Roger Adelman Complete Oral History Package

ROGER M. ADELMAN, ESQUIRE Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit ROGER M. ADELMAN, ESQUIRE Interviews conducted by: Stephen J. Pollak, Esq. July 22, September 10, October 9, October 29, and December 18, 2008 February 16 and April 20, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i Oral History Agreements Roger M. Adelman, Esquire………………………………………………..……….iii Stephen J. Pollak, Esquire…………………………………………………………………………….….v Oral History Transcripts of Interviews July 22, 2008 …………………………………………………………………………………………………1 September 10, 2008 ……………………………………………………………………………………..27 October 9, 2008 ……………………………………………………………………………………………53 October 29, 2008 ………………………………………………………………………………………….72 December 18, 2008 ………………………………………………………………………………………98 February 16, 2009 ………………………………………………………………………………………126 April 20, 2009 ……………………………………………………………………………………………144 Index …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A-1 Table of Cases and Statutes …………………………………………………………………………………B-1 Biographical Sketches Roger M. Adelman, Esquire…………………………………………………….C-1 Stephen J. Pollak, Esquire……………… ……………………………………….…………C-2 Appendices “Legends in the Law” from Washington Lawyer……………… ….. ………..…D-1 New York Times Obituary………………………………………………………D-9 Nomination2015JusticePotterStewartAward………………………………….D-10 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were recorded digitally or on cassette tape, and the interviewee and the interviewer have been afforded an opportunity to review and edit the transcript. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. © 2016 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit and lawyers, court staff, and others who played important roles in the history of the Circuit. The Project began in 1991. Oral history interviews are conducted by volunteer attorneys who are trained by the Society. Before donating the oral history to the Society, both the subject of the history and the interviewer have had an opportunity to review and edit the transcripts. Indexed transcripts of the oral histories and related documents are available in the Judges’ Library in the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and the library of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia With the permission of the person being interviewed, oral histories are also available on the Internet through the Society’s Web site, www.dcchs.org. Audio recordings of most interviews, as well as electronic versions of the transcripts, are in the custody of the Society. i Oral History of Roger M. Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewee is Roger Adelman, and the interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on July 22, 2008 at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the first interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon Roger. Would you state your full name and your current address for the record? Mr. Adelman: My name is Roger M. Adelman, and the “M” stands for Mark. I live in Washington, D.C. Mr. Pollak: Where were you born and when? Mr. Adelman: I was born in Norristown, Pennsylvania on June 25, 1941. Mr. Pollak: Were you an only child or do you have siblings? Mr. Adelman: My sister was five years younger than I. She was born in 1946 in the same town and same hospital. I grew up in Norristown for 22 years before we moved to another town nearby. Mr. Pollak: What are your parent’s names and where did they come from? Give us a little background about your folks. Mr. Adelman: My folks married in 1935. My father’s name was Louis Adelman, and my mother’s maiden name was Mary Butz. My father grew up in South Philadelphia and he was the son of Russian immigrants and had eight siblings, some of whom were born here, and some of whom were born in the Old Country. He did not complete high school. As a teenager, he sold newspapers and was very good at it. He was an extremely bright guy, a great memory, and a passionate believer in this country. My father grew up in South Philadelphia 2 in the Teens and the Twenties, during Prohibition, and he experienced that life as a young man. He sold newspapers and worked in a pool hall. Mr. Pollak: What business? Mr. Adelman: The pool hall was run by a former policeman who had been disgraced by being convicted of something and then he opened a pool hall. My mother, on the other hand, grew up in what was then rural Pennsylvania, outside the city of Philadelphia. Her family had been in the United States for almost 250 years. She was Pennsylvania Dutch, that means Pennsylvania German. My father met her in 1932, and they married in 1935. My parents were married 59 years. My mother died in 1995. My dad died in 2002. My sister was born in 1946, and she passed away in 2005. Mr. Pollak: What are your earliest memories that you can reach back to? Mr. Adelman: My earliest memories during World War II were things like rationing and the Victory Gardens. We had Victory Gardens in our neighborhood. There were large community gardens where people grew food because of the war shortages. I remember ration stamps. I also remember the World War II blackouts. I most clearly remember the end of World War II. My father took me downtown in Norristown. People were dancing in the streets, there were juke boxes in the streets. I couldn’t quite understand what had happened. We lived in Norristown, which was, and still is, a blue collar factory town, then about 40,000 people. It was a typical Pennsylvania mill town. Even though it’s only 20 miles from Philadelphia, it has always had its own culture and character. Many of the people I grew up with still live there. 3 Mr. Pollak: So, you were born in Norristown. Did you go to the public school? Mr. Adelman: I did. There was a public school and a good one, Norristown High School. I graduated from there in 1959. In junior high I was put in the academic track, this was for the kids who were expected to go on to college. Mr. Adelman: I was privileged to grow up with, and become best friends with, a fellow named Jerry Spinelli. We are the same age. We lived in the same neighborhood and went to school together for 12 years. He is now a renowned author of children’s books. Many of his fiction books are about Norristown. He wrote a non-fiction book, Knots in My Yo-Yo String, about his childhood, and parts of mine. It’s Jerry’s biography of his life as a kid. He draws inspiration and characters in his books from his experiences in Norristown. I once described him in the Philadelphia Inquirer as the William Faulkner of Norristown. He’s still writing children’s books to this day. His classic is Maniac Magee. It’s based on Norristown people whom he has fictionalized and Norristown is fictionalized as “Two Mills.” It is a classic in children’s literature. Many kids in the United States have read that book. Mr. Pollak: Were the events in The Knots in My Yo-Yo String events that you lived? Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. Many of them were things we did together. He even put in the book a description I wrote in 1995 of the baseball field on which we played as kids. His writing provides revivification of youth for me, for him and for many of our friends. Mr. Pollak: Do you still see him? Mr. Adelman: Yes, quite often. 4 Mr. Pollak: Roger, you’re now moving to junior high school. Were there particular teachers who influenced you in this time of your life? Mr. Adelman: Yes. There were, particularly, an English teacher and a Government teacher. The two people that stick out in my mind – actually the Superintendent of Schools, Elwood Geigas, who was a Renaissance man, and he I think quietly sponsored my advancement through the school system and into college. The other person was Dorothy Berger who was a guidance counselor. Mr. Pollak: What was Geigas’s job? Mr. Adelman: He was the Superintendent of Schools, but he was also a teacher. Mr. Pollak: What did he teach? Mr. Adelman: He taught Government and taught English, and at the time I was there, he became Superintendent. Ms. Berger was the guidance teacher. She taught English as well. And then a math teacher by the name of John Schueler. He would say, “It is bad enough that you do not know, but it is worse that you do not know that you do not know.” I remember that still. Mr. Pollak: How many students were in your grade or in your high school? Mr. Adelman: There were 335 in my graduating class. Mr. Pollak: From high school? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: Still looking back at those years, those very early years, would you say that your childhood was a happy childhood, that you had fun and did the kinds of things that you liked to do? 5 Mr. Adelman: Unquestionably. It was hard for me to know what was out there in the world. Television blossomed when I was about 7 years old. My sense of the real world was limited to as far as I could ride my bike. Obviously we saw things on TV, but I hadn’t traveled anywhere, I didn’t leave the state of Pennsylvania until I was a teenager, so everything seemed to be right there, all your friends were there, the school was there, I went to the YMCA, went to the YMCA summer camp, I was a Boy Scout. Those were big adventures. Mr. Pollak: Sleep-away camp as they now call it? Mr. Adelman: Sleep-away camp. Jerry has written an interesting little story about that. His backyard was about the size of this office. He and I camped out there when we were about 10. He wrote that he thought that we were on the plains in Wyoming. He didn’t make it through the night. So I trundled home. It was our initiation of being campers. Sports was a big thing with my dad and with the town. There’s a tradition there of high school and even junior high sports, so all of my friends congealed together as Little Leaguers, football players, “Biddy Basketball” teams, and high school sports. So we all knew each other from the time we were 7, 8, 9 years old. There was a great deal of pride being part of the Norristown sports tradition. No one in my family had ever been to college. I was visited by Princeton, by Penn, by Dartmouth, University of Michigan. I eventually went to Dartmouth. But I also got into Amherst. Mr. Pollak: Had you played sports in high school? 6 Mr. Adelman: Yes. I played football and basketball. Football was a big thing. We had a very successful football program. Mr. Pollak: I think Norristown occasionally makes the sports pages for its high school teams. Mr. Adelman: It does. The significance of this is that all of us on the team grew up together. In my junior year, 1957, we had an undefeated team. That team is the last undefeated football team at Norristown High School. In 2007 we had a 50th reunion of that team. We also invited the cheerleaders. It was a great hit because unlike a traditional class reunion where there are a lot of different levels of people, we were all the same mode, we had all been inspired by the same coach, who unfortunately had passed on. Somebody had saved films of the 1957 games and showed them. As for school, I loved school. I love to read. I love to learn, I love the challenge. Norristown High School was not the level of a private prep school, I found that out at Dartmouth, but it was as good an education as I could get. It was a good public school system. Mr. Pollak: We’re still looking some at the town and the high school and your schooling, did you hold any jobs when you were a young person? Mr. Adelman: I did. I had to work. I think the first job I had was when I was 7. I was a big kid, so I did manual labor, even at 7. I recall working at 7 or 8 years old on a house that was being built in our neighborhood. I delivered newspapers, shoveled snow, and later painted houses. I worked for my father. I worked at a truck stop. I worked in a nursery. I worked in the Post Office. As time went 7 on, when I got into college, I worked one summer in a steel tubing mill. I worked five summers in a brewery. I worked for a short time in a rubber tire factory. I worked for a company that built swimming pools. All the kids I grew up with worked. I don’t think there ever was a time that I was without a job. Older kids in my neighborhood would work, they had regular jobs even though they were out of school, they’d come home, live with their parents and pay rent. Norristown was, and still is, basically a blue-collar, lower middle-class town. But I didn’t know of how better off people lived because there was no comparison. In my neighborhood we lived in row houses. The way my friend Jerry Spinelli has put it in one of his books, no one in our part of town had a front yard or a side yard. Mr. Pollak: Was it a union town? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Most definitely. I had to join the unions to work for the summers in the steel mill and the rubber tire factory, and also in the brewery. I’m pro union. I think overall the unions have done good things. I think the industry there basically functioned on union support. Mr. Pollak: Did you remain close to your sister throughout your life? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: You said that you didn’t go out of state. Did you do much traveling as a family later in your childhood? Mr. Adelman: Not really. We went to Atlantic City for two days as I recall, but there was no sense – myself, or any of my friends or family – that people took vacations or traveled. That’s just the way it was. The broader world, as I say, was not really 8 exposed to me then. Now, kids travel all over when they’re young. That was never really my experience at all. My father and mother both worked. My father sold carpets in his own store for 41 years. He opened a small carpet store. He had worked for the large department stores in Norristown and then started his own business in 1956, with my mother. So from 1956 to 1997, they ran a mom-and-pop operation. It was located in a town about nine miles from Norristown. Besides the other jobs, I was their stockman, deliveryman, and part-time salesman. Even in law school I worked part time for them. Mr. Pollak: Hoisting carpets around? Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. I drove into Philadelphia, picked up orders. Later on when I was in Penn Law School, I had a lady friend who was a graduate student, and her father, a gentleman who had immigrated from Italy and was a worker, he once asked me “What is your trade?”, which was important to him. I wanted to make a good impression, so even though I was in law school, I said, “Well, I lift carpet.” And he was pleased, “Oh that’s good. You work with your hands.” I hope that he liked me. Such things track you through life. When I had graduated law school and got out of the Army, I was hired as a clerk in a law firm in Philadelphia. On the first day I was there I met the managing partner. A very nice gentleman. He said to me, “Well, you’ve gone to Dartmouth. That’s good. You’ve gone to Penn. That’s good. You’ve got the background.” He then looks at me and he says, “What does your father do?” And I said to myself, uh oh, this is not my environment. And I told him, “He sells carpet.” I 9 think he was expecting a different answer. Looking back, I was very proud of that. My father loved to sell. He had been a salesman all of his life and he loved to talk to people. My mom was with him all the time. And literally people would come in to buy from him or buy from her. No matter what particular carpet they wanted, people wanted to buy from them. I remember in my father’s later years, a lady came in, she was walking around the store, and I said, “Can I help you?” and she says “No, this man here [my dad], whatever he says, I’ll do. I’ll buy.” I’m very proud that my parents were part of the entrepreneurial tradition in the United States. Mr. Pollak: Did you take the job with the law firm that asked about your dad? Mr. Adelman: Yes. I worked there for a year and then was hired by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington. Mr. Pollak: I see. And did you feel that they were not interested in having people whose parents were selling carpet? Mr. Adelman: I think I got that idea. Mr. Pollak: I guess that was somewhat more common then than today. Mr. Adelman: Yes. I was always proud of what my father did and what my mother did as entrepreneurs. My mother had created her own business during World War II. She built a food business and prepared food and sold it to the factory workers. And then my sister was born and that ended her business because she had to devote her time to my sister. We’d come home for lunch in grade school. This was at that time in this country when you did that. 10 Mr. Pollak: How far was your grammar school, your junior high, and high school from your home? Mr. Adelman: Grammar school, six blocks; junior high, about a mile; and high school, about a mile. So school was nearby. The town is only four or five square miles. Mr. Pollak: Were your parents active politically or civically? Mr. Adelman: I think in my mother’s heart, she was always a Democrat because she was inspired by Franklin Roosevelt. My father was a registered Republican because most people in the Montgomery County were Republican. But my mom was an ardent Roosevelt supporter and Truman supporter, and she was a strong influence in my life. My father was much more of middle of the road, but extremely interested in politics, and that’s a side issue with me through all the years – political talk at the dinner table. I remember in Philadelphia, which was 20 miles from us, in the early 1950s there was a political revolution. Joe Clark and Richardson Dilworth cleaned up the city starting in 1952. That caught my attention because this is what American politics was supposed to be. Richardson Dilworth was, and still is, my favorite politician. He became Mayor in 1956. He was a Yale guy and a Chestnut Hill guy, but he had the guts to go down and talk to all these tough people in City Hall, in South Philadelphia and elsewhere in the City and tell them what he thought was right and what was wrong and what he was going to do about it. And he did do things. He and Joe Clark literally cleaned up the city. So that was a model. He’s my ideal politician and he also was a good Philadelphia lawyer. 