glass tube and put it into some water, and the air from the balloon would pass through the glass tube in what appeared to be a regular way, so that one bubble would come up and then another and then another and then another, and he explained how this worked.
MR. WEINGLASS: What did he say to you?
THE WITNESS: Well, he said that with this device it's possible to fill the balloon with helium gas and to launch the balloon in the air and allow the helium gas to come out of the balloon in a way that can be computed mathematically so that you know when all of the air will be out of the balloon, and by computing the velocity it's possible to send the balloon up in the air and figure out exactly where it will fall. I said, "Why in the world would anyone be interested in that?"
And he said, "Well, you can attach anything that you want to this balloon, send it up into the air, and then we can drop it on the International Amphitheatre."
And I said, "Well, what would you want to attach to the balloon?" And he said, "Anything you want."
I thanked Irv for his suggestion and went inside.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, on August 4, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was at a Mobilization steering committee meeting just outside of Chicago. It was in Highland Park at a sort of old fancy hotel that disgusted me. I mean, it was fancy, so I didn't like it.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at noon of that day, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: There was a lunch break around noon or 12:30, and the meeting emptied out down towards the lake. I was on a sandy beach on the edge of Lake Michigan, eating my lunch.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were you alone?
THE WITNESS: No, there were a number of people. Irv Bock was present. Well, Tom Hayden, really, and I were together and we talked and ate lunch together.
MR. WEINGLASS: And did you have a conversation with Tom Hayden on the beach?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I told Tom that I had received a letter from Don Duncan who was a close friend of ours and Don had sent us sort of a list of the various kinds of gases that were being used by the Army in South Vietnam. He described in some detail a gas called CS, which he said caused extreme congestion of the chest, a burning sensation in the face, the eyes filled with tears. Actual burns could occur on the face from this. and in heavy dosage, it could cause death.
Don said that he had information that these kinds of new chemicals being used on the people of Vietnam were now going to be used on the peace movement, and he was especially concerned that this might be the case in Chicago.
MR. WEINGLASS: When you and Tom Hayden had that conversation, did you notice the whereabouts of Irv Bock?
THE WITNESS: He was there. I mean, he was close by.
January 24, 1970
MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to August 13, in the evening at approximately six o'clock, did you have occasion to speak with anyone?
THE WITNESS: I spoke with my attorney, Irving Birnbaum, by phone.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall that conversation you had with him on the phone?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I said, "Irv, things are going very badly with permits. This morning the Park District met. I absolutely cannot understand it. Mr. Barry promised us it was going to be on the agenda and it was not even brought up in the meeting."
I said in addition to that, "Yesterday we had a meeting with David Stahl and Richard Elrod where all of the agency heads were supposed to attend, and none of them did." I said that "I feel, very frankly, that the Mayor is now using the permit issue as a kind of political device to scare people away." And I said, "Very frankly, he's being extremely effective."
I then asked Irv whether or not he thought it made sense to file sonic kind of lawsuit against the City and take this whole question of permits into the courts.
Irv then said that he thought that would be a practical proposal, that we should draw up a lawsuit against the City, that the City is using its administrative control over permits to deny fundamental First Amendment and Constitutional rights.
I then said to Irv that Mr. Elrod has been quite emphatic with me about the matter of sleeping in the parks beyond 11:00 p.m. "Do we have any legal basis," I said, "for staying in the parks beyond 11:00?"
Irv Birnbaum said that he thought that very definitely that should be included in the lawsuit because he said that parks were made available for the Boy Scouts and for National Guard troops beyond 11:00 p.m., and that under the Civil Rights Act of equal protection under the law, the same kind of facilities should be made available to American citizens, and he indicated that this should be put in the lawsuit.
MR. WEINGLASS: The following Sunday, which was August 18, do you recall where you were in the morning of that day?
THE WITNESS: Yes. In the morning I was at a union hall on Nobel Street. We were having a meeting of the steering committee of the Mobilization.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were there any other defendants present?
THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines was present.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what John Froines said at that particular meeting?
THE WITNESS: I recall that John reported on our work with marshals. He said that we were well under way with training sessions in Lincoln Park.
He then went on to talk about some of the problems that we were having, concerns about police violence, the fact that we were going to have to be very mobile through this week if the police came in to break up demonstrations.
I think at one point he said, "We may have to be as mobile as a guerrilla, moving from place to place in order to avoid arrest and avoid police confrontation."
MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Davis, directing your attention to Wednesday, August 21, at about 10:30 in the morning, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: I was in this building, in Judge Lynch's chambers.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, who went with you into the Judge's chambers?
THE WITNESS: An attorney, who was assisting the National Mobilization Committee, Stanley Bass. I believe that Richard Elrod was present, Ray Simon, the Corporation Counsel, was present. Judge Lynch, of course, and others.
MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and jury specific conversations in connection with that lawsuit?
THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Simon proposed to the Mobilization a number of assembly areas for our consideration. He said he made these proposals rather than the one that we suggested because he thought it unreasonable of the Mobilization to insist on a State Street march, that this Would disrupt traffic too much.
I then told Mr. Simon that I thought these proposals were quite generous, and I was certain that on this matter we could reach an accommodation.
I said, "The problem with your proposal. Mr. Simon, is that it does not address itself to the fundamental issue for us, which is an assembly in the area of the Amphitheatre at the time of the Democratic nomination."
I went on to say that I would make two concrete proposals at this time. I said that it Would be satisfactory to our coalition to consider the area on Halsted Street from 39th on the north to 47th on the south.
I said if that was not acceptable to the City, that there's a large area just west of the parking lot, that would be suitable for our purposes, and I thought would not interfere with the delegates.
Mr. Simons then said that the area on Halsted from 39th on the north to 45th on the south was out of the question for consideration, that it was a security area, he said, and that it was not possible for the City to grant this area to the Mobilization.
He then said that the second area that I had proposed similarly was out of the question because I think he said it was controlled by the Democratic National Convention and the City had no authority to grant that space to the Mobilization.
Then I said, "Assuming both of these areas are just not available, could you, Mr. Simon, suggest an area that would be within eyeshot of the Amphitheatre for an assembly on the evening of the nomination?"