11 Mr. Pollak: You commented already that you went to Dartmouth. What brought that college to your attention, and why did you select it? Mr. Adelman: As you know, Dartmouth has a very active alumni recruiting group. I was approached by some Dartmouth graduates from the Chestnut Hill section of Philadelphia. They talked to me about going to Dartmouth. At the same time people from Penn are talking to me, and people from Princeton too. So I went up to Hanover, New Hampshire on a weekend. And it’s a captivating place. Someone has written that Dartmouth is America’s ideal of a college, and I thought, “This is great.” If you asked me whether I was attracted because of a particular program, no. My guiding force was football. While I was there, I met the coach, Bob Blackman. He was one of the original thinkers and great motivators in the game in the 1950s and 1960s. I was honored to meet him. Mr. Pollak: Tell us about your college experience, and if you want, when you get there, what influenced you to go to law school. But you can talk generally about life at Dartmouth and what you did. Mr. Adelman: I loved college. I loved the idea of just being there to study and think. I had never been exposed to teachers like college professors. Even in my first year, I was taught by some tenured professors. For instance, Fred Berthold, the Dean of the Department of Religion, taught freshmen. I was fascinated by how much the professors knew, their depth of knowledge. I took a wide variety of courses. I majored in English, which I picked without much consultation. I think I would have been happier in economics or government or history. I was a bookworm. I had to work too because I had a scholarship and scholarship 12 people had to work, which is fair, so I worked in the kitchen for a while and some other jobs. Mr. Pollak: At the Commons? Mr. Adelman: No, at Thayer Hall. And I worked there a couple terms I think, but basically studied. A guy named Tim Kraft roomed with me for two years. He went on to become Carter’s campaign manager in 1976 and then his Appointments Secretary for four years. He was a learned guy at 19. He was a constant source of challenge both in reading and politics. And one of our professors said something I never forgot: “You are educated not only in your class, but by your colleagues.” And the b.s. sessions that we had in the dorm, to me, were especially educational. In my dorm there were other people – a couple of playwrights, poets – guys like Mike Marantz and Steve Gellar – different folks from all classes, that’s what Dartmouth also was wise in doing. At that time they didn’t have freshman dorms; you were mixed in with upperclassmen. So I learned things from a wide variety of people. Tim was a dedicated Democrat. In the 1960 primary campaign, he worked for John Kennedy in New Hampshire. Kennedy spoke at Dartmouth. I was fascinated by that. I witnessed history. We also had evening lectures on various topics. I recall that Professor Lou Stilwell, a history professor, held a series, “Battle Nights”, lectures on the epic military engagements, such as the Battle of Ticonderoga or the Battle of the Bulge and the like. Mr. Pollak: Did you play sports? 13 Mr. Adelman: I did. I played football. I was an end, offense and defense. I played for two years. I was injured when I was a sophomore. I was a starter on the freshman football team. It was a real disappointment to get injured. The next two years I rowed on the crew. I made some lifetime friends at college. I really, really enjoyed the intellectual challenge. I took art courses, I took Shakespeare courses, history courses. These are all things that were a wonderment to me. The guys who went to prep schools like Andover or Exeter were on a different level. They had done blue book exams, papers, and had the rigorous training that college required. It took me a year to catch up with that and how to handle the course material. Mr. Pollak: Did you join a fraternity? Mr. Adelman: I did. Beta Theta Pi. I made some good friends there, one of whom is now a retired federal judge and many other people who’ve gone on to do good things. Mr. Pollak: When do you think you first got an idea that you would study law? Mr. Adelman: In my third year, I roomed with two other guys, Rick Braddock and Randy Fields. They were intending to go to business school and law school. I started to think about that and the more I thought, the more I thought what I had studied and been interested in, I decided that law is what I wanted to do. I had no real conception of what lawyers did or what the practice of law was like. I did not know any lawyers. Nobody in my family had ever been to college. The only law school I applied to was Penn, and I was accepted. 14 Mr. Pollak: Something must have – what did you think you were doing when you moved toward law? Mr. Adelman: Nothing was planned. I never thought I’d be a criminal law lawyer. And I certainly never thought I’d be a trial lawyer. I never ever thought about being a criminal lawyer. I thought I’d be a counselor, an advice giver. I thought I’d be a helper. Mr. Pollak: So you were going to law and you felt in a way that you were going into a helping profession. Mr. Adelman: Absolutely, but as I said, I had no idea that I’d ever do trial work. Mr. Pollak: Well let’s set the stage. You got out of college. You graduated probably in June of 1963. Were you working that summer? Had you applied? Taken the LSAT? Mr. Adelman: The application and admission process was much simpler then. I had worked in the summer most of college and all of law school in a brewery job. I took the Law Boards, I don’t have any recollection of how I did. I guess I did well enough. I had an interview at Penn and I was accepted. Penn Law was small, about 190 people in our class. I was bowled over by the law faculty there, by the intellectual fire power. It started with Professors Tony Amsterdam and George Lee Haskins. Also Professors Curtis Reitz and Leo Levin. They were absolutely masterful. I thought the college professors were amazing in what they knew but the mode of legal analysis and thinking was new to me. The instruction at Penn was generally in the classic Socratic tradition. There were some people who 15 lectured, but basically it was the Socratic approach. We had about 85-90 people in a section and so you got called on every so often. There weren’t any clinical programs or extracurricular work. Frankly I found the subject matter of most cases rather boring. The Uniform Commercial Code meant nothing to me. I did not work in law during law school. I had no sense of what the things I was studying really meant in practice. Mr. Pollak: In the summer you had your brewery job? Mr. Adelman: Yes. When I was in law school there weren’t that many law jobs for students. The law firms didn’t have summer programs then. The law firms in Philadelphia hired a few people but they were law review candidates. I don’t recall many people working law jobs, except that they had some connection in law school. That would have made things a lot different for me. I would’ve seen the practical side of what we were learning. Penn was a traditional law school then, and the one area that really engaged with me was criminal law because Tony Amsterdam was the professor. He had clerked for Justice Frankfurter, had graduated number one at Penn, and then he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney here in Washington. He created his own case book based largely on D.C. law. So I was ingrained with D.C. criminal law in law school. Professor Amsterdam was a marvelous teacher, and made criminal law come alive. It was exciting, as compared to, say, trusts and estates. I took three courses from him. This was at the beginning of the Warren Court revolution in criminal law. The Supreme Court handed down Miranda the month I graduated from law school. Professor Amsterdam had a fabulous 16 mind. As I understand it, he was first in his class at Penn, he also got a degree in Classical Languages at the same time. He taught the criminal law course with the book closed. And he would say, “Turn to page 79, then turn to page 162.” He just knew it cold. He was dedicated to social issues. He argued many death penalty cases in the Supreme Court on behalf of the NAACP. Mr. Pollak: He was a star. Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: Everybody knew – all the young lawyers – knew the name of Tony Amsterdam. Mr. Adelman: Right. So I said this is the way to go. And of course he had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington. He would talk about the little and the big cases in the D.C. courts. Law school was a mixed bag for me. I liked the intellectual challenge and was amazed by the professors. Except for criminal law, the subject matter was rather dull – secured transactions, contracts, international law. Not that it wasn’t intellectually challenging, but it just didn’t mean anything to me. Mr. Pollak: Did you have interesting classmates? Did you learn from your classmates? Mr. Adelman: Not quite so much. There were provocative people; there were people who tried to argue with the professors. There’s an apocryphal story, it wasn’t in my class, but in another class someone argued – I believe with Professor Paul Bender. Paul Bender had clerked for Justice Frankfurter. They took up a Frankfurter opinion, and Paul Bender said, “Frankfurter meant this.” And the student said, “No, no. He didn’t mean this, he meant that. And Bender looked at the guy and said, “Sir, I know what he meant because I wrote that.” End of discussion. 17 Mr. Pollak: Did you find it hard at law school? Were the courses difficult? Mr. Adelman: No. Mr. Pollak: It wasn’t like moving from Norristown High to Dartmouth. Dartmouth, you felt well prepared? Mr. Adelman: My problem with law school was motivation. With one exception, the concepts were easy to grasp. And that exception is property. The professor for property was George Lee Haskins, a very erudite Philadelphia lawyer. Instead of studying modern issues like zoning, we spent most of the semester studying the Statutes of Uses, and the Rule against Perpetuity and the like, doctrines and all obtuse. But the concepts, many courses made sense. Antitrust made sense and tax law made sense. Mr. Pollak: I think that you might say a word on what difference did it make at Dartmouth that there were people from all over. Mr. Adelman: You got different points of view. For instance, one roommate was from Indiana, and when we talked politics, he talked about stuff I never heard before. People from California had a different outlook. Some of them were artists and creative guys. This was a world I had never been exposed to. It really gets back to my insularity as an 18-year-old. I didn’t have very broad life experiences. Mr. Pollak: What brewery did you work at? Mr. Adelman: Schmidt’s of Philadelphia. They’re a regional brewery. They had bought out the local brewery in town. Every town in Pennsylvania had its own brewery then, and this place was called Valley Forge Brewery, but Schmidt’s came in and bought it out. My father knew the union business agent and he got me the 18 job. And it was considered a primo job because I made the grand figure of $2.35 an hour and we could buy beer for $2 a case after work on Friday. That experience was educational too. There were a lot of blue collar guys who were there forever. A lot of them came up to me and said, “Don’t get stuck here, go to college.” “Go to school.” Mr. Pollak: Interesting. What about your college classmates? Any of them stay as friends throughout your life? Mr. Adelman: A number of them. One fellow, Ernie Torres, was the Chief U.S. District Judge in Rhode Island. Another fellow is Mike Cardozo, a D.C. lawyer whom you and I both know. Mike and I share an office suite here in Washington. Mr. Pollak: I think that you have come along through your education. Mr. Adelman: After law school, the military was next. I’m one of the few people that got an academic education in the Army. I graduated from Penn Law in 1966. The Vietnam War was going on and I found that the Army needed people to attend the Army Language School in Monterrey, California to study Russian. Eventually they took five of us from Penn. Mr. Pollak: I see. You graduated from Penn. How did you get connected up with the Army? Mr. Adelman: The Army recruited five people from Penn for the Russian language school. The language school is very difficult. It’s like going to college. There were four of us from the law school and one from Wharton. We went through basic training, did the regular army training, then we spent a year as students at the Language School in Monterey, California, learning Russian. By the end of the 19 year, I was fairly fluent in Russian. Our teachers were native Russians. The language school had a rule that all of the teachers that taught had to be native speakers. The teachers were very good. They grilled us. They would talk a lot to us in Russian. We had lectures from them in Russian. That was quite a great experience. Mr. Pollak: Did you learn to read the language? Mr. Adelman: Yes. I learned the alphabet and grammar. You had to speak as best you can. We had lab. We had six hours of class a day. Mr. Pollak: You did that for a whole year? Mr. Adelman: Yes, 48 weeks. It was a rare experience. Mr. Pollak: So you got out, then what? Mr. Adelman: 1968. Then I went to the law firm in Philadelphia. Mr. Pollak: So after they trained you, they mustered you out? Mr. Adelman: They mustered us out in the sense we were released from active duty but they kept us in the reserves. I had a total commitment of six years, and I served about four years in the active reserve. Eventually, we were assigned to the Pentagon. Mr. Pollak: So you had some real military experience when you went through basic training? Mr. Adelman: We went through regular basic training – boot camp – and you put up with all kinds of folks in basic training. The teachers at the language school were wonderful people. They all had interesting and sometimes tragic lives. Our youngest teacher had fought at 20 Stalingrad. He gave a lecture one afternoon about what it was like in the Battle of Stalingrad. Amazing stuff – you can’t get that from a book. Another teacher was an older gentlemen, he had been captured by the Germans and forced to translate German interrogations of Russian prisoners. He saw the tortures that these people underwent. Mr. Pollak: And it took you out to California. I suppose that was your first trip out there. Mr. Adelman: Yes, it was my first real experience living in California, although I had been there before. Two of the summers that I worked in the brewery in the last two weeks of two summers, a friend and I hitchhiked around the United States. We hitchhiked to the Seattle World’s Fair and then down to California. We hitchhiked another time to California. You could safely do it then. I’m not sure you can do it safely now. So I got to see the world that way. Mr. Pollak: So, graduation from law school was in June of 1966. Mr. Adelman: Right. Mr. Pollak: What firm? It’s got to be in your history, you might as well put it in. Mr. Adelman: Duane Morris. A very fine firm. They have become a very large regional law firm now. Mr. Pollak: Didn’t it at some point have the name Heckscher in it? Mr. Adelman: Duane Morris and Heckscher. They’re now Duane Morris. Well, I got to work at Duane Morris. Mr. Pollak: How did it come about? Here you are in Monterrey. You get mustered out. Mr. Adelman: Henry Reath was the senior litigator partner and was a Penn graduate, class of 1948, and he needed an assistant. I interviewed and got the job. I greatly 21 respected Henry Reath. He was a Chestnut Hill gentleman, a perennial Philadelphian, and a very fine lawyer, and a very creative guy. I got to work for him pretty much for one year. He was very much like an English barrister. He did all kinds of litigation, not really too much criminal because there was really no white collar criminal law at that time, but he did corporate litigation, antitrust and tax work. I got to see a first-rate seasoned litigator work. He had worked his way up in the firm. He had fought in World War II. He was in the famous Penn Law Class of 1948. After the war ended in 1945, they established two classes at Penn so they could take as many veterans as they could into law school. He had been with the firm almost ever since, 20 years or so. He gradually moved up and became senior litigator. That’s important to me because I had said to myself, “Hey you know if you’re going to get to the top, it’s going to be a long haul.” All of the people in the firm were very nice, and what I learned most there was professionalism. Mr. Pollak: What do you mean by that? Mr. Adelman: Well, things were done honestly. Henry Reath was head of the – in Philadelphia it’s called the Board of Censors – we call it the Board of Professional Responsibility here. You litigate honestly. That was immediately impressed upon me by Henry Reath. I also worked with David Toomey and Reeder Fox, two fine lawyers. Pennsylvania still had a preceptorship program. Do you know what that is? Mr. Pollak: I have a vague idea. Young lawyers went to work with someone who – 22 Mr. Adelman: He was called your Preceptor and he actually taught you the practice of law. In the 19th century that was fairly common. Pennsylvania kept it, at least up until the time I was there, in the sense that you had to have a designated preceptor and you would talk to him about how you were doing. He was a mentor. My preceptor was Reeder Fox who was quite a fine gentleman. It was an opportunity to deal with a very professional lawyers. Mr. Pollak: Did you get into court at all in your year with Duane Morris? Mr. Adelman: I went to court with Mr. Reath, but never got up to speak. I saw Mr. Reath argue motions. I wrote motions. It was never contemplated that a new person would argue motions in court because there was a client relationship. This was a firm that had clients, historic clients, that they’d represented over time, and there was a relationship there. Mr. Pollak: Did the practice of law seem more interesting than in law school? Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. Mr. Pollak: What interested you in that early year? Mr. Adelman: Antitrust. We litigated some antitrust cases. They represented one of the tire companies in the TBA litigation. I had Professor Louis Schwartz for Antitrust at Penn, and he was not only a good antitrust expert, but he was an analytic guy. Anyway, that was a good background, and I liked that and we did a fair amount of that. I worked on tax issues. I got to work for not only Mr. Reath but some of the other litigators. They have like a vertical litigation tree standard. When I later went to Washington and joined the U.S. Attorney’s office, I went back and told them, and they said “Well when your three years are up, you should come 23 back here.” Sort of like I’m signing up for the Army and I’m going to come back, which I guess is the way they viewed government service, as pretty similar to the military. Mr. Pollak: Explain or put some meat on the bone. You’re an associate in the law firm, going along, working with one of the top guys, so how did you happen to get an opportunity to become an Assistant United States Attorney? What happened? Mr. Adelman: I had to bring some papers down to the SEC in Washington. I had a college friend, Bill Subin, who was an Assistant United States Attorney in D.C. We had lunch. And at the lunch there were two other Assistants, Phil Kellogg and Bob Watkins. Bob is now with Williams & Connolly and Phil has his own practice. They told me they were doing exciting things on their own, like trials, and I said, “Are you kidding me?” These guys were a year older than Bill and I. “You’re doing that? Could I do that?” They said, “Sure.” Mr. Pollak: What were they telling you they were doing? Mr. Adelman: Trying cases. They were trying cases in the Court of General Sessions and in the U.S. District Court. Bill was in Appeals. So they said, “Thomas Flannery has just been hired as U.S. Attorney, why don’t you talk to him.” So I did. There was a big push to hire more Assistant U.S. Attorneys in D.C. because President Nixon just came into office and said that we’re going to fight crime in the District of Columbia. So the United States Attorney General authorized the hiring of 15 or 20 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys in D.C. I was one of those people. 24 So I came down and had an interview with the head people in the Office and they made an offer. So I said I’d think about it, and it didn’t take too long. I thought and decided here’s a chance to try my wings, and so I told them “yes.” Mr. Pollak: How big was the U.S. Attorney’s Office when you joined it? Mr. Adelman: I was number 79. That includes the Civil Division, so maybe 12 people were in Civil. And now the Office has maybe 400 prosecutors. The Court of General Sessions was the local court, it had only misdemeanor jurisdiction. And there was the Federal Court, U.S. District Court. All felonies were tried in U.S. District Court. The D.C. set up was totally unique in the United States because you have a federal prosecutor prosecuting local crimes and federal crimes. My history in the office, just to outline that, I was sent immediately to General Sessions. I was there for six or seven months, then I went to Appeals. In 1971 I was sent to Felony Trials in the U.S. District Court, where I remained for 16 years. In 1971-1972, a transition occurred. D.C. Code offenses were sent to the new D.C. Superior Court. In the 1970s, I tried a lot of D.C. Code street crimes cases in federal court because a number of cases that either pre-dated the court reorganization or were brought there in connection with federal crimes. Mr. Pollak: You learned your way into the practice that you did in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. Your law education, how did it relate? Mr. Adelman: From my background at Penn studying criminal law, I was at first most comfortable drafting motions because I loved to write in law school and had done writing at Duane Morris and Heckscher. From what Professor Amsterdam 25 taught, I got a good grasp on criminal law. It was still a bit discouraging at times in the Court of General Sessions. The things I learned sometimes fell on deaf ears. For instance, the Supreme Court had recently decided a case named Terry v. Ohio about search and seizure. One day a defense lawyer cited that case to a General Sessions judge. The judge looked down at him and said, “Sorry, we don’t follow the state cases here.” But there also were judges like Judge Tim Murphy and Judge Ed Daly in General Sessions there who really knew the law and really held you to it. But the cases made all this real, I mean, you talk about a search of a car and here it is, the police come and search cars. You see the results. It’s a real quick, tough learning experience. And again, this is during the Warren era and things were changing, especially in search and seizure and interrogation. One story about Judge Tom Scally. He was from Boston, basically a police-court judge. The Supreme Court had held in a case called Jackson v. Denno that the government must prove that a confession is voluntary, and the Court had to hold a hearing before admitting it. So I had such an issue in one case. I told Judge Scally: “Your honor, we have to hold a Jackson hearing.” He says, “None of that Perry Mason stuff here” and he preceded without a hearing. The Supreme Court required it, so we just went his way. He was something. And I tried a couple of jury trials in front of him. He rarely took jury trials. He was a character. But those stories, those little epigrammatical events that you see, you learn and you remember. And the one rule I learned right from the beginning and I forget who told me this, maybe Vic Caputy, is 26 you make a mistake, you’re going to court and make mistakes, but don’t make the same mistake twice. Mr. Pollak: I think it’s a great way to start a career, whether staying there or doing something else. Mr. Adelman: And you know there are economic pressures that led some Assistants to leave, but eventually you’re going to face a decision whether you want to make it a career. But you get the opportunity at a really young age to try major cases. And you can stand up in a court room and say “Ladies and gentlemen, I represent the United States of America in this courtroom.” That’s a big deal. Sometimes it’s fun, sometimes it’s not. Mr. Pollak: We’ll do all of that. I think this is a good time to stop, and we’ll pick up in another session. 27 Oral History of Roger M. Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on September 10, 2008, at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the second interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon, Roger. Mr. Adelman: Good afternoon. Good to see you again. Mr. Pollak: When we concluded last time, you had reviewed your own personal history, family history, and education, and carried yourself up to joining the office of the United States Attorney in the District of Columbia. So we’re going to start there. Why don’t you give us an overview and tell us the period of time that you were in that office, the positions you held, and generally what it was like being an Assistant United States Attorney in that period. Mr. Adelman: I was very honored to have been hired in 1969 by Tom Flannery. Tom later became a U.S. District Judge, but he was the United States Attorney from 1969 to 1971. I served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 18 years, which was a long tenure in that era. And it turns out it was a wonderful time to be an Assistant United States Attorney. Typically, in the 1970s, people would serve a few years and go on into private practice or other government service. But I found this was the work that I wanted to do – trying cases in an atmosphere as professional as the District Court, and with very interesting colleagues. I left the Office in December of 1987 and joined the D.C. office of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, a large Pittsburgh-based firm. I was a litigator with that firm, handling criminal cases, white-collar cases, and some grand jury 28 work. In 1997, I started my own practice, which I maintain today here in Washington. On the criminal side I was a prosecutor for 18 years, and then from late 1997 to now, I have been a defense attorney. I have, of course, also done a great deal of civil work. So I have worked on both sides of the fence. I think it was good for me to have been a prosecutor and then a defense attorney. It’s helpful to conceptualize what the other side is doing. Mr. Pollak: Do you think as a prosecutor pretty much out of law school – actually you’d had a bit of private practice which you’ve described – do you think as a prosecutor you had the same sensitivities then before you became a defense counsel? Mr. Adelman: No. As a prosecutor I didn’t talk to a defendant, never talked to the family of a defendant, never had any interaction with them, and I don’t think I should have, for a variety of reasons. So I had no sense of their side of the case. As a young prosecutor you have a somewhat idealistic view about what you do. But my experience as a defense attorney – and also teaching law at Georgetown Law School for twenty-four years – also helped me to think about the other side. Mr. Pollak: Do you think prosecutors should actually have some sensitivity training as part of coming into the office? Or would that limit them in their doing their job? Mr. Adelman: No. What I think they should do though is work for both defense and prosecution. When I started in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1969, there were several very talented prosecutors, like Jim Lyons, Dick Hibey and Vince Alto, who had previously been public defenders. It would be ideal to work both as a public defender and as a prosecutor. In England, as I understand it, barristers sometimes do that. They prosecute one case and then defend other cases. I 29 should add that in the late 1960s early 1970s, we prosecutors were friends with the public defenders. We socialized with them, we talked with them, and even drank beer with some of them on Friday nights. There is a great line in Shakespeare, from The Taming of the Shrew: “Let us be like lawyers, let us strive mightily in court, and then drink as friends.” I didn’t suppose at that time we realized that we were effectively following that dictum. And I think it was a good tradition. I hope it carries on. Mr. Pollak: And were they the defense lawyers in the cases you were prosecuting? Mr. Adelman: Yes. People like Stu Stiller, John Perazich, Fred Bennett, Paul Chertoff. All of these lawyers were with the Public Defender Service at that time. Many of those people now are defense lawyers and judges and many became friends. Mr. Pollak: Let me ask you something more about the U.S. Attorney’s Office to set some of the stage on which you were a major actor. What was the size of the office when you joined and during the period you served? And what was the structure and leadership beyond the U.S. Attorney himself? Mr. Adelman: I was number 79, meaning there were 78 other people before I joined. That included the Civil Division which probably had 10 or 12 people. That included Special Proceedings, which had about six people, that also included the General Sessions Division. So it was a rather small office and you got to know your colleagues. The small numbers of Assistants and camaraderie created what I call the “osmotic effect” of learning the trial trade. Most of the people that I dealt with were in the Trial Division, either in General Sessions or the District Court. And if you wanted to know how to cross examine an expert, you didn’t 30 have to read a book – you just went next door and talked to an Assistant who had done that a lot. If you wanted to see somebody put on a direct examination, you walked down the hall, into a court, and watched one of your colleagues doing that. You learned a lot that way. I even learned from war stories that my colleagues told. They were great learning vehicles. The only people who don’t approve of war stories are people who don’t have any war stories to tell. We all became friends. And that group of Assistants have maintained social contact. Most of them are in the city and most of them are defense lawyers or premier civil litigators. Mr. Pollak: These were colleagues in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in the trial side of the office? Mr. Adelman: Yes, trial side of the office was probably about half of the Assistants. Tom Flannery was appointed as the U.S. Attorney in the summer of 1969. Tom’s First Assistant was Hal Titus, a career prosecutor. Tom reorganized the office. He established the Fraud Section. It was headed by Seymour Glanzer. Fraud was the precursor of what we now call the white-collar practice. The Fraud Section and Sy Glanzer pioneered a lot of things in terms of prosecution of cases, the breadth of what they did, the techniques they used, and most importantly the use of the grand jury as an investigative tool. Tom Flannery recognized that there was criminal activity here even in Washington of an organized nature or high visibility nature that had to be investigated separately from reactive-type cases. He appointed Harold Sullivan to be the head of the Major Crimes Division. Major Crimes and Fraud were 31 investigative units. Before 1969, the Office really didn’t have independent investigative units, it took the cases brought to them by the investigators, by the police, by FBI. Tom Flannery revolutionized the process. Harold Sullivan was a great trial lawyer. He had tried cases for 13 years as an AUSA, and my understanding was that he had lost very few. The legend is that in his 13 years as a prosecutor, he struck only three jurors from the jury panel in all of his trials. He was that confident in his cases and his abilities. He believed that he could convince any 12 people. I’m told that after he tried a case and the jury had returned a guilty verdict and the defendant was remanded to custody, he would go into the cell block and ask the defendant whether he thought he had gotten a fair trial. Harry Sullivan unfortunately died in 1975. He was a very religious man, and I think that carried over into his approach to being a prosecutor. So Harry set very high standards for us. Mr. Pollak: I think you distinguished between the investigative units in Fraud and Major Crimes that Flannery established, but you also used the term “investigative materials” that were given to prosecutors before the establishment of those two offices. So there must be a distinction between the investigative materials that came available regularly for prosecutors before those units? Mr. Adelman: Before those units were set up, the Office would receive a package from the FBI of interviews, their documentary and physical evidence, and a summary of what the case was about, and that was about it. The police in Washington basically were dealing with reactive crimes like robbery, kidnapping or murder. The late 1960s was the dawning of widespread drug distribution in Washington and that 32 required organization and some sophistication on the part of the drug dealer. To deal with that, in 1969, Harold Sullivan, put into place, with court authorization, the first federal wiretap ever conducted here in Washington. The principal defendant was a large drug distributor, Lawrence Jackson. His nickname was “Slippery.” He eventually was convicted and he served many years in jail. Later, in the 1970s, Mr. Jackson got out of jail. He again was arrested and convicted, and he went back to jail in the early 1980s. Then he did still another crime while in jail – marketing drugs while in jail – and I worked on his prosecution for that. When he was finally released from jail a few years ago, his lawyer called me up and said “Mr. Jackson is out. He says tell Mr. Adelman ‘Hello.’” I don’t know if that’s a tribute or not. Harry Sullivan was the guy who started investigations whereby police just wouldn’t simply arrest the people who sold the drugs at street level but he tried to get the higher ups. The wiretap for the first time enabled law enforcement to identify the higher ups. The wiretap led to Mr. Jackson and his New York suppliers. Several of the people, notably Enrico Tantillo and Bobby Verdaroso, were ultimately charged in District Court along with Jackson. They were all convicted in 1970. Tom Flannery himself was the lead trial lawyer in the trial along with some younger prosecutors, Roger Zuckerman, Jim Lyons and Ted Weisman. In the Fraud Division, Sy Glanzer had come from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York and the Department of Justice. He developed techniques to get documents to build white-collar fraud cases with documents and insider 33 witnesses. The documents were obtained by grand jury subpoenas and through other legitimate sources. The idea was that they would build the cases for the Trial Division to try them. Mr. Pollak: Do you want to go back still to the organization? You had come from Flannery to Titus to Sullivan. Mr. Adelman: I must mention Earl Silbert. He joined the Department of Justice, I believe in 1960, immediately out of Harvard Law School. He was a tax lawyer at the Department of Justice for a couple of years and then he became interested in criminal law. He became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington. If there is one great lawyer in this city, it’s Earl Silbert. He’s now practicing on the defense side and on the civil side. During Tom Flannery’s tenure, Earl was the No. 3 man in the Office, but I think it’s fair to say he was the driving spirit. He was the new breed – the intellectual prosecutor. You could sit down with Earl if you had a problem. He’d always have an answer. He’d say, “Well there’s a case that says this. . .” or “Have you thought of that?” He was unfailingly supportive. When you won a case, he sent you a note. When you lost a case, he sent you a note. And to this day he is still that way. He was the standard of professionalism for the people in the Office. He became the U.S. Attorney in 1974. He handled the Watergate case when it was in the Office in 1972 for over a year along with Sy Glanzer and Dan Campbell, who also were Assistant U.S. Attorneys. They conducted the initial investigation and also the first Watergate trial. He left the Office in 1979, when he went into private practice. 