Mr. Simon then said he didn't see why we needed to have an assembly area within eyeshot or close to the Amphitheatre. He said that the City was willing to make other proposals for such an assembly, they would offer us Grant Park, they would offer us Lincoln Park, they would offer us Garfield Park on the west side of Chicago.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, can you remember where you were in the afternoon of Friday, the twenty-third of August?
THE WITNESS: I think I was in the Mobilization office at that time.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you receive a phone call at approximately that time in the office?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. It was my attorney, Mr. Birnbaum. He said to me that the had just received the opinion of Judge Lynch denying us a permit for an assembly and denying us the right to use parks beyond 11:00 p.m.
I then said, "We should appeal this matter immediately. We are in absolute crisis."
Then Mr. Birnbaum said that, in his professional opinion, no appeal would produce a permit in time for our activities during the week of the Convention, but that he was willing to draw up the papers for appeal for the purpose of preserving the record.
MR. WEINGLASS: I show you D-339 for identification, which is a photograph. Can you identify the persons in that photograph?
THE WITNESS: Myself, Tom Hayden and one of the police tails who followed me through much of the convention week, Ralph Bell.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall when you first saw Mr. Bell, the police tail?
THE WITNESS: Well, on Friday after the phone call from Irv Birnbaum, I then walked out of the building, just to take a long walk alone and to think about what I personally was going to do during this week, and when I came back into the building, there were two men in sort of casual clothes who approached me at the elevator door and flashed badges, said they were policemen, and they were coming up to the office. I went back into the office and they waited outside, and I got Tom, and Tom and I then went back out to talk with them.
MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and jury the conversation that you and Tom Hayden had?
THE WITNESS: Well, one of the gentlemen just flashed his badge for the second time and said, "My name's Officer Bell. This here's Riggio. We're gonna be around you a lot, Davis, so we'll just be around you and going wherever you go from now until the Convention's over," and I said, "Well, what's the purpose of this?"
And Bell said, "Well, the purpose is to give you protection," and I said, "Well, thank you very much, but I'd just as soon not have your protection."
And then Bell said, "Well, just pretend like you're President and got protection everywhere you go, day and night," and I said, "Well, what if I would request not to have this protection."
And then he said, "Motherfucker, you got the protection, and you try to shake me and you're in big trouble. Now, you cooperate, and we'll get along real fine, hear?"
And I said, "Yes, sir," and walked back into the office.
MR. WEINGLASS: I draw your attention to Monday, August 26, at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of that day.
Do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: Well, that afternoon, Monday, I was in Lincoln Park.
MR. WEINGLASS: When Tom Hayden was arrested, were you at the scene of the arrest?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I was not. I was in the park at the time, yes.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when did you first become aware of the fact that he had been arrested?
THE WITNESS: It was around 2:30. A number of people came to me and said that Tom Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal had been arrested and I could see the people sort of were spontaneously coming together. Many people were talking about marching on to the police station in response to this arrest.
MR. WEINGLASS: And then after receiving that information, what did you do?
THE WITNESS: Well, I talked to a number of marshals about the urgency of getting on with this march and trying to see that it has direction and that our marshals are involved in this march. I was just sort of concerned that people not run out into the streets and down to the police station, so I got on the bullhorn and started to urge people to gather behind the sound for the march to the police station.
MR. WEINGLASS: Approximately how many people joined the march?
THE WITNESS: Well, my recollection is hazy--over a thousand people, I think, joined the march. I was marching about four or five rows from the front with the sound.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were any defendants in your company at that time?
THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines was with me, really throughout the march that day.
MR. WEINGLASS: And was this march proceeding on the sidewalk, or was it in the roadway?
THE WITNESS: No, it was on the sidewalk, all the way across the sidewalk until a police officer requested that I urge people to stay on one half of the sidewalk.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, as you were proceeding south on State Street, were you in the company of any officials of the city of Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was in the company of two members of the Corporation Counsel, one of whom was Richard Elrod.
MR. WEINGLASS: As you approached the police station, did you have occasion to speak again to Mr. Elrod?
THE WITNESS: Yes. About a block away from the police station, I spoke with Mr. Elrod. I said, "Mr. Elrod, the police station is completely encircled with uniformed police officers. I'm attempting to move the people out of that area and move past the police station, but you've created a situation where we have to move demonstrators down a solid wall of policemen.
"All that has to happen is for one demonstrator to strike a policeman or for one policeman to be too anxious walking past that line, and we've got a full-scale riot on our hands. I'm just not moving this line until those policemen are taken back into that building." And at that point Mr. Elrod said well, he'd see what he Could do.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you observe what Mr. Elrod did after that conversation?
THE WITNESS: I didn't see what he did, but minutes later the policemen in formation marched back into the police headquarters at 11th and State.
MR. WEINGLASS: After the police went back into the police headquarters building what did you do?
THE WITNESS: I urged people to march past the police station staying on the sidewalk, staying together, and I think we began to chant "Free Hayden." We continued then east on 11th Street toward Michigan Avenue, and north on the sidewalk on Michigan.
MR. WEINGLASS: As you were proceeding north, what, if anything, did you observe?
THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection the march had stopped while we were waiting for the other participants to catch up and it was at that moment that some of the people in the demonstration just sort of broke Out of the line of march and ran up a hill. the top of which had the statue of General Jonathan Logan.
MR. WEINGLASS: At that time that the demonstrators broke from the line of march and ran up the hill, were you speaking on the microphone?
THE WITNESS: Not at the time that they broke, no. I had stopped and was waiting for the rest of the people to catch up.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were these people carrying anything in their hands?
THE WITNESS: Yes. They were carrying flags of all kinds, Viet Cong flags, red flags.
MR. WEINGLASS: After you saw them run tip the hill to the statue, what, if anything, did you do?
THE WITNESS: A police formation developed at the base of the hill and began to sweep upward toward the statue and at that point I yelled very loudly that people should leave the statue and go to the Conrad Hilton. I said a number of things very rapidly like, "We have liberated the statue, now we should go to the Conrad Hilton. The Conrad Hilton is the headquarters of the people who are responsible for the arrest. Let's leave the statue, let's liberate the Hilton," basically urging people to get away from the statue.
MR. FORAN: I object to the characterization of the words, your Honor.
THE COURT: The use of the word "urging"?
MR. FORAN: "Basically," from the word "basically," on, I move to strike.
THE COURT: Yes. I don't know precisely what it means.
Read the last answer to him. Try to use words that would satisfy the requirements of an answer to the question, Mr. Witness.
THE WITNESS: I can continue. As the police got right up on the demonstrators and began to club the people who were around the base of the statue, I then said as loudly as I could, "If the police want a riot, let them stay in this area, If the police don't want a riot, let them get out of this area."
MR. WEINGLASS: Did there come a time when you left the area?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I left--after I urged people to leave the area, I then left the area myself. I went back to the Mobilization office.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion to meet with Tom Hayden that night?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We went to several places and finally we went to the Conrad Hilton. I guess it was a little before midnight. Tom ran into some friends that he knew, a man named Mr. Alder, and some others. I think Jeff Cowan was present, people that I don't know very well.
And they were involved in various capacities in an official way with the Democratic Convention, and they invited Tom to come into the Conrad Hilton to watch the Convention on television. So Tom and myself then accompanied them to the entrance on Balbo Street.
MR. WEINGLASS: Were they successful in getting Tom Hayden into the hotel?
THE WITNESS: No. They returned shortly after that, and Tom said we couldn't get in.
MR. WEINGLASS: Then what did you do?
THE WITNESS: I proceeded to walk across the intersection of Balbo, going north on Michigan. Tom Hayden was directly behind, and I guess I was about halfway across the street on Balbo when I heard someone veil very loudly, "Get him, get him " screaming from a distance, and I turned around and saw the policeman who had been following me through the Convention week, Ralph Bell, running very fast, directly at Tom, and he just charged across Michigan Avenue. Tom and I were sort of frozen in our places, and Bell grabbed Tom around the neck and just drove him to the street.
At that point a second police officer in uniform came from behind and grabbed Tom as well, and I believe he actually held the nightstick against Tom's neck. I then took a few steps towards Bell and Tom and this second police officer, and I yelled at Bell, "What do you think you're doing?"
And then this uniformed policeman took his nightclub and chopped me across the neck and then twice across the chest. Then my second police tail whom I hadn't seen at that point, suddenly had me by my shirt, dragged me across the intersection of Balbo and Michigan, and just threw me up against something. I think it was a lightpole. I remember just being smashed against something, and he said--his name was Riggio--he said, "What do you think you're doing, Davis?"
MR. WEINGLASS: Were you placed under arrest at that time?
THE WITNESS: No, I was not.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see what happened to Tom Hayden?
THE WITNESS: Tom was put into a paddy wagon, and taken away from the area.
MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do then?
THE WITNESS: Well, I stood still for a moment, just stunned, wandered around alone, then I ran into Paul Potter. Then Paul and I walked back to the office on Dearborn Street.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you recall approximately what time of night you arrived at the office?
THE WITNESS: Well, frankly I don't think that I would recall except that Mr. Riggio when he testified in this trial, indicated the arrest was around midnight, and it's about a five- or ten-minute walk back to the office, so it must have been somewhere between 12:20, 12:30 in that area.
MR. WEINGLASS: When you got back to the office, what, if anything, did you do?
THE WITNESS: Well, I called our legal defense office and explained what had occurred. Then I made a few more phone calls, talked to some people in the office. Paul left the office, and shortly after Paul left, I got in a car and drove towards Lincoln Park.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you recall any of the persons who were in the office at the time you have just indicated?
THE WITNESS: Well, Paul and Carrol Glassman were both in the office, and Jeff Gerth. As a matter of fact, I think it was Jeff Gerth who drove me to Lincoln Park.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you know what time it was that you left the office?
THE WITNESS: Close to one o'clock.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when you arrived at Lincoln Park, did you go to the park?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not go into the park. I drove past the park and into the Old Town area, and there I saw Vern Grizzard. I got out of the car and talked to Vernon for a couple of minutes and then Vernon and I got back into the car and we then left the area.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, approximately twenty-four hours later, very late Tuesday night, do you recall where you were at that time?
THE WITNESS: Well, late Tuesday night I was in Grant Park directly across from the Conrad Hilton Hotel.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at 4:00 a.m., were you still in the park?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, I was there certainly up till four o'clock.
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion at that time to see any of the defendants?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I met with Tom Hayden.
MR. WEINGLASS: Can you describe Tom Hayden's appearance at that time?
THE WITNESS: Well, Tom had a ridiculous hat, and he was sort of dressed in mod clothing. I think he had a fake goatee, as I recall, and for a while he was carrying a handkerchief across his nose and mouth.
I said, "Tom, you look like a fool."
MR. WEINGLASS: Did you and Tom have a conversation after that?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, we did. I said to Tom that I was concerned about the lateness of the hour, I was concerned that television and cameras and photographers and newsmen were now leaving the area; the crowd was thinning out.
I said that this is the kind Of Situation which could lead to problems, and I told Tom that I thought that someone should make an announcement that this has been a great victory. that we're able to survive tinder these incredibly difficult conditions, and that people should now be encouraged to leave the park, and return tomorrow morning. Tom then agreed to make that announcement.
MR. WEINGLASS: The following morning, Wednesday, August 28, do you recall where you were?
THE WITNESS: Wednesday morning before Grant Park I was in the Mobilization office. Fifteen people, something like that, were having a meeting.
MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall who was present at that meeting?
THE WITNESS: I recall that both Tom and Dave Dellinger were present. Linda Morse I think was there.
MR. WEINGLASS: Will You relate to the Court and jury what the defendants said while they were there, including yourself?
THE WITNESS: Dave said that he thought after the rally in Grant Park the most important thing to do was to continue with our plan to march to the Amphitheatre.
Tom said that there is no possibility of going to the Amphitheatre.