34 There are two other people whom I should mention. One is John Terry, who was made head of the Appeals Division in 1969 by Tom Flannery. He worked in the 1950s for the Senate Rackets Committee with Bobby Kennedy. And then he joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office and tried cases from 1962 through the middle of 1960s. He served as chief of Appeals Division from 1969 until 1982. John Terry was and still is a literal walking book of the law. If you asked John a question, he knew the case, the cite, and he provided quotes from it. He was also a gifted writer and mentor. He had a critical reviewing eye. One of the most feared instruments in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was John Terry’s red pen. I served in Appeals for fifteen months working under his tutelage. It was a great experience because I submitted my briefs to John, I got them back with red markings all over them, and every one of them improved what I had submitted. John was held in great respect by the Court of Appeals judges. When he argued in the Appeals Court himself, the judges just listened to him, basically asking no questions. He trained two generations of lawyers in Washington how to write a brief and argue it. The government briefs that are filed here even now in the District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and D.C. Courts are basically John Terry briefs: the John Terry-style, the John-Terry voice, the John-Terry thoroughness. By John Terry-voice, I mean not bombastic, but professional, low key. John has been a great influence on me too. John Terry is now a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He left the office in 1982 when he was appointed by the President to the D.C. Court of Appeals where he still sits. 35 Tom Flannery also established a requirement that before an Assistant went to the Felony Trial Division in the federal court, he must first serve in the Appellate Division so you would learn the law before you tried a felony. So John Terry in a real sense trained a large number of people who later became the core of the D.C. trial bar – both appellate lawyers and trial lawyers. John Terry made me into a good lawyer. He is an extremely decent, lowkey, quiet, professional person, devoted. A real man of the law. He is not a publicity-seeking person, but he has quietly mentored two generations of lawyers. Mr. Pollak: Roger, it’s interesting that there, unlike lots of institutions, in the United States Attorney’s Office, the title “Assistant United States Attorney” can apply to a brand new lawyer and can apply alike to yourself – after you served 18 years, you were an Assistant United States Attorney, you aren’t called a Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney or something else. Mr. Adelman: Well, there’s the position of Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney, that’s the No. 2 job. That’s what Hal Titus was in 1969. And at that time, Earl Silbert was the Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney. But you’re right. If you’re in the trenches, so to speak, you’re always called an Assistant U.S. Attorney. But that’s a pretty good title to have. And one of the watchwords everywhere around the United States is when you hear of a lawyer from another city, one of the questions I ask is, “Was he ever an Assistant?” If the answer is “yes,” then I can assume I can trust him. It is an important credential. There’s skill and professionalism there. 36 Being an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and standing up in court and representing the United States, is the greatest honor you’ll ever have as a lawyer. One other person who stood out in the Flannery era of the Office was Luke Moore. Luke Moore had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney, then he became the United States Marshal in Washington. Tom Flannery appointed him to be the Director of the Court of General Sessions unit. He then served on the Superior Court for some years. He was an extremely engaging man, a great people-person, and a person that everybody liked. He eventually became a Superior Court judge. Mr. Pollak: When you joined the Office, and as you motored through 18 years there, were there women lawyers among the assistants, and what was the minority makeup, and did it change over time? Mr. Adelman: At the beginning, in the first few years, there were very few women in any of the divisions. Ann DuRoss and Lee Cross were two women who worked with us in the Criminal Division. Sylvia Bacon was in the management of the office when I got there. Mary Weisman, Ellen Lee Park and Pat Frohman were in the Civil Division. The number of women increased as time went on, particularly in the 1980s. Mr. Pollak: Is there any more on the overview of the United States Attorney’s Office in your period of service that you’d like to enter into our record? Mr. Adelman: A couple of things. A significant expansion of the Office occurred from 1970 to 1987 and when I left. In 1987 the Office had probably 350 lawyers. With more lawyers, it became much more bureaucratized, with formal management, formal 37 chains of command and multi-level review processes. In the 1960s and 1970s, when I first started, the line Assistant made the operative decisions such as whether to sever a case or take a plea. In a few major cases, of course, the management made such decisions. Starting in the mid-1980s, an organizational structure was created whereby the line Assistant had relatively little ultimate responsibility and Assistants had to get most important issues approved by the Chief and Deputy Chief or even by committee. This is what I would call the Department of Justice management model. The Department of Justice has to review and analyze cases and investigations from all over the country and apply uniform standards. That’s the primary change in the Office from then to now. The other change is, as the U.S. Attorneys came and went, there were new personnel hired to serve in the Office. Tom Flannery and Hal Titus had hired my group in the 1969-1971 period. We now call ourselves “the Flannery Group.” We still meet together. These are people like Bob Bennett, John Aldock, Bob Higgins, Earl Silbert, Dick Hibey, Steve Grafman, Jim Sharp – who are now the centerpiece of the trial litigation bar in Washington, particularly white-collar bar. Mr. Pollak: I had another general question about the U.S. Attorney’s practice in your day. When you handled a case and tried it, what was your team? Was it you? Was it you and a secretary? Was it you and a paralegal, or whatever the title might be? Were there cases that were so demanding that there were teams? Mr. Adelman: In the beginning, from 1969 through the early 1970s, it was just usually you. You were by yourself in trial. I liked that because the case was on your 38 shoulders. I still have a clear image of a really fine Assistant, John Evans, trying a case in 1972. He was the only lawyer at the government table, and there were six defendants and six lawyers at the defense table. I thought, that’s David versus Goliath and I wanted to be David in that situation. The ethos in the office then was you tried the case yourself. We started in the Court of General Sessions. There, a new Assistant went to Court with another Assistant – who might have had a few weeks’ experience himself – and after watching him try several trials, that Assistant would turn to you and say, “This next one is yours.” And away you went. It was sink or swim. That’s the way you learn to try cases – by doing on your own. There were a few big cases in District Court where a team of Assistants prosecuted the case. The first cases that I can remember when I was on a trial team were the prosecution of the men who robbed and shot Senator John Stennis in 1973 and then the Freeway Phantom trial in 1974. The Freeway Phantom cases involved two police officers charged with murder of a young girl. But those were unusual. Generally, in the U.S. Attorney’s Office at the time, you had to stand up in court and do it on your own. Individual responsibility, one of the things I liked about trial work in the office. You win or lose on your own. Mr. Pollak: So you had a case going along and as points of law might arise, you had to spend time after the day’s trial to prepare a motion for the court the next day? Mr. Adelman: And that was a part I liked. I always liked the intellectual part of criminal law. And knowing the law well became important when the Warren Court became active in the area of the criminal law. I tried to prepare the case beforehand and 39 look at the legal issues and prepare pleadings. You couldn’t file a 20-page brief in trial, but I developed the “pocket memo,” a short memo on a particular point. I might use only two of the memos of seven or eight that I prepared. But writing up these memos makes you think through the case, it makes you anticipate what will happen, and also you develop the discipline to visualize the case in your mind before the trial. You try it from your perspective, and then you have to try it in your mind from the point of view of the defense; you think, “What will the defense do?” And if you’re in court with attorneys like Bill Garber, John Shorter or the public defenders, you can anticipate the objections they’re going to make. A good trial lawyer should be able to anticipate what objections are going to be made and when they’ll be made. I think that nothing should happen at your trial that you haven’t anticipated. That’s a tall order to fill. In the felony court, the U.S. District Court, you have time to prepare, and as time went on, I handled cases that allowed me time to prepare. You were expected to do that. It’s important to prepare on the law to guide the case properly and also keep appealable issues out of the case. Another benefit was to get the acknowledgment from the judge that you’re the person in the court to look to on legal issues, like search and seizure, confessions and evidence issues. Rulings on evidence often sharply change the direction of a trial. Mr. Pollak: Did your attitude change much as, I mean you’ve spoken to it a bit, but as you came out of being a prosecutor, how did you see your role? Mr. Adelman: As defense counsel you have a broader role. I used to tell students, if you want to be an idealist, be a prosecutor; if you want to be a realist, be a defense 40 attorney. Later I made the transition. As defense attorney, you see the people charged, they’ve done some things wrong. You also get to know their families and friends. You get that depth of knowledge of the defense side of the case that you can’t get as a prosecutor. Sure it sensitizes you. Could I be a prosecutor today? Sure. No question. And I have been. I worked briefly for Ken Starr in the mid-1990s as an Assistant Prosecutor in the Office of Independent Counsel. Mr. Pollak: Would you speak any differently about what you thought the role of yourself as a lawyer was? Is being a lawyer, is there some standard that you’re meeting or some role that you’re playing that sort of goes beyond being a prosecutor or being a defense counsel? Mr. Adelman: I’ll frame it this way: In terms of representing a clients. Prosecutors have no clients. You’re representing the government, not individuals, and you must do the fair thing. As a defense attorney, you do what you ethically can for the client. The legal skills as a trial lawyer are basically the same, thinking ahead, don’t get trapped, don’t make mistakes, plan out the legal issues. Mr. Pollak: I’m interested in why, or how, United States Attorney Tom Flannery, who you’ve described as having at a maximum, perhaps three years, as U.S. Attorney, had as extensive an influence as he had. Is that a long tenure in our United States Attorney’s Office? Mr. Adelman: No. Customarily, U.S. Attorneys serve a four-year tenure. Tom was appointed to the District Court in September 1971. I think one reason that he made prompt and profound changes was because he himself had been an Assistant 41 U.S. Attorney in the Office in the 1950s for a long time and he quickly realized that the Office needed to be modernized. Mr. Pollak: I think you also had noted that the group that you’ve referred to as the Tom Flannery Group was a little broader than some of the leaders that were under Tom Flannery, and you’ve spoken about most of them except Hibey, Sharp, and Grafman. Mr. Adelman: Dick Hibey. Dick co-prosecuted the Billy Austin Bryant case, a notorious case in which Mr. Bryant had killed two FBI agents, and Dick and Hal Titus prosecuted the case before Judge Gesell and got a conviction. Steve Grafman and I are very close friends. Steve Grafman had spent some years in the Navy as a prosecutor in Vietnam, and then came to the Office. He was immediately sent to the District Court Trial Division because he was so competent and experienced. In 1973, he asked me to help him try, as second chair, a police corruption case. We lost. The jury acquitted all of the defendants. We also worked together to try the case involving the shooting of Senator John Stennis. Steve and Jim Sharp now practice together here in Washington. Jim Sharp is truly a great trial lawyer. In the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the 1960s and 1970s, we were fortunate in having a group of young lawyers from all over the country with different backgrounds and styles. Bob Bennett was from New York; Earl Silbert from Massachusetts; Dick Hibey from New York; Jim Sharp from Oklahoma; Roger Zuckerman and John Aldock from Maryland; Bob Higgins and I from Pennsylvania; Steve Grafman from Alabama; Kenny Robinson from South 42 Carolina, Carl Rauh from Washington, D.C., and Dick Stuckey and Greg Brady from Nebraska. We had a national group in the Office. There developed a camaraderie that still continues. The “Flannery Group” now probably has 100 members. It includes everybody who was hired by Tom Flannery. Roger Zuckerman is the leader of the Flannery Group, and we occasionally get together and socialize. It also, under Roger Zuckerman’s leadership, sponsors the Flannery Lecture each year. Mr. Pollak: Well, you wanted to talk about something that is a very important milestone in the administration of justice here in the District which you were undoubtedly a witness to from its beginning to its implementation and that is the change in the jurisdiction between the United States District Court and the Court of General Sessions which, with the change, became the Superior Court. Mr. Adelman: When I started in 1969, there were two trial courts – the U.S. District Court and the Court of General Sessions. The Court of General Sessions had misdemeanor jurisdiction and minor civil case jurisdiction. On the criminal side, it was basically a police court. The District Court handled federal criminal offenses and complex civil cases. The United States Attorney prosecuted in both courts. Mr. Pollak: Were there prosecutions then by what for many years was known as the Corporation Counsel, the top lawyer for the District of Columbia government? Mr. Adelman: Yes, but the D.C. Corporation Counsel then handled traffic offenses and minor criminal offenses. The other criminal cases, including more serious misdemeanors, were handled by the United States Attorney. 