Dave said that the City, even though it has not granted permits, has allowed us to have other marches, and that perhaps they will allow us to go to the Amphitheatre.
Tom insisted that we were not going to the Amphitheatre.
Then David said that he felt that even if the police did not allow us to march, that it was absolutely necessary that we assemble, we line up, and we prepare to go to the Amphitheatre. Dave said that if the police indicate that they are going to prevent this march by force, that we have to at that time say to the world that there are Americans who will not submit to a police state by default; that they are prepared to risk arrest and be taken away to jail rather than to submit to the kind of brutality that we had seen all through the week.
Tom said that he agreed that there were people coming who intended to march, but he said as well there are many people who are not prepared to be arrested and he thought that we needed now to suggest another activity for Wednesday afternoon and evening for those people who were not prepared to he arrested.
Dave said he agreed that those people who were unprepared to be arrested should be encouraged to leave the park and return to the hotels as we had the night before.
I then said that I thought that we needed as well to announce that those people who do not want to participate in either activity should simply stay in the park or go home.
Everyone agreed with that and Dave then said that this should be announced from the platform, these three positions, and that I should inform the marshals of these three positions.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of that same day, do you recall where you were at that time?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in Grant Park just south of the refreshment stand. I saw a commotion near the flagpole and shortly after that I heard Dave Dellinger's voice. It was clear that something was happening and Dave indicated that he wanted marshals to move to the flagpole, so I then said to everyone there that we should go toward the flagpole.
MR. WEINGLASS: When you went to the flagpole, did you have anything in your hands?
THE WITNESS: I had a speaker system with a microphone.
MR. WEINGLASS: As you arrived in the vicinity of the flagpole, what was occurring?
THE WITNESS: The flag had been lowered to halfmast and the police were dragging a young man out of the area. The police seemed to be withdrawing from the area as I arrived, and a lot of people who were gathered around the flagpole began to throw anything they could get their hands on at the police who were withdrawing from the crowd. They threw rocks and boards and lunches and anything that was available right on the ground.
MR. WEINGLASS: What were you saying, if anything, at that time on the microphone?
THE WITNESS: I kept directing the marshals to form a line, link arms, and then I constantly urged the people in the crowd to stop throwing things. I said, "You're throwing things at our own people. Move back."
As our marshal line grew, I urged our marshal line to now begin to move back and move the demonstrators away from the police.
MR. WEINGLASS: Where did you go?
THE WITNESS: I continued to stand in front of the marshal line that had been formed.
MR. WEINGLASS: What did you then observe happen?
THE WITNESS: Well, at that time another squadron of policemen in formation began to advance towards my position.
I was standing in front of our marshal line sort of sandwiched in between our marshal line and the advancing police formation.
MR. WEINGLASS: What were you doing as the police were advancing?
THE WITNESS: Well, as the police advanced, I continued to have my back to the police line, basically concerned that the marshal line not break or move. Then the police formation broke and began to run, and at that time I heard several of the men in the line yell, quite distinctly, "Kill Davis! Kill Davis!" and they were screaming that and the police moved on top of me, and I was trapped between my own marshal line and advancing police line.
The first thing that occurred to me was a very powerful blow to the head that drove me face first down into the dirt, and then, as I attempted to crawl on my hands and knees, the policemen continued to yell, "Kill Davis! Kill Davis!" and continued to strike me across the ear and the neck and the back.
I guess I must have been hit thirty or forty times in the back and I crawled for maybe --I don't know how many feet, ten feet maybe, and I came to a chain fence and somehow I managed to crawl either under or through that fence, and a police fell over the fence, trying to get me, and another police hit the fence with his nightstick, but I had about a second or two in which I could stand and I leaped over a bench and over some people and into the park, and then I proceeded to walk toward the center of the park.
MR. WEINGLASS: As you walked toward the center of the park, what, if anything, happened?
THE WITNESS: Well, I guess the first thing that I was conscious of, I looked down, and my tie was just solid blood, and I realized that my shirt was just becoming blood, and someone took my arm and took me to the east side of the Bandshell, and I laid down, and there was a white coat who was bent over me. I remember hearing the voice of Carl Oglesby. Carl said, "In order to survive in this country, we have to fight," and then--then I lost consciousness.
MR. WEINGLASS: I have completed my direct examination.
THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination of this witness?
MR. FORAN: Mr. Davis, could you tel me what you consider conventional forms of protest?
THE WITNESS: Writing, speaking, marching, assembling, acting on your deepest moral and political convictions, especially when the authority that you--
MR. FORAN: I mean methods. You were going along fine.
THE WITNESS: Well, conventional activity would include those forms and others.
MR. FORAN: All right. And do you support those forms of protest or do you like other forms of protest?
THE WITNESS: It depends on what the issue is.
MR. FORAN: Haven't you stated in the past that you opposed the tendency to conventional forms of protest instead of militant action in connection with Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Well, it really depends at what time that was.
MR. FORAN: Well, in March, say.
MR. WEINGLASS: If he is referring to a prior writing, I would like him to identify it so we may follow it.
MR. FORAN: There is no necessity for me to do that, your Honor.
THE COURT: No, no necessity for that. I order the witness to answer the question if he can. If he can't he may say he cannot and I will excuse him.
Now read the question again to the witness.
THE WITNESS: I understand the question. Maybe if Mr. Foran could define for me what he means by the word "militant," because we may have different views about that word.
THE COURT: There is no necessity for defining words.
THE WITNESS: I would like very much to answer your question, Mr. Foran, but I am afraid that your view of militant and mine are very different, so I cannot answer that question as you phrased it.
THE COURT: He said he cannot answer the question, Mr. Foran. Therefore I excuse him from answering the question.
MR. FORAN: Did you tell that meeting at Lake Villa that the summer of '68 should be capped by a week of demonstrations, disruptions, and marches at the Democratic National Convention clogging the streets of Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Well, I certainly might have said "clogging the streets of Chicago."
MR. FORAN: Did you tell them at that meeting what I just said to you?
THE WITNESS: Well. I may have.
MR. FORAN: Did you ever write a document with Tom Hayden called "Discussions on the Democratic Challenge?"
THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall this. This was written very early.
MR. FORAN: When did you write it?
THE WITNESS: I think we wrote that document around January 15.
MR. FORAN: Have you ever said that "Countless creative activities must be employed that will force the President to use troops to secure his nomination?" Have you ever stated that?
THE WITNESS: That's possible.
MR. FORAN: But in January, in your little document that you and Hayden wrote together, that's what you said you were going to do, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: Well, you've taken it out of context. I would be happy to explain the whole idea.
MR. FORAN: And it was your intention that you wanted to have trouble start so that the National Guard would have to be called out to protect the delegates, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: No, it was not.
MR. FORAN: You've stated that, haven't you?
THE WITNESS: No. We thought it might be possible the troops would be brought into the city to protect the Convention from its own citizens, it would be another--
MR. FORAN: From the citizens that were outside waiting to pin the delegates in, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: No. It's not correct.
MR. FORAN: On August 2 you met Stahl for breakfast over at the coffee house and you told him that this was an incendiary situation and that you'd rather die right here in Chicago than in Vietnam, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: No, Mr. Foran. I don't want to die in Chicago or Vietnam.
MR. FORAN: Then you saw Stahl again on August 10, that time at the coffee shop on Monroe Street?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right.
MR. FORAN: And you told Stahl that you had housing for 30,000 people, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: That's right.
MR. FORAN: And you told Stahl that you expected at least another 70,000 people to come, and they wouldn't have any place to go, so they had to sleep in the park.
THE WITNESS: I think that I did.
MR. FORAN: And Stahl told you about the park ordinance again, didn't he, reminded you of it, that they couldn't sleep overnight in the park? He also told you about the Secret Service security requirements at the Amphitheater, didn't he, at the August 10 meeting?
THE WITNESS: No, no, absolutely not. On the contrary, there was no indication of a security area until August 21.
MR. FORAN: You told the City that you had to be able to march to the Amphitheatre, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Well, I told the City that we would assemble in any area that was in proximity to the Amphitheatre.
MR. FORAN: That the terminal point of march had to be the Amphitheatre, didn't you say that?
THE WITNESS: No, I never said that. I talked about eyeshot or being near the Amphitheatre.
MR. FORAN: By the way, you people got permits at the Pentagon, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, permits were granted for the demonstration at the Pentagon.
January 26, 1970
MR. FORAN: And the Mobilization had planned or some people in it had planned civil disobedience at the Pentagon, isn't that right?
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by civil disobedience?
MR. FORAN: In fact, at the Pentagon, you planned both an active confrontation with the warmakers and the engagement of civil disobedience, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Well, if 150,000 people gathered in assembly is regarded as an active confrontation, as I regard it, the answer, of course, is yes.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that on the August 12 meeting with Stahl that you told him that during Convention week the demonstrators were going to participate in civil disobedience? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: No. May I say what I said?
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you had found that that was a very successful tactic at the Pentagon?
THE WITNESS: No, I believe that Dave Dellinger said that that was a tactic we did not want to use in Chicago. We had one tactic for the Pentagon and another view for Chicago.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that that tactic, a permit on the one hand and active confrontation combined with civil disobedience on the other hand, gives the movement an opportunity to get both conventional protest groups and active resistance groups to come together in the demonstration? You have heard Dellinger say that, haven't you?
THE WITNESS: No, he never used those words for Chicago, Mr. Foran. What he always said--
MR. FORAN: Did he say it in connection with the Pentagon?
THE WITNESS: Oh, for the Pentagon? There was no doubt there was a conception for civil disobedience which was wholly different from what we wanted to do in Chicago. Can't you understand? It is so simple. The Pentagon was one thing, Chicago was another thing.
MR. FORAN: I know you would like to explain away what happened in Chicago very much, Mr. Davis, but you also have to take into consideration what happened at the Pentagon was the blueprint for Chicago and you know it.
MR. DELLINGER: You are a liar.
MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, every time we try to get one of our witnesses to talk about the Pentagon, who was the quickest on his feet to say "That is outside the scope, you can't go into that--
MR. FORAN:, Not on cross-examination it isn't outside the scope
Isn't it a fact that Mr. Dellinger said that the Mobilization at the Pentagon can have its maximum impact when it combines massive action with the cutting edge of resistance? Didn't he say that?
THE WITNESS: What do you mean "cutting edge of resistance?"
MR. FORAN: Did Mr. Dellinger ever say that?
THE WITNESS: Well, I never heard him use those words.
MR. FORAN: In substance did you hear him say it? In substance?
THE WITNESS: Yes, all right.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that your plan both at the Pentagon and in Chicago was to combine, in Dellinger's words, the peacefulness of Gandhi and the violence of active resistance? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS:. No, that is not a fact. In fact, that is not even close.
MR. FORAN: May that be stricken, your Honor?
THE COURT: "In fact, that is not even close," those words may go out and the jury is directed to disregard them.
MR. FORAN: You testified on direct examination that on February 11, 1969, you gave a talk at 407 South Dearborn, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MR. FORAN: Very good.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. FORAN: In the course of that talk you said on direct examination that "there may be people in this room who do believe that the Democratic Convention which is responsible for the war should be physically disrupted."
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that among the people in that room at 407 South Dearborn who did believe that the Democratic National Convention should be physically disrupted and torn apart were you and Hayden? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: No, it is not a fact. If you will read my testimony, you will see that--
MR. FORAN: You and Hayden had written--
THE WITNESS: Yes. Now if you will put that document before the jury.
MR. FORAN: --a "Discussion on the Democratic Convention Challenge," hadn't you?
THE WITNESS: We wrote a paper in January that was substantially revised by that very meeting, sir.
THE WITNESS: So you changed your mind between January 15 and February 11, is that your testimony?
THE WITNESS: We did not change our mind. We dropped some of the language that Dave Dellinger criticized as inappropriate, confusing--I think he said the word "disruption" was irresponsible.
MR. FORAN: In addition to you and Hayden, isn't it a fact that another person in that room who wanted to physically disrupt that National Democratic Convention was Dave Dellinger? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: Your questions embarrass me, they are so terrible. They really do.
MR. FORAN: Well, answer it.
THE WITNESS: The answer is no.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that Dellinger ran the show at the Pentagon? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: Sir, our movement doesn't work that way with one man running the show, as you say. It is a movement of thousands of people who participate each year.
MR. FORAN: You said that the Yippies wanted a gigantic festival in the park in Chicago to show the contrast between your culture and the death-producing culture of the Democratic Convention. Did you so testify?
THE WITNESS: I think I said "the death-producing ritual of the Democratic Convention."
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that all the vile and vulgar propaganda the Yippies were passing out was for the purpose of making the City delay on the permit, and to make the authorities look repressive?
THE WITNESS: Sir, no one had to make the City look repressive. The City was repressive.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that that vile and vulgar advertising along with all of the talk about a rock festival was for the purpose of attracting the guerrilla active resistance types to your protest?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
MR. FORAN: And the purpose of the permit negotiations was to attract people who believed in more conventional forms of protest, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: The purpose of the permits was to allow us to have a legal assembly.
MR. FORAN: That is exactly what you had done at the Pentagon, wasn't it, the synthesis of Gandhi and guerrilla, isn't that what you did at the Pentagon?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. FORAN: Mr. Davis, you testified that you had young Mark Simons request the use of various park facilities for meeting and for sleeping back around the thirty-first of July, isn't that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FORAN: Now, isn't it a fact that you were always told by every city official that the 11:00 p.m. curfew in the parks would not be waived, isn't that a fact? Stahl told you that again on August 2, didn't he?
THE WITNESS: Not that emphatically.
MR. FORAN: He told you there was an 11:00 p.m. curfew that did not permit sleeping in the parks, did he say that?
THE WITNESS: But in the context at that time it would be waived, as it was waived all the time for the Boy Scouts and the National Guard troops.
MR. FORAN: Well, You didn't consider the Yippies Boy Scouts, did you?
THE WITNESS: Well, I considered that under the Civil Rights Act that American citizens have equal protection of the law.
MR. FORAN: You think that the Yippies with what they were advertising they were going to do in Lincoln Park are the same as the Boy Scouts? Is that what you are saving?
THE WITNESS: Well, as someone who has been very active in the Boy Scouts during all of his young life, I considered--
MR. FORAN: Did you ever see the Boy Scouts advertise public fornication, for heaven's sake?
THE WITNESS: The Yippies talked about a festival of Life and love and--
MR. FORAN: They also talked about public fornication and about drug use and about nude-ins on the beach? They also talked about that, didn't they?
THE WITNESS: They talked about love, yes, sir.
MR. FORAN: You and I have a little different feeling about love, I guess, Mr. Davis.
Now, isn't it a fact that the continuous demands for sleeping in the park were just for the purpose of again making the authorities appear repressive, isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: Oh, no. We wanted Soldiers Field as a substitute, or any facility. I indicated to the superintendent that we would take any facilities that could possibly be made available to get around this ordinance problem.
MR. FORAN: Now, in Judge Lynch's chambers, Raymond Simon proposed four different march routes as alternatives to your proposed march routes, didn't he?
THE WITNESS: Surely.
MR. FORAN: And you told him that while they appeared reasonable for daytime demonstrations, they were completely unacceptable to your coalition because there was no consideration of an assembly at the Amphitheater?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FORAN: Did you accept any of these proposals of the four routes of march?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, we accepted the proposal to assemble in Grant Park at 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.
MR. FORAN: And no other proposals were accepted, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: No other proposals were made.
MR. FORAN: Other proposals that Mr. Simon had made to you, you rejected, did you not? You rejected them saying that you wanted to assemble at the Amphitheatre?
THE WITNESS: They were absurd proposals. People everywhere understood why young people were coming to Chicago: to go to the Convention.
MR. FORAN: After all of these meetings, the cause was argued?
THE WITNESS: On August 22, yes, sir.
MR. FORAN: And it was dismissed on the next day, August 23, is that right?
THE WITNESS: That's right, by the former law partner of Mayor Daley.
MR. FORAN: We can strike that statement.
THE COURT: I strike the remark of the witness from the record, and direct the jury to disregard it.
MR. FORAN: Was a motion to disqualify the judge made by your attorneys in this case?
THE WITNESS: No, it was not.
MR. FORAN: Did you instruct them to do so?
THE WITNESS: We discussed it as to whether or not we could get a fair shake from a former law partner of Mayor Daley, and we decided all of the judges were essentially the same, and that most of them are appointed by Daley.
MR. FORAN: So you thought all eleven judges in this district were appointed by Mayor Daley?
THE WITNESS: Not all eleven judges were sitting at that time. We thought that the court might be a face-saving device for the mayor. A mayor who didn't politically want to give permits might allow the courts to give permits. That is why we went into court.
THE COURT: Did you say all of the judges were appointed by Mayor Daley? Does he have the power to appoint judges?
THE WITNESS: No, I think that I indicated that they were all sort of very influenced and directed by the Mayor of the city of Chicago. There is a lot of feeling about it in the city.
There is a lot of feeling of that in this city, Judge Hoffman. You can't really separate the courts from the Daley machine in this town.
THE COURT: Did you know that I was just about the first judge nominated on this bench by President Eisenhower in early 1953?
THE WITNESS: I do know. I understand that. You are a Republican judge.
THE COURT: I am not a Republican judge; I am a judge of all the people. I happen to be appointed by President Eisenhower in the spring of 1953.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I know that.
THE COURT: So do you want to correct your statement about Mayor Daley? If Mayor Daley had his way, he wouldn't have had me. I just want to reassure you if you feel that I am here because of Mayor Daley, I am not really.
THE WITNESS: I see.
THE COURT: Mayor Daley, as far as I am concerned, and so I am told, is a good mayor. I don't think I have ever spoken three sentences to him other than--I don't know whether I spoke to him when he was on the stand here or not. Perhaps I did direct him to answer some questions, I don't know.
MR. FORAN: When you were talking to Judge Lynch, you knew that you were going to have your people stay in the park with or without a permit, didn't you, and you didn't tell the judge that, did you?