43 The Court of General Sessions was a rip-roaring place. Many judges there were unique. It was very informal. That’s where I cut my teeth. The file would be brought in to court, often by a police officer, then you’d review it briefly, stand up, make a brief opening statement and then say, “Is Officer Jones here?”, and Officer Jones would take the stand, take the oath and then you’d ask: “Were you at such a place on a certain day at a certain time?” and then “Did something unusual happen?”, and he’d tell you and away you went. This is hardly the model for trying cases that you would find in a trial practice manual. You usually had no idea what the defense was. But whatever you say about this experience, it taught an invaluable lesson for trial lawyers, and that is how to think on your feet. There’s nobody there with you. You are alone. You don’t know what’s going to happen. The judge, of course, put pressure on in his own way to move the case along, and you had to deal with him too. But you had to think on your feet and react instantly. That is an essential skill for a trial lawyer. Things happen in court so quickly that you can’t call “time out” and sit down and figure out what to do. In complex civil cases these days, the attorneys have everything written out in books, all of their arguments, all the deposition cuts and memoranda of law. That’s good, it’s professional, but it’s really not the techniques the trial lawyer should develop by instinct. That’s what the Court of General Sessions did for me. Most of the cases we tried were assaults, unlawful entries, drug possession, or weapons cases. There were a number of reasons why we needed a second felony court, 44 and so Congress enacted legislation effective in July of 1970 to create the D.C. Superior Court as a court of general jurisdiction over all D.C. Code offenses, felonies and misdemeanors and to also hear a wide range of civil cases. We continued to bring certain D.C. felony cases in the federal court where there was a related federal violation, a stolen car, a weapon involved, or a conspiracy. But the most significant thing for the Office was a large number of people who were in the Office in the District Court Felony Trial Division left the Office for private practice. Mr. Pollak: I’d like to hear what you have to say about the United States District Court I suppose up to the time of the change in jurisdiction, and you noted that you might speak of the judges, the marshals, the staff, and “the regulars,” whatever that was. Mr. Adelman: We were very fortunate to have a very interesting group of folks on the bench. There was Judge Gerhard Gesell, who was a masterful man and ran his courtroom his way, and Judge William Bryant, Judge John Pratt, Judge Howard Corcoran, Judge George Hart, Judge Joseph Waddy, and Judge Oliver Gasch. But there were interesting people besides the judges and lawyers at the District Court – the courtroom “regulars.” The “regulars” were elderly people, mostly retired, who watched the trials. They were trial experts in their own way. It was their hobby. They’re interesting people. They’re also wonderful resources because they have seen more trials than any trial lawyer. You could talk to them during a recess and ask, “What do you think the jury will think about that witness?” And they might say to you, “They’re not going to believe 45 him.” These people are part of the pleasure of doing courtroom work. During the recess they might say to you “Why don’t you ask him this,” or whatever. They had also seen the judges who were presiding when they were younger lawyers trying cases themselves. So they were great sources of insight. I don’t know whether they come to D.C. courts now. There are “regulars” elsewhere. In the Eastern District of New York there’s a group of old-timers who watch trials, and there was also such a group in Federal Court in Chicago. Mr. Pollak: What about the Marshals? What’s the role of the marshal that you saw them play? Mr. Adelman: The Marshals keep order in the courtroom. They also do the bidding of the judge. They take him in and out of court and keep order, and they have an organizational role. And I don’t think it violates any rights here to tell you that while the jury was deliberating, the Marshals would say, these people are going to convict him for this, and so on, because they have a sense of the deliberations. Mr. Pollak: Like the “regulars,” you’re saying that the Marshals see a lot of trials? Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. But they can’t give direct comments. The other interesting group of courtroom personnel were the court reporters. Most court reporters used the hand typing system. They had been doing trials for a long time, of course, so they knew the law. They’d be silently typing along and a question would be asked and it would be improper, and some of them would turn to you and stare at you and say nothing, expecting you to object because they knew the law and they expected you to make an objection. They wouldn’t say a word. I used to 46 tell law students, if you don’t know what to do when an issue pops up that might be objected to, glance at the court reporter. Mr. Pollak: I was a lawyer, as an associate, worked for Judge Gesell when he was practicing, and he always wanted to have good relations with the courtroom staff. Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. The first thing you do is say hello to the court clerk and the court reporter, give them your card. Before trial, I would write out a list of any odd phrases or words that might be used by the witnesses so the reporter could make a correct transcript. You don’t want to have the court reporter interrupt you in the middle of an examination and say, “What did he say?” So there are ways to do that. They were good friends. Mr. Pollak: You have a note here under the Court of General Sessions, “practice the oldschool.” Mr. Adelman: The “old school” meaning no textbook learning. You often tried the case by the seat of your pants. When I first got to General Sessions, there were a number of defense lawyers who basically would just pick up cases or be appointed by the court. Now that has died out. But I got to see in later phases the careers of these people, “old-timers” of the trial bar. Mr. Pollak: How did they get paid? Mr. Adelman: From 1964 on, they were paid under the Criminal Justice Act. Before then, it was whatever they could get from the client. It was a rough-and-tumble defense practice. Mr. Pollak: They were sometimes referred to as “Fifth Streeters.” 47 Mr. Adelman: “Fifth Streeters” was the term because they had offices mostly on Fifth Street near the courts and they knew each other. But it was a unique Bar. Unfortunately, we don’t have the “Fifth Street Bar” anymore. There are individuals who do court-appointed cases, and those appointments are made by the public defender. Mr. Pollak: I see. And is this both a federal public defender and a local? Mr. Adelman: The local public defender’s office was created in the 1960s and is still a preeminent public defender’s office. The Federal Public Defender was created about 15 years ago as part of a movement around the country to provide a public defender system for federal courts. Federal Public Defenders were needed. The D.C. Public Defenders really had their hands full representing all the people they could in the Superior Court and federal criminal law became much more different and much more complex. So the Federal Public Defenders are experienced in doing those kinds of cases – white-collar and complex cases. And the local public defender does the so-called D.C. Code offenses. The complicated ones, like conspiracies or fraud or drugs are generally brought under federal law in the federal court. Mr. Pollak: Do I understand that you’d have witnesses on the stand that you had never talked to? Mr. Adelman: Yes. In General Sessions. Mr. Pollak: And how would you know what to ask them? Did you have a police report? Mr. Adelman: All the cases ready for trial would be sent out to trial courts, and their witnesses, to a room outside the assignment court. The assignment judge would send a 48 case to a particular courtroom where you as prosecutor assigned to that court, might say “U.S. v. Jones,” and you’d have a police report and perhaps a followup report, and you’d see that the paperwork said that the defendant possessed drugs at a particular location at a particular time and had been arrested by Officer Brown. So you’d call Officer Brown, and he’d come to the court. Mr. Pollak: The judge empaneling the jury – would that take long, in that system? Mr. Adelman: No. Not there. Now remember, not all of these cases are jury cases either. But a good many of them were. Mr. Pollak: And if they were jury cases, was it a 12-person jury? Mr. Adelman: Yes, 12. And then you would get going, and my jury opening statement would be something like, “I’m going to show you with these witnesses that the defendant was found in possession of drugs. Officer Brown arrested him,” and so on. The defense attorney might give an opening statement. You then called Officer Brown, put on all of the witnesses, and you rested your case. There was an argument to dismiss, then the defense might put on the defense. You often had no idea what the defense was going to be. And so defense witnesses came on and they’d tell stories that you obviously hadn’t anticipated. And then you’d argue the case to the jury. And the court would instruct. Now that’s rough-andtumble, but it’s a wonderful way to learn the trial profession. You learn how to listen carefully to what the witness says – to think on your feet. One of the things I was told in the beginning, if there’s something that a defense witness should logically say and leaves it out, as part of your cross should explore that area. 49 Mr. Pollak: How did you form up your closing when you’re busy all the time, both putting on your witnesses then redirecting and then cross-examining your opponent’s? Mr. Adelman: In General Sessions you just went right to closing argument. The judge would take a few minutes’ recess, and I’d get up and argue, and the defense would argue, and I’d rebut. Mr. Pollak: No? So the judge took a few minutes’ recess and you made a few cryptic notes? Mr. Adelman: The judge had other cases waiting for trial. Often when you completed one case, he sent the jury out, and the judge would call the next case, and you’d start the second case while the jury was deliberating in the first case. And in the middle of the second trial, the jury in the first trial might have a verdict. We took that verdict and then went on with the second case. So we tried them backto-back. When I went to the District Court, things were different, more orderly. You prepared your witnesses over there. Mr. Pollak: Did you try cases in the Court of General Sessions five days a week? Mr. Adelman: Often. Because General Sessions had a full calendar because they basically had – not only did it have the regular misdemeanor cases, but because of a policy that existed at the time, there were some cases that would have been felonies under the D.C. Code that were brought in the Court of General Sessions as misdemeanors under the “break-down” policy. We talked about working in the Appeals Division. I did mention John Terry ran that Division. U.S. v. Raymond Moore is the first time I got to argue an en banc case. It was in September 1971, and it was a very important case because a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals had hinted that a person could 50 be excused or exonerated from a crime such as robbery, burglary, or assault if the crime was somehow connected with the defendant’s drug addiction. That’s a radical proposition and that would have undercut the ability to prosecute cases because a lot of people commit crimes related to their drug addiction. Raymond Moore was the case that raised that issue. We argued it in 1971. Patricia Wald was the lawyer for Mr. Moore. The government won 5-4. Judge Harold Leventhal wrote the plurality opinion and held that narcotics addiction was not a defense to a crime. It was fun to do an en banc case. I had never stood up in front of nine judges before. I had done a lot of three-judge panel arguments. I did another en banc one seven years later, U.S. v. Wood, involving the insanity defense. But I argued a large number of cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Mr. Pollak: And you argued the case against Pat Wald? Mr. Adelman: Yes. In the Moore case. She did a very good job. She persuaded four of the nine judges. Judge Leventhal asked long and detailed questions. He would muse about something and turn his musing into a question, “What do you think about that?” As it turned out, he wrote the plurality opinion that carried the day. Mr. Pollak: What about the shooting of John Stennis? Mr. Adelman: John Stennis was a Senator from Mississippi. On the 30th of January, 1973, he was in front of his house in Northwest Washington. Three young men robbed and shot him. The robbery and shooting were entirely coincidental; the perpetrators had no knowledge of who they were robbing and shooting. And they asked him for his watch and he refused, they shot him in the stomach. At the time, Senator Stennis was the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services 51 Committee. It just so happened that that night was the monthly surgeons’ meeting at Walter Reed. So when the ambulance came, Mr. Stennis said, “Take me to Walter Reed,” which is just across Rock Creek from where he was shot, and they did. The Army surgeon operated on him and saved his life. He had a severe gunshot wound to the stomach. That happened in January 1973. In the spring of 1973, the FBI arrested three people who did it, the shooter and two other people. They were indicted. Steve Grafman was chief prosecutor. I assisted him. Before the trial, Steve was busy trying another case, so we worked through the grand jury process together. This was my first experience with grand jury work. We were able to subpoena through the grand jury documents that became important in the trial and gather evidence also to anticipate the alibi that we knew the defendants would put up. The case was tried in front of Judge Joseph Waddy in the fall of 1973 against the shooter, Tyrone Marshall. Ken Mundy was the defense attorney. Steve and I took turns with the witnesses. I called the Army surgeon who had conducted the surgery and saved the life of Senator Stennis. The trial took place nine months after the shooting. I believe he was a Captain at the time of the surgery. By the time of the trial, he had been made a Colonel. How did that come to be? Well, he saved the life of the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Stennis, in the course of his direct testimony, had not been able previously to identify Tyrone Marshall as the shooter, but he nonetheless pointed out to him in the court as the shooter. The defense objected, and we had a hearing. A witness who makes an in-court identification is supposed to 52 establish his ability to identify at a lineup or from pictures. That was not done here, but the judge ruled in our favor. The case ended with a mid-trial plea of guilty. John Stennis lived to a ripe old age, served for many years in the Senate, and then retired from the Senate. He was a great man. He had been a judge in Mississippi, and he was quite an intelligent fellow and turned out to be a very good witness. Mr. Pollak: Was it a long trial? Mr. Adelman I think we tried the case for several days, and then mid-trial Mr. Marshall pled guilty. Mr. Pollak: Did the press seek to interview you in the Stennis case? Mr. Adelman: Yes, they did, and I just don’t talk to the press. I’m a disciple of Judge William Bryant. He said those who live by the press die by the press. Mr. Pollak: Well, we’ll stop and pick up again soon. Oral History of Roger M. Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on October 9, 2008, at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the third interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon. We were discussing last time your legal work during the period 1969 to 1974. I think you finished the prosecution of a person charged with shooting Senator Stennis. Mr. Adelman: That’s right. Mr. Pollak: Where would you like to go from there? Mr. Adelman: The period 1969 to 1974 was a busy time for me. I was in court trying cases regularly. In 1974, I was lead prosecutor in a case that the newspapers called the “Freeway Phantom” case. In 1971, several young women had been found murdered along the freeways outside of DC. The police couldn’t find the perpetrator. The Washington Post linked several of the murders together and called them the “Freeway Phantom” murders, speculating that there was one person who did them. The investigation went cold in 1973. In early 1974, the Washington Post reran its 1971 story on the case. As it turns out, one of the murders had been committed in Washington by two D.C. police officers. The former wife of one of the police officers read the 1974 Washington Post article and contacted the authorities. She told them that she had witnessed things in 1971 that suggested that her former husband was involved in the murder of one victim. The police set up a monitored telephone conversation between her and her former husband in which she said things like, “I’ve been to see the police.” And he said, – 54 – “Don’t. Don’t tell them anything,” and he made admissions. The police swooped down, arrested him, and eventually arrested the other police officer. These fellows were Tommy Simmons and Eddy Sellman. They had been D.C. police officers when the murder happened. They had left the force by 1974. One of the murders was the killing of a 13-year-old girl, Angela Barnes. She had been walking on the sidewalk at night. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Sellman drove up, said they were police officers, and told her, “We want to escort you home.” She resisted, and they killed her. They were arrested in March 1974 and were indicted shortly thereafter. It became a cause célèbre. The Post played it up – two police officers involved in the “Freeway Phantom” murders. I tried that case in front of Judge John Lewis Smith. Mr. Pollak: The United States District Judge? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Both defendants raised the defense of insanity. In other words, two police officers were saying that they were insane at the time they were serving in the police department. Their specific defense was something called folie a dieu, basically that the two of them, when together, acted in an insane way. We litigated that in front of a jury, and eventually the jury convicted them. But it was a landmark case, and as it turns out — Mr. Pollak: Why do you say it was a landmark case? Mr. Adelman: The notoriety of the crime, and because you have two police officers being tried for a homicide, that is unusual in itself. And they both raised an insanity defense claiming each of them suffered from a debilitating mental disorder when they were members of the police department. The police later arrested – 55 – other men for other murders. Those cases were tried in Superior Court, and he was convicted. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Sellman were both sentenced to life imprisonment. Under D.C. law that meant 20 years to life. One of them, Mr. Sellman, was involved in a separate sexual assault, and I prosecuted that case in the Superior Court. The Simmons and Sellman case was the first time that I had a chance to work with a task force of police officers, led by a great detective, Bob Chaney. They were assigned from the D.C. Police Department Homicide Squad. Mr. Pollak: Roger, let me ask one or two questions about this prosecution of the two police officers. Was it presented to a grand jury and an indictment rendered by the grand jury? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: And were you the presenter, or was someone else? Mr. Adelman: In the Simmons and Stillman case, I did that with the assistance of Assistant U.S. Attorney John Drury. Mr. Pollak And what was the time frame in that case between arresting the police officers and the trial? Mr. Adelman: The arrests occurred in March 1974, and we tried the first of two cases in midJune of 1974. Mr. Pollak: You did? Mr. Adelman: The judge severed it into two trials. We had one in June and one in July. Mr. Pollak: That is, one defendant, one trial; the other defendant, the other trial? – 56 – Mr. Adelman: That was because one of the defendants had made a confession which was admissible against him but not against his co-defendant. Mr. Pollak: What kind of time schedule did you maintain when you were trying this case? Mr. Adelman: Seven days a week. Mr. Pollak: And how long was the first trial? Mr. Adelman: About a week. Mr. Pollak: So tell us what that week was like. You go to court Monday, select a jury? Mr. Adelman: Select a jury. That took a couple of days. Because of the publicity, a lot of potential jurors had heard about this case and we had to interview all those people. Judge Smith sat in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the District Court. But on the off hours, before trial and afterward, we had to interview witnesses, prepare them, go over legal issues. Inevitably there are legal issues and motions. So it’s a 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. day when you are in trial. You have to throw all of yourself into it. I’m intrigued by Rumple at the Bailey, the wonderful series of short stories by John Mortimer about Rumple, an English barrister who is in court until 4:30 p.m. and goes home and has a few toddies. It’s just remarkable the difference between a Rumple-type and what most lawyers here do when they are in trial. Mr. Pollak: Are there many motions during the trial? Mr. Adelman: A trial is more often a legal contest than a factual contest. You’ve got to be sure you get your critical evidence in and overcome objections, be sure the court is ruling the right way. One of the prosecutor’s jobs is to protect the record for appeal. – 57 – Mr. Pollak: Were you assisted by a colleague or by a paralegal or someone? Mr. Adelman: Yes, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Drury. He was co-counsel. He helped prepare and try the case. John and I remain very close friends. John left the Office in the mid-1970s. Ironically, I later tried a case against him when he was a defense counsel. Mr. Pollak: What of police corruption in and around this particular time, and I trust it goes beyond the misdeeds of the two police officers. Mr. Adelman: In one case in the early 1970s, I was asked to assist one of my colleagues, my very close friend Steve Grafman, an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He was the lead prosecutor. The case involved several Metropolitan Police Department vice officers who were alleged to have made illegal arrests. We tried the case to a jury in front of Judge Oliver Gasch. He sat through the Christmas holidays in 1973. The jury acquitted the defendants. Significantly, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not only in these cases, would, if necessary, bring charges against police officers. Mr. Pollak: My experience is that prosecutions of police for violating procedures are often difficult to make or are often difficult to secure a jury verdict. Mr. Adelman: The police protect us, and I’m sure the juries think about that. But in this multidefendant case, the jury didn’t see that there was enough evidence that required the defendants to be found guilty. Mr. Pollak: The District Court jurisdiction and the local courts jurisdiction were significantly altered in 1972, I believe. I think the legislation was in 1972? – 58 – Mr. Adelman: Congress passed a statute stating that beginning in 1971, D.C. Code criminal jurisdiction would be shifted from the U.S. District Court to a new court, the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Previously, there had been two courts, the U.S. District Court and the Court of General Sessions. Mr. Pollak: Two trial courts? Mr. Adelman: The Court of General Sessions previously had jurisdiction only in certain misdemeanor criminal cases. All felony cases – D.C. and federal – were tried in the U.S. District Court. Mr. Pollak: I might make the point, or we could share the point, that there was really no way that the Congress was going to expand United States District judges in the District of Columbia to the level that we know today, 59 Superior Court judges, much expanded since 1970. And the Corporation Counsel didn’t prosecute in General Sessions? Mr. Adelman: Yes, but that office only handled certain misdemeanor and traffic cases. The other crimes were handled by the U.S. Attorney. Court reorganization effectively created two felony divisions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office – District Court and Superior Court. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is both a federal and local prosecutor. And that’s unique in the United States. So lawyers who serve as Assistant U.S. Attorneys in D.C. get unusual experience because they have the opportunity to try cases in the federal court and the local court as well. I think that is one reason why people come to Washington to become Assistant U.S. Attorneys. – 59 – Mr. Pollak: What was the reaction of the District Court bench, and if you have knowledge or views, of the Court of Appeals bench? Because both courts were affected because the cases that percolated to the Court of Appeals came from a different bed of litigation. Mr. Adelman: The District Court judges were pleased because it took pressure off their calendars and they could also try more civil cases and more complicated federal criminal cases. Mr. Pollak: What was the impact, as you saw it, of the Warren Court rulings on criminal law in the 1969 to 1980 timeframe? Mr. Adelman: The Warren Court revolutionized the criminal law and practice and procedure in many areas. I saw the application of these decisions at ground level. I came to the court system when the Warren Court opinions were having significant impact starting in the late 1960s. Miranda, for instance, had been decided in 1966 and for some years after, the courts – the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court – were still dealing with its implications. The same with search and seizure. This led to a more extensive motion practice in federal criminal cases. It is my understanding that before the mid-1960s there were few motions filed in criminal cases. But because the Warren Court created new rights, criminal lawyers were compelled to litigate legal issues as well as the facts. You could prevail in a case by winning on legal issues. If you can exclude the evidence or if you can suppress certain evidence, you can advance your case and maybe win. So, particularly in the D.C. Circuit, it was very important to know the law. The Warren Court also had a great impact on the practices of the police. The – 60 – police had learned to advise people of their rights, which they had never done before. They had to pay attention to new search and seizure rules. This was one of the forces that made prosecutors and law enforcement work together. The police were aware that they had to be careful about what they did. For instance, the D.C. police had to get approval from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for a search warrant or an arrest warrant. So this interjected the prosecutor into an investigation at an early phase. Another impact of the Warren Court decisions that was very important was on legal education. Sam Dash and Bill Greenhalgh were at Georgetown Law Center in the mid-1960s. Sam taught criminal law, and Bill Greenhalgh developed the Criminal Justice Clinic and the Prettyman Program. The Prettyman Program trained young lawyers right out of law school to become criminal defense attorneys. The Clinic trained law students to go to court and serve either as student prosecutors or student defense attorneys. I taught in that Criminal Justice Clinic for many years. Mr. Pollak: You weren’t a prosecutor until 1969 or so, but some Warren Court decisions probably came down in your era when you were being a prosecutor, and did you consider that the Court had reached out to make those decisions, had turned over eons of years in which the law had been different, or did you consider that lawyers were presenting frontier issues to the Court to decide with arguments that had previously not been presented? Mr. Adelman: I think by the time I got to the Office the big issues – right to counsel, identification and search and seizure – had been decided by the Supreme Court. – 61 – During my tenure, there was a refinement process of these cases going on in the Circuit Courts, including ours. For instance, in the areas of eye witness identification and right to counsel. Mr. Pollak: What was the Criminal Justice Act of 1964? Mr. Adelman: The Criminal Justice Act of 1964 was enacted by Congress because of a decision by the Supreme Court holding that a criminal defendant had a right to counsel in a wide range of criminal cases. The Criminal Justice Act enabled lawyers to be appointed by the court and paid by the court to represent indigent people. Prior to that, my understanding was that, particularly in our local court, many people went without lawyers and there were lawyers who congregated along the hall in the court and informally picked up cases there. Mr. Pollak: Was it discernable that there were sort of two routes to private criminal defense work, one route was graduates of the United States Attorney’s Office. Was there another route that was graduates of the Public Defender Office? Mr. Adelman: That certainly was another route. Many of the prominent private defense attorneys in town were previously PDS attorneys. Mr. Pollak: It took an awful beating, the Warren Court. Mr. Adelman: Some politicians have claimed those judges were easy on crime. I don’t think it has turned out that way. Some of the judges who were on the Warren Court had seen the operation of the criminal law at ground level and had a real sense of how things operated, particularly in state court. Chief Justice Warren was a prosecutor in Oakland for many years; Justice Black had been a state police – 62 – court judge; and Justice Frankfurter was an Assistant U.S. Attorney early in his career. Mr. Pollak: What was the influence of the Georgetown University Law Center? Mr. Adelman: But I would just say that it still operates today to turn out local criminal lawyers. It’s a credit to Bill Greenhalgh largely who pushed that and who pioneered the idea of practical training for law students. Mr. Pollak: Why don’t we spend some time and speak to your teaching at Georgetown. When did it occur? How did it come about that you did it at all? Mr. Adelman: They needed a prosecutor to teach in the Criminal Justice Clinic, and Bill Greenhalgh asked me if I would do it. I did it, and I loved it. I liked the idea of being with young people and of imparting my experience. Mr. Pollak: What did it mean that you did? What was the time element? Mr. Adelman: I taught a two-hour seminar on Friday afternoons covering an entire trial from preparation through opening statement to direct examination, crossexamination, expert testimony, and closing argument. We had about 15-20 students in the prosecution side and an equal number on the defense side. At the end of the term they switched sides. The students were interned in prosecutors’ offices and actually got to try cases. One thing I told them: We are giving you a great opportunity, not only to go to court, but to make mistakes. Because you learn from the mistakes, but only make a mistake once. Part of our Friday afternoon session would be a discussion of issues that came up in court, what to do and what was done right and what was done wrong. It is the osmotic effect of learning the practice of trial law. That is to say, put – 63 – yourself with somebody who tries cases and you learn. The Clinic is akin to medical school teaching where the students then begin rounds with the doctors, and the doctors will explain to them what they’re doing. The clinical program led me to then teach evidence at the Law Center. I taught evidence at Georgetown for about 15 years. That too is energizing. The classes were very large and many students were not interested in being trial lawyers, so I tried to make it interesting. But I liked a big class, especially the evening division with people of different backgrounds and life experiences. Mr. Pollak: Evidence is not necessarily intuitive? Mr. Adelman: No. The rules of evidence are specific. You have to understand the reason for the rule and its history. You’ve got to be able to say to the judge, even maybe from your own memory, “Your Honor, there’s a case that says this and this is inadmissible under that rule.” It underscores the ability to think on your feet. Courts now encourage motions in limine, in other words, pretrial briefs on evidentiary issues, because evidence is now complicated and the motion gives the court time to review and research these questions. My approach to evidence was to teach it from a pragmatic point of view. In other words, you can read the book and it’ll tell you about character evidence, but I explain it that character witnesses may win or lose a case depending on who they are. As I explain to the students, character witnesses don’t necessarily impress the jury as to what they say, but as to who they are. Mr. Pollak: You were handling full U.S. Attorney responsibilities. Did you use an evidence case book? – 64 – Mr. Adelman: I did. Mr. Pollak: How did you keep yourself up to date on the evidentiary points that you were teaching? Mr. Adelman: I’d read up a lot on evidence and tried to keep track of new opinions. You’ve got to keep up with developments. Courts constantly evolve new rules, new interpretations, so it’s a dynamic area of law. For every hour you spend in class, you have to spend many more hours in your office preparing for class and keeping up. I had as many as 140 students in some classes and there would be a lot of questions. My policy was, I’m not going to leave the room until every question is answered. Before exams, students had the opportunity to fax me questions or inquiries, and I’d fax the answers back. It was a lot of work, it was a lot of time. It was very rewarding. I taught one 2-hour evening session during the week, and then on Saturday mornings, I taught a second 2-hour session. And the Saturday class was better because everybody was relaxed. Mr. Pollak: Did you have much to do with the general faculty? Mr. Adelman: No. I knew some of them, but I was in the evening division, and the regular professors taught in the day division. The Criminal Justice Clinic actually met during the day, but it was not really considered part of the regular academic regime, if you will. Mr. Pollak: But Evidence was? Mr. Adelman: Evidence was a core course. But I regret not being able to teach now. The reason for that is I travel so much. Someday I’ll get back in the academic world. – 65 – Mr. Pollak: Well, that’s a great credit to you. Georgetown doesn’t have anybody off the street teaching courses. They’re very selective. Mr. Adelman: Georgetown Law is blessed because Washington has so many fine lawyers and they draw on them for the adjunct faculty. What I say about Georgetown certainly would apply to GW, Catholic, Howard and American University. We have great law schools here. I just happened to be fortunate enough to be at Georgetown. Mr. Pollak: Does Georgetown have an unusual presence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office? Mr. Adelman: Not really. The D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office drew from around the country. Mr. Pollak: It’s hard to get into, the U.S. Attorney’s Office? Mr. Adelman: Yes. It’s hard to get into because of the very reasons that I’ve talked about, which is it’s a great training ground, it’s a unique atmosphere, and you get the ability to be a federal prosecutor, covering the whole range of criminal activity. It’s very difficult. But you come out of it with sort of a feeling that you can stand up on your feet and try a case. Mr. Pollak: Can you tell as you go through a semester teaching Evidence whether the students are getting it? Mr. Adelman: No. It often surprises me who gets the best grade. In a large class you can’t really focus on any one student for a long period of time, and some students who say nothing in class have gotten the best grades, and some people who orate all the time don’t do that particularly well. Mr. Pollak: You started out with one of your earliest prosecutions, and you’ve stated that you went over to Justice to get, for some reason I think you revealed it in your – 66 – history, but you said you went to Justice. And I was just going to ask during the time that you were in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, those 18 years, how often did you actually seek or go to the Department or bring them into what you were doing? Mr. Adelman: Almost never. The most time I spent at the Department was during the ABSCAM cases that involved Congressmen and a Senator in an FBI bribery