THE WITNESS: I told the judge that we wanted to avoid violence and that was the most important thing possible.
MR. FORAN: If you wanted to avoid violence so much, did you tell the people out in the ballfield across the Balbo bridge from the Hilton Hotel that you had 30,000 housing units available and if you don't want trouble in the park, why don't you come take advantage of our housing? Did you say that in Grant Park that day?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Foran, we didn't come to Chicago to sleep.
MR. FORAN: Did you say that? Did you tell those people when you were telling them to go back to Lincoln Park that night for the Yippie Festival, did you tell them, "Don't stay in the park tonight, it might cause trouble. We have got plenty of housing available"? Did you tell them that?
THE WITNESS: We made constant references to the availability of housing through our Ramparts wall posters, through announcements at the movement centers. We communicated very well--
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, may I have that stricken'?
THE WITNESS: --that housing was available.
MR. FORAN: Well, as you were leaving that crowd from Lincoln Park, did you ever announce over that bullhorn, "Now look, we don't want any trouble in the park tonight, so any of you people who don't have housing, just let us know. We have thirty thousand housing units available"?
Did you announce that over the bullhorn while you were conducting that march?
THE WITNESS: On that occasion, no. We had other concerns, namely the arrest of Tom Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal. But we did make constant announcements about--
MR. FORAN: You heard Oklepek testify, did you not, and it is a fact, isn't it, that at the August 9 meeting if the demonstrators were driven from the park, they ought to move out into the Loop and tie it up and bust it up, and you told the people that at that August 9 meeting, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: That is very close, very close. What I said was that they will drive people out of the parks and people will go into the Loop.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor--
THE COURT: The answer is not responsive. Therefore I must strike it.
THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. Oklepek testify to that but it is not a fact. There was something said that he--
MR. FORAN: You did tell people at that time at that meeting that if the police kept the demonstrators in the park and they couldn't get out, that you had an easy solution for it, just riot. That's what you said, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: I have never in all my life said that to riot was an easy solution to anything, ever.
MR. FORAN: And you sat here in this courtroom and you heard Officer Bock and Dwayne Oklepek and Officer Frapolly testify to all of these things, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: I listened to your spies testify about us, yes, sir, and it was a disgrace to me.
MR. FORAN: And isn't it a fact that you structured your testimony sitting at that table--
THE WITNESS: The answer is no.
MR. FORAN: --on direct examination to appear similar to the testimony of the Government's witnesses but to differ in small essentials because you wanted to lend credibility to your testimony? That is a fact, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: It is not a fact and you know it.
MR. FORAN: May we strike that, your Honor. He whispered to the court reporter "and you know it."
THE COURT: Is that what you told the reporter at the end of your answer to the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I made that man to man to Mr. Foran.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, a lawyer in court is unable to comment on his personal opinions concerning a witness and because of that reason I ask the jury be instructed to disregard Mr. Davis' comment because I cannot properly respond to it.
THE COURT: "And you know it," to Mr. Foran, words to that effect may go out, and the jury is directed to disregard them.
THE WITNESS: I hope after this trial you can properly respond, Mr. Foran. I really do. I hope we have that chance.
MR. FORAN: I don't know what he is--what are you--
THE WITNESS: That you and I can sit down and talk about what happened in Chicago and why it happened.
THE COURT: Mr. Witness--
THE WITNESS: I would like to do that very much.
THE COURT: Mr. Witness--
MR. FORAN: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Do you hear me, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: You didn't--
THE WITNESS: I am sorry.
THE COURT: You paid no attention to me.
I direct you not to make any volunteered observations. I have made this order several times during your testimony.
THE WITNESS: I apologize.
THE COURT: I do not accept your apology, sir.
January 27, 1970
MR. FORAN: You and your people wanted to have violence in Lincoln Park, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. We wanted to avoid violence.
MR. FORAN: You wanted it for one purpose. You wanted it for the purpose of discrediting the Government of the United States, isn't that correct?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to discredit the Government's policies by bringing a half million Americans to Chicago at the time of the Convention.
MR. FORAN: Have you ever said that you came to Chicago to display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the government?
THE WITNESS: I don't recall saying that.
MR. FORAN: Could you have said it?
THE WITNESS: Well, that would be out of context. I would talk about the war. I would talk about racism.
MR. FORAN: Have you ever said it in context or out of context?
THE WITNESS: But the context is all-important, don't you see? It is most important.
MR. FORAN: Not in a statement like that. Have you ever said that?
THE WITNESS: Show me the document.
MR. FORAN: I am asking you a question. I want you to tell me.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall ever saying that.
MR. FORAN: And you wanted violence at the International Amphitheatre also, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Just the opposite.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you wanted violence in order to impose an international humiliation on the people who ruled this country? Isn't that a fact?
THE WITNESS: It is my belief that it was you wanted the violence, Mr. Foran, not me.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, may that be stricken, and may I have the question answered?
THE COURT: Certainly, the statement may go out. The witness is directed to be careful about his answers. Please read the question for the witness.
(question read)
THE WITNESS: I did not want violence, Mr. Foran.
MR. FORAN: You did want to impose an international humiliation on the people who ruled this country, isn't that correct?
THE WITNESS: I am afraid that our government has already humiliated itself in the world community, sir.
MR. FORAN: Now, you had another alternative to the march to the Amphitheatre, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MR. FORAN: And that was for people who didn't want to march to drift away in small groups from the Bandshell and return to the hotel areas in the Loop.
THE WITNESS: That is right.
MR. FORAN: And it was planned, wasn't it, that they were to come back to the Hilton Hotel in force and cause a violent confrontation with the police, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: No, of course not.
MR. FORAN: Was the objective of the second alternative to paralyze the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue?
THE WITNESS: No, that is a Government theory, a Government theory to try to figure out and explain away what happened in Chicago.
MR. FORAN: You have actually stated, haven't you, that all of those things I have been asking you about were the things that you accomplished in Chicago, haven't you?