investigation. It was directed out of the Justice Department. The Assistant Attorney General was Phil Heymann and Irv Nathan was his deputy, and they had supervisory authority over the ABSCAM cases. The cases were brought here, primarily in the Eastern District of New York and some in New Jersey and Philadelphia. Mr. Pollak: I think we’ll get to those cases. Mr. Adelman: The other occasions I was at the Department were usually on wiretap cases because the Department has overall supervision of all federal wiretaps in the country. Mr. Pollak: Did you have mentors? Mr. Adelman: I had two mentors, Judge William Bryant and Assistant U.S. Attorney Vic Caputy. I appeared in front of Judge Bryant for 16 years, and I represented the government. Judge Bryant clearly is the most compassionate member of the federal bench. He had been a defense attorney for many years, and before that an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He knew trial law and tactics inside and out, and he knew people inside and out. And he would, in his way, instruct. He would call you to the bench and say, “Why didn’t you ask that question? Don’t you know – 67 – if you ask that question, he’s going to say this and that and then that would be objectionable.” He was not just the judge in a case. He was really trying the case along with the lawyer. He would provide a critique of you after – you should have never made that argument or called that witness or asked this or that question. The combination of Vic Caputy teaching the prosecutor side with Judge Bryant teaching the defense side, that’s unparalleled experience. That’s why I feel an obligation to teach and pass on what I learned on my own and from them. Judge Bryant was an extremely astute analyst of trials. We’ve fought tooth-and-nail in court because I was representing the government and of course he didn’t see a lot of things the way the government did, but we got along. He was a liberal by most people’s standards. Judge Bryant had been a practitioner. He was a defense attorney in the late 1940s and then became a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the early 1950s and then still later became a defense attorney again. So he saw the practice of criminal law from both sides and from ground level. He had a fabulous memory. I recall trying a case in front of him and we got into an argument about whether a confession needed to be corroborated. Later that night I was in the courthouse library doing research on the issue, looking for a case to support me, and he’s in the library too, looking for another case. He’s also the only person I know who had no enemies. He was loved, revered. He was a great man. Mr. Pollak: You must have been pleased when the Courthouse Annex was named for him. Mr. Adelman: Delighted. It’s a beautiful building. He was embarrassed by the naming of it after him. And at first didn’t want to have the honor, but people talked with him – 68 – and he agreed. He’s such a modest guy, another sign of true greatness. But my overarching privilege was having him critique and teach me in court for almost 16 years. Mr. Pollak: That’s a great opportunity. Mr. Adelman: I have mentioned “losing,” which I think is very important because you’re going to lose cases. I was told by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Collins and other trial lawyers in the Office, if you’re going to try them, you’re going to lose some. In a way, it’s good to lose. You learn from your mistakes and you sit down and ask why did I lose. And you always blame yourself. Losing helps you become a better lawyer. There’s a great aversion, particularly in the large firms, to losing anything. They’ve got clients paying a lot of money to get a winning result. I think that situation sometimes diverts your taking responsibility yourself. One of the things about the U.S. Attorney’s Office was you were standing up in court alone. If you won, you won, but if you lost, you lost yourself. Mr. Pollak: Of course the person on the other side, or persons, were doing their best to beat you. Mr. Adelman: That’s right. It’s an adversary system. Mr. Pollak: Do you think losing was tied more to the caliber of your opposing lawyer or to the facts of the case? Mr. Adelman: The facts of the case. I’ve had trials against very fine lawyers, but I was fortunate to win some of them because the facts were strong. I’ve lost cases in situations where the lawyer was not first class. – 69 – Mr. Pollak: Did you follow that proverbial rule in your examinations of never asking a question to which you didn’t know the answer? Mr. Adelman: No. You couldn’t do that. Particularly in the Court of General Sessions. There you didn’t have a chance to interview all of your witnesses, so you put them on the stand and hope they live up to what you expect. Of course on cross examination in criminal, even in a complex case, you generally don’t have a deposition or any prior statement from the witness. You have to be very careful. What you do is you listen very carefully to what the witness says on direct. You go into certain areas that you think will be profitable. One of the rules of the practice is never ask a “why” question of a hostile witness. Judge Bryant used to say if you ask “why,” he’s going to tell you “why,” and you have to sit down and listen to the answer. If the witness does give an explanation that’s ludicrous, you can just benefit from that. Mr. Pollak: But are you trying all the time to place your witness in your mind as one which you can go far with or one that you have to be careful with? Mr. Adelman: We’re talking about adverse witnesses here. But with an adverse witness, you get a sense instinctively of what you want to do. One of Judge Bryant’s lessons was to try to limit the scope of an adverse witness’s testimony if you can. Judge Bryant said if you argue with the witness, you’re going to lose the argument. A lawyer should ask questions that the jury would want to ask themselves. Mr. Pollak: Possibly, Roger, I’ve asked you this question before, but the world that you’ve described almost without exception, all the way down to now, in your – 70 – courthouse experience, has been a male world. Is that a function of the era? If it is, has the era changed? What role, when you began this, did women have? Mr. Adelman: I’ve seen a vast change. In my class in law school, we had 190 people, six were women. This was 1966. When I started in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, there were very few women. Now I think it’s equal male and female. Same on the bench. And then law school, I think in Georgetown now, there are more women students than there are males. So there’s been a dramatic change. Mr. Pollak: Edward Bennett Williams is someone that the bar considers a great defense counsel and there are people that you’ve referred to who are outstanding prosecutors. Is the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington producing outstanding women prosecutors? Mr. Adelman: Oh sure. Evelyn Queen and others. As I’ve said, though, I’m not down there so I don’t know, but I suspect they are. Mr. Pollak: Evelyn Queen went on to be a Superior Court Judge, didn’t she? Mr. Adelman: Right, and there are others too, but I really know relatively few Assistants now. I’m in different parts of the country, but also, they come and go. The prosecutors probably average 3-5 year tenures, and I’ve been out since 1988. So it’s a whole new generation. Mr. Pollak: I think I need to wind this up. Is there more on learning to try a case? Mr. Adelman: No, except to say you’ve got to keep doing it. It’s an art, not a science, and you have to keep persistently trying cases. We had a discussion at Inns of Court the other night, the William Bryant Inn of Court I might I add, about just that. The resolution was that there are only a few vehicles in which you’re going to be – 71 – able to do that – in the prosecutor’s office, the Public Defenders Service, or the private bar and the CJA. Mr. Pollak: To another day. 72 Oral History of Roger Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on October 29, 2008 at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the fourth interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon, Roger. This is our fourth interview. Mr. Adelman: We’re getting to be good friends. Mr. Pollak: Yes. Absolutely. My first question is, you’ve talked about Mr. Caputy as one of the people that you referred to as legends of the trial bar in the 1950s to the 1980s, and I’d be interested for you to say anything further about Vic Caputy and then speak about the others. Mr. Adelman: Vic started his private practice here, I believe, in 1949. He then became a federal prosecutor a year or so later. He was the leading prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the 1950s and 1960s. He retired from trying cases in the late 1960s. Fortunately for me and my colleagues in the office, he became a mentor and teacher for us. He epitomized the pound-the-table school of trial advocacy. He was a great orator. He was a stump orator as a young man. He came from Buffalo, New York. In the 1930s, people like Vic would give political speeches on stages, without public address systems. So he advocated sonorous oral advocacy. He was also a powerful cross examiner. He was not a big man, but he had a huge voice and was a great presence. In the District Court, the walls between the courtrooms are maybe two feet thick, and the story goes that Judge Gasch was sitting in the adjoining court and sent a note over to the judge next to him saying please tell “Mr. Caputy to turn it down a little bit.” But he was a – 73 – lovable guy and very devout guy. A very important part of his life was his family and his religion. I worked under him for many years. He was a true mentor. He would watch you try cases and give you advice, often vocal, often in public, and you learned from the master. He was widely known in the courthouse community. He died in 1992, and the outpouring of grief among former Assistants for him was tremendous. Mr. Pollak: Didn’t he hold at a later age a training position actually in the United States District Court? Mr. Adelman: He did. From 1969 to the 1980s, he trained Assistant U.S. Attorneys how to try cases. And the training was not formal. He would watch us in court or help us prepare a cross examination of an important witness, or help prepare for closing argument. He was on the scene in the courtroom. All the judges knew him. The story goes that one day he was sitting in the audience and the prosecutor didn’t object, so Vic Caputy stood up to object in the audience, and the judge said, “Objection sustained.” The prosecutor looked around and saw Vic Caputy was there so he realized what had happened. He documented everybody’s work in his notebooks. He would sit down with you afterward, go over his notes and give a critique. He was stern. He also was a very well-educated man. He went to Canisius College in Buffalo and then Georgetown Law. I believe he graduated in the same Georgetown class as Edward Bennett Williams, who had great respect for him by the way. I recall Vic reciting Greek poetry that he memorized. He was an avid reader. A very interesting guy and when you got to know him, not at all the image that was portrayed of him. He has three – 74 – wonderful sons, all of whom are my friends. But he was a great and modest guy. Some prosecutors make their reputation in big trials, and Vic never sought that. What he wanted to be was a very skilled and feared adversary. He was that. And a very meticulous lawyer too. He read all the appellate opinions and knew the law. Mr. Pollak: And made it a lifetime career? Mr. Adelman: He did. He had a private practice in the 1940s. Then he joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1950, and he spent 37 years there. And as I say, his approach was to blow down the walls, blow back the witness and orate strongly to the jury. He was a strong advocate of that. He was a model in many ways. He was a model for two generations of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Every one of them felt Vic’s touch, if you will. He was great. Mr. Pollak: You commented just a moment ago about how others on your list of legends had different styles. Would you comment generally on your feeling whether there’s a preferred style for prosecutors. Is it eclectic? What determines a prosecutor’s style? Mr. Adelman: The list of people would include several defense attorneys. So it’s not a matter of styles of prosecutors so much as a trial lawyer. I don’t think there’s a preferred style for a prosecutor. For instance, Tom Flannery, who was an Assistant U.S. Attorney before he became a federal judge and before that a United States Attorney, had a very low-key approach. Vic Caputy used to say, “Tom whispered ‘em into jail.” The basic point about any prosecutor, or any trial lawyer for that matter, is you must stay within your own personality. If you – 75 – look phony to the jury they will pick it up. If you are naturally a quiet person and you get up and scream and shout, it looks phony. The same if you’re an aggressive person and you talk deliberately. But you have to be true to your personality because the jury is perceptive. Many of us follow the Caputy method to this day. Mr. Pollak: And the Caputy method is what? Mr. Adelman: Vigorous, aggressive. “You did this!” “You did that!” I was going to mention some of the defense people. Mr. Pollak Yes. Please do. Mr. Adelman: John Shorter. John Shorter graduated from Georgetown Law School in the mid1940s. He practiced as a defense attorney from then until the late 1980s representing many people in criminal cases. In the courtroom John was very low key, very meticulous, almost quiet. He related very well to the juries. He was a very thorough cross examiner. This was an era when the judges allowed, at least experienced lawyers, to take time doing an examination. He practiced in an era when there was not a large amount of criminal discovery provided to a criminal defense lawyer. Basically the defense lawyer would find out what the case was about during courtroom accounts of witnesses. I tried many cases against John. He was a gentleman and was very effective, particularly at whittling down at a witness on cross. He would quietly ask a question, and then another question, and still another question on the same point. He never was confrontational. The judges respected him. And his style as a gentlemanly professional was conveyed to the jury. He epitomized another dynamic, the – 76 – jury will say to themselves, “Gee, if someone of this caliber is representing this defendant, the defendant may not be such a bad guy after all.” Mr. Pollak: Is Shorter alive? Mr. Adelman: No. John died some years ago. Bill Garber is still practicing. He started in Washington in the 1950s. He was a clerk for a famous trial lawyer, Charlie Ford and that’s how he learned the art. Charlie Ford was an old-time “Fifth Street” lawyer. Bill surely has tried more cases to a jury than anybody in the District of Columbia. Mr. Pollak: Including in the Federal Court? Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. He is often in the federal court. Bill is a repository of the history of the D.C. trial practice. He was fascinating to the juries because he didn’t have a great pretense. He usually wears a sport coat, sort of shuffles around the courtroom and asks questions in a very low-key, folksy, informal way. But the jury saw that he was quite sharp. Naturally the judges listened very carefully to him because of his experience and knowledge of the law. He took a lot of court-appointed cases over the years because the judges respected him and knew he would do a great job. Mr. Pollak: How did these trial lawyers, particularly the defense lawyers you’re talking about, get trained? Mr. Adelman: By doing. Bill’s a good example. As I said, he worked at the side of Charlie Ford. In the 1950s in D.C., the criminal clientele were largely gamblers, bootleggers, robbers and drug dealers. Bill and Charlie Ford and the other Fifth Streeters represented these clients. Bill watched Ford try cases, then he began – 77 – to try cases himself. Trial work is an art, it’s not a science. If you ask me how does somebody become a great potter, a great painter, or any of the great artists, and the answer is that they did the task many, many times until they got it right. In the 1950s, Bill saw Charlie Ford, the young John Shorter, the young Bill Bryant, the young Jake Stein, and lots of other lawyers try cases, and he learned their tricks. He is one of the few people who bridge the earlier era of D.C. trial practice and the modern era. He’s still trying cases. Mr. Pollak: He’s trying cases? Mr. Adelman: Yes sir. Mr. Pollak: You also have on your list Ed Brown and Bob Higgins. Mr. Adelman: Bob Higgins was a contemporary of mine in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He started the same time I did. When I saw him, both in misdemeanor and felony trials, I quickly realized that he had a great presence in the court. Bob had been a debater in college. He was very much a well-spoken, up-front, aggressive guy. Like many of us, he was a disciple of Vic Caputy. He left the office in 1973. He’s now at Dickstein Shapiro. Of our group, Bob, I think, had the best natural trial skills. He liked to try cases, and he was very successful. We would watch our colleagues try cases. That in itself was a real learning experience. Bob was always very well prepared. He worked well with the police. I thought that he had a skill level above the level of other Assistants in our group. I believe he still tries civil cases. Ed Brown had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney here in the early 1960s, but when I encountered him in the 1970s, he was a defense attorney. He did a lot of – 78 – civil work too. His dad, Ed Brown, Sr., was a well-known