THE WITNESS: You mean violent confrontations and tearing up the city and--
MR. FORAN: That the purpose of your meeting in Chicago was to impose an international humiliation on the people who rule this country, to display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the Government, to paralyze the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue. You have said all of those things, haven't you, that that was your purpose in coming to Chicago and that you achieved it?
THE WITNESS: No, I never indicated that that was our purpose in coming to Chicago.
MR. FORAN: Did you ever write a document, coauthor one with Tom Hayden, called "Politics After Chicago?"
THE WITNESS: I may have.
MR. FORAN: I show you Government's Exhibit No. 104 for identification and ask you if that is a copy of it.
THE WITNESS: Yes. You have butchered the context, just as I suspected.
MR. FORAN: Now, have you and Mr. Hayden stated in this "Politics After Chicago" that since the institutions of this country cannot be changed from within, the people will take to the streets? Have you stated that?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I wish you would read the whole context.
MR. FORAN: You have stated that, have you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FORAN: You have stated "We learned in Chicago what it means to declare that the streets belong to the people."
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FORAN: Did you state that the battle line is no longer drawn in the obscure paddies of Vietnam or the dim ghetto streets, but is coming closer to suburban sanctuaries and corporate board rooms? The gas that fell on us in Chicago also fell on Hubert? The street that was paralyzed was the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue?
THE WITNESS: Yes. That is quite different from what you said before.
MR. FORAN: Did you state this:
"Our strategic purpose is two-fold: To display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the Government."
Did you state that?
THE WITNESS: It is possible. Read the whole document.
MR. FORAN: You stated that, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Why don't you read the whole document or give it to the jury?
MR. FORAN: You have stated that your program is to discredit the authority of the Government which is deaf to its own system and railroad an election through America as if Vietnam were the caboose?
THE WITNESS: Boy, that's right on.
MR. FORAN: You stated that, did you not, that you wanted to discredit the authority of a Government which is deaf to its own citizens?
THE WITNESS: Well, I embrace those words. I don't know if I said them, but those words are just right.
MR. FORAN: And you believe that you won what you called the Battle of Chicago, don't you?
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by the Battle of Chicago?
MR. FORAN: Have you ever called what occurred in Chicago during the Convention the Battle of Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Yes, and I have defined it and I wonder if you would let me define it here. I will be happy to answer the question.
MR. FORAN: Have you ever stated in the words that I have asked you, "We won the Battle of Chicago"? Have you ever said that in any context?
THE WITNESS: You are not interested in the context, I suppose.
MR. FORAN: In any context, Mr. Davis.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe we won the battle in Chicago.
MR. FORAN: That you--it was your--your program would include press conferences, disruptions and pickets dramatizing whatever demands you wanted?
THE WITNESS: May I see the context so we can clarify it?
MR. FORAN: I show you Government's Exhibit No. 99. It starts at the top.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was right.
MR. FORAN: Now, you feel that the Battle of Chicago continues, don't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that contest that will shape the political character in the next decade was really shaped in Chicago in the context between the Daleys and the Nixons, and the Hayakawas, and the Reagans and the young people who expressed their hopes in the streets in Chicago. And I think, frankly, in that context, it is going to be clear it is not the Daleys, or the Humphreys, or the Johnsons who are the future of this country. We are the future of this country.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you have said, Mr. Davis, that the Battle of Chicago continues today. The war is on. The reason we are here tonight is to try to figure out how we are going to get the kind of mutiny that Company A started in South Vietnam and spread it to every army base, every high school, every community in this country. That is what you said about the Battle of Chicago continuing today, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: Young people in South Vietnam--
MR. FORAN: Haven't you said just exactly what I read to you, sir?
MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, could we have the date of that statement?
THE COURT: Certainly, if you have the date, give it to him.
THE WITNESS: August 28, 1969.
MR. FORAN: On the one year anniversary of what happened on Wednesday, August 28, 1968?
THE WITNESS: A year after the Convention.
MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you have said, "If we go about our own work, and if we make it clear that there can be no peace in the United States until every soldier is brought out of Vietnam and this imperialistic system is destroyed." Have you said that?
THE WITNESS: I don't recall those exact words, but those certainly are my sentiments, that we should not rest until this war is over and until the system--
MR. FORAN: And until this imperialistic system is destroyed?
THE WITNESS: Until the system that made that war is changed, the foreign policy
MR. FORAN: The way you decided to continue the Battle of Chicago, the way you decided to fight the Battle of Chicago, was by incitement to riot, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, by organizing, by organizing within the army, within high schools, within factories and communities across this country.
MR. FORAN: By inciting to riot within high schools, and within colleges, and within factories, and within the army, isn't that right, sir?
THE WITNESS: No. No, sir. No, I am trying to find a way that this generation can make this country something better than what it has been.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, he is no longer responding to the question.
THE COURT: I strike the answer of the witness and direct the jury to disregard it.
MR. FORAN: And what you want to urge young people to do is to revolt, isn't that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, revolt.
MR. FORAN: And you have stated, have you not, "That there can be no question by the time that I am through that I have every intention of urging that you revolt, that you join the Movement, that you become a part of a growing force for insurrection in the United States"') You have said that, haven't you?
THE WITNESS: I was standing right next to Fred Hampton when I said that, who was murdered in this city by policemen.
MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I move to strike that.
THE COURT: Yes, the answer may certainly go out. The question is wholly unrelated to one Fred Hampton.
MR. FORAN: Wouldn't it be wonderful, your Honor, if the United States accused people of murder as these people do without proof, without trial, and without any kind of evidence having been presented in any kind of a decent situation
MR. KUNSTLER: A man is murdered in his bed, while he is sleeping, by the police.
MR. FORAN: With nineteen guns there.
THE COURT: I am trying this case. I will ask you, Mr. Kunstler, to make no reference to that case because it is not in issue here.
MR. FORAN: In Downers Grove on August 30, you told all of the people out there, "We have won America." Didn't you tell them that? Didn't you tell them that?
THE WITNESS: I believe that I said--
MR. FORAN: Didn't you say that to them out at Downers Grove, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FORAN: I have no further cross-examination.
THE COURT: Redirect examination.
MR. WEINGLASS: Redirect is unnecessary, your Honor.