civil lawyer. But, Ed Brown, Jr., had a marvelous oratorical style – a clear sonorous voice – and was a very good cross examiner. And I remember trying cases against him, and when he was arguing to the jury – he was that good – I’d sit there and take notes and silently say to myself, “Please, please sit down, please sit down” – he was making so many good points. And he represented some tough customers. As a former prosecutor, he saw a case from the prosecution perspective and the defense perspective. And he was a very honorable guy and a straight shooter. The good trial advocates like him had the ability to speak to the jury without notes. Young lawyers now think they’ve got to have everything written out in front of them when they argue, but in the era I’m talking about, lawyers like Ed Brown, Vic Caputy, Bob Higgins and Harry Sullivan spoke eye-to-eye to the jury rather than to read notes or an outline. If they had notes, they may have been a page or half a page with just several points on them. They’d get up and look the jury in the eye. Mr. Pollak: Would these lawyers have others who helped with memoranda and briefs, or would they handle that themselves? Mr. Adelman: John Shorter did the briefing of legal issues himself, as did – and still does – Bill Garber. It was not until the early 1970s that defense lawyers filed a large number of motions. In earlier times, they didn’t litigate on paper, they were expected to make verbal, not written, objections during the trial. They mostly were solo or small firm practitioners. They effectively were like English barristers who, as I understand it, practice by themselves, do the research and – 79 – writing themselves. By the 1970s and 1980s, you really had to litigate – suppression motions, evidence motions, things of that sort. The Federal Rules of Evidence came into effect in 1974, codifying common law rules of evidence. That alone introduced a lot pretrial evidence litigation. In an earlier time you’d make the evidence objections on the spot in trial, the judge would rule or not, you’d go on. Mr. Pollak: You think it’s antithetical to being in a law firm? Mr. Adelman: The big firms now do white-collar defense which requires teams, committees and review. These firms have to have people who only do research. For the most part, they do litigation, not jury trial work. The people I talked about before were the old-time stand-up-and-argue trial lawyers. There are still folks like that in Washington, but I suspect more so now in other parts of the country, for example, Texas. Mr. Pollak: A lot of your focus here is on the period from the 1960s to the time you left the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I think that you might comment on both civility and ethics in that era. Mr. Adelman: I think when you’re firing motions back and forth and you don’t know each other that well, as in a big civil case, there’s a tendency to be less cordial. In criminal cases where you regularly try cases against the same lawyers, there develops a degree of trust based on familiarity. Civility issues are acute in big stakes civil litigation. The difference is the presence of a judge. A lawyer in criminal cases eventually appears in front the judge, so they are sensitive to that. They will have to account at some point to the judge. In civil cases many – 80 – lawyers may have no contact with the judge or ever expect to. If the judge is involved with the case in some way, the lawyers will behave better. Mr. Pollak: It’s been my experience in several litigations that you may litigate the case in a preparatory way with adversary depositions, documentary discovery, for long, long periods and never see the judge at all. Mr. Adelman: In line with that, one useful development is videotaping of depositions. That has resulted in much better behavior by lawyers at depositions because their behavior is recorded on the videotape and can be reviewed by the judge. Mr. Pollak: Was Chuck Ruff a full-time professor? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Chuck, after graduating from law school, taught law in Africa. Then he came back and taught at Georgetown. He served in the in the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, eventually became an Independent Counsel, then some time later became the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Pollak: He had a very distinguished career. Mr. Adelman: Yes, a fine guy. He was a most persuasive writer. Chuck was schooled in the Department of Justice sort of bureaucratic approach to case management, but also he was the United States Attorney here from late 1979 to early 1982. When he was a United States Attorney, I worked very closely with him on some cases, particularly ABSCAM and Hinckley. Chuck once described me to the New York Times as a good guy with two faults, being a jogger and a Phillies fan. I don’t hold either part of that description against him. Mr. Pollak: I was very fond of Chuck personally and had great regard for him professionally. How did the prosecutors interact with the police? – 81 – Mr. Adelman: In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Attorney’s Office was very strong on developing cases, the investigative part of the cases, working with the police and the FBI. The idea was not to wait for the police come in with a case with a little red bow and say, here it is. So, when a crime occurred, a serious crime where there had been no arrest, or a series of crimes, or what appeared to be organized criminal activity, the U.S. Attorney’s Office became involved. The Assistants met with the police or the FBI or the DEA, they would give advice to the investigators. But most importantly was the development of the grand jury as an investigative tool. If the investigators need to get documents and other evidence, they’d get a grand jury subpoena. Besides that, some people need to be interviewed in the grand jury under oath. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, for as long as I am aware, has been involved with the approval of search and arrest warrants. This means an Assistant U.S. Attorney reviews all warrant applications before they are submitted to a judge. That’s very important, because then you are assured that a lawyer has reviewed the warrant application. In many jurisdictions the police are not required to get prosecutor approval for a warrant, and sometimes that can cause problems. One of the most important parts of the criminal process in D.C. is what happens in the U.S. Attorneys’ office early in the morning, between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. That’s when the exclusionary rule is applied. Between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m., the prosecutors review the cases brought in by the police and the federal agencies. The exclusionary rule is applied – not by a judge or the defense counsel, but by the prosecutor. There are certain cases that are rejected – 82 – at the outset because of what the prosecutor believes is an unconstitutional search or a Miranda-bad statement or other constitutional defects or is insufficient. These cases are rejected. They do not get filed in court. The public never sees that. Scholars, particularly, really don’t appreciate this because most of them have never worked as prosecutors. As a consequence, some academics have promoted very distorted analyses of how the exclusionary rule works. The exclusionary rule is not only a weapon of the defense, it is in the first instance a screen employed by the prosecutors who are simply following the law. There are always borderline cases or close cases, and those cases might be brought or the investigators are told to get more evidence. But what the Assistant U.S. Attorneys do in the initial case review each morning is a very important control on the quality of justice in Washington, D.C., and probably results in more cases being thrown out because of its application by the prosecutor before the case even gets to court. I worked a lot, extensively, with the FBI, with DEA, and with the police. I never went out on the street with them, but I would work closely with them, and sometimes they’d call and ask for advice, which is what you want them to do. Mr. Pollak: And what kind of advice would they be asking? Mr. Adelman: Whether to conduct a search, whether to get any arrest warrant for a suspect. For example, in Washington, D.C., the court cut-off for presenting new arraignments in court was 4:00 p.m. If a person is arrested after 4:00 p.m. and can’t post bond at the station house, they stay in jail until the morning. The police are most often interested in what to do in search and seizure situations. – 83 – Mr. Pollak: Would you make written investigative requests to the Bureau? Mr. Adelman: Customarily, no. There often isn’t time to write something out. I did develop a practice of making my own “to do” lists in cases we were preparing for trial. I shared them with the agents. Their reaction was always: “Oh no, more work.” So I spent a lot of time talking to these guys about the law, and why we needed to get certain evidence in order to bring the case to court or to win it. I worked closely with the police, FBI and other federal agents. Many of them have become friends and still are. I have many close personal relationships with a lot of former policemen and FBI agents. Mr. Pollak: And how did you identify the FBI agents who would investigate a particular case that you had? Mr. Adelman: The FBI would assign them to a case. We had nothing to do with their selection. Mr. Pollak: Would you use specialized resources? Did you have experience with that? Like fingerprints, or lie detector tests, or did you ever seek wiretapping orders and so forth? Mr. Adelman: I didn’t do any of those things. The investigators do that. They’ll customarily have the lab do fingerprints and blood work and other technical things. Wiretaps are a special situation, and there is a strong work relationship between the prosecutors and the agents. The Federal Wiretap Statute was created in 1969. It requires judicial approval before federal agents can conduct a wiretap. At least in D.C., the government has to brief the authorizing judge every five days in review as to the progress of the wiretap. The statute requires careful – 84 – monitoring. The affidavit to get the original wiretap is the joint product of the federal investigators and is reviewed by prosecutors working with them. The affidavit has to establish probable cause to tap a specific phone. You also had to show that this was the only means that the government could use to get certain meaningful evidence. Once the wiretap order was signed by the judge and became operational, the prosecutor had to report to the judge ex parte every five days in chambers and explain that probable cause still existed for the wiretap. In other words, that evidence of criminal activity was still being heard on the wiretap. I worked on several wiretap cases, most significantly was United States v. Scott, et al. in the 1970s. The Scott case was the second largescale wiretap in D.C. It involved drug dealers. Later, in court, the defense contended that the agents didn’t minimize the interception of non-relevant conversations as the federal statute required. The case went to the Supreme Court and the Court found in the government’s favor, that the minimization requirement had been met. I had nothing to do with the Supreme Court argument. I did argue the case in the Circuit Court of Appeals and I handled part of it in the District Court. Mr. Pollak: You said the judge suppressed the case. He threw out the case? Mr. Adelman: He threw out all of the evidence derived from the wiretap, which effectively amounted to the whole case. The wiretap was the source of most of our evidence, because from the wiretap you get information that led to search warrants, arrest warrants, and other evidence the judge decided to suppress. We thought that was too broad a remedy, and that was one challenge to his ruling – 85 – we made on appeal. Mr. Pollak: I see. Well for this history record, when you bring a case, a prosecution, here before the judge, and the main evidence of the prosecution is a wiretap, then the judge denied admissibility of the wiretap, and so was there a motion then to dismiss the case, or what happened? But once the evidence was suppressed did the government appeal the suppression? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: I see. So the case remained — Mr. Adelman: Eventually after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor, it went back to the District Court and the defendants pled guilty. That was the Scott wiretap case. Mr. Pollak: I’d like to just have you pursue a little further the relationship with the police. To the public, the police are sort of a monolithic group, they’re just police. I suppose that you were dealing with police that had particular assignments, like investigative police or the homicide bureau, or whatever. Who were you dealing with, and what was their expertise in accomplishing what you needed from them? Mr. Adelman: That was evolutionary for me. When I first came to the Office, with simple cases, you dealt with uniformed police officers, street officers. They’d bring the case in, the prosecutor would decide what to charge. So I got to know those uniform officers. Mr. Pollak: They were just foot patrolmen or whatever, they were on the beat? Mr. Adelman: Yes. They were the arresting officer on the beat or in the scout car. In the late 1960s, the D.C. Police Department had a policy that if a person had been to – 86 – Vietnam, if they agreed to become a D.C. policeman, they would be let out the rest of their active duty obligation. So you had some MPD officers with a background in Vietnam. We also had some interesting folks in the Police Department. Also, there was a husband and wife, the husband had gone to Yale, and the wife had gone to Mount Holyoke, Gary Albrecht and Mary Ellen Albrecht. Gary became a high-ranking police officer and Mary Ellen became a Superior Court judge. Gary is retired now. Mr. Pollak: Well, I think the publisher of the Washington Post was a police officer. Mr. Adelman: Don Graham. He was a uniformed police officer. I was and am close to his one-time partner, a great policeman, Bob Chaney. But I dealt with all of these officers as uniform men. As I progressed in the Office, they progressed in the Police Department. Bob Chaney, for instance, whom I first dealt with as a detective, became an important senior investigator in the Homicide Squad. We did many of the big cases together like the “Freeway Phantom” and Hinckley cases. And many other people: Otis Fickling, Ron Irvin, Al McMasters, Ray Gonzalez, Dave Brown, Lou Hennessy, and Nelson Grillo. I first dealt with some of these guys when they were uniform officers or plain clothes officers, but as time went on, they became senior investigators in the various parts of the Police Department. We had this ongoing relationship. And that creates trust between the police and the prosecution, especially in giving them advice and having it followed. In the 1970s, the D.C. Homicide Squad, was I think, without peer in the United States. They were excellent. Detectives like Bob Chaney, Otis Fickling, Ron Irvin, Roy Lamb, Jim Greenwell, and Stan – 87 – Alexander. Joe O’Brien was the Captain of D.C. Homicide then. Joe said the two most important things he achieved in his life were being a Marine and being a D.C. Homicide detective. The Homicide squad people were really dedicated to what they did. There were many homicides in the 1970s and ‘80s, and I was impressed that no matter who the victim was or what the circumstances of the death were, they worked just as hard to catch the guy who did the murder. They were totally dedicated professionals. I remain close to a number of them to this day. I have other long-time FBI agent friends, particularly the FBI’s bank robbery squad. Some of them became FBI supervisors. I worked on cases with them and the agents they supervised. When I first came in the Office, the undercover police work was largely in drug cases, where a police officer posing as a bad guy would buy drugs from a dealer. They were relatively simple cases, but dangerous because they would buy drugs, turn the drugs in, point the guy out, they would arrest him, or they’d buy more drugs, you know, continue that process. And it was successful. Trials of those cases depended largely on the credibility of the officer because he might have made ten drug buys from ten people, or ten drug buys from one person, and then come to court and testify. Usually their activities were monitored by other police officers who were watching. The undercover officers do very dangerous work, and not only police but FBI and the DEA. Mr. Pollak: I think you’ve spoken both today and earlier about use of the grand jury. I have this general understanding that in the recent past there’s been a grand jury unit of the U.S. Attorney, and I draw from your comments that when you had a case, – 88 – you were not part of the grand jury unit, but you used the grand jury to investigate a case. I suppose that it would be interesting to have your comments about the grand jury as a vehicle and the role of citizens in the grand jury that you observed. It seems to me that it’s quite different than the role of the citizens on the petit juries. Mr. Adelman: I’m restricted in talking about that because of the grand jury secrecy rule. All I can say is the grand jurors in D.C. are drawn from the same pool as the trial jurors and that they’re very diligent in their work. They sit for some significantly longer terms than trial jurors. Because the cases, some of the cases, are protracted. Mr. Pollak: Are you permitted to answer the question whether in your experience you had questions often from members of the grand jury. Mr. Adelman: I really don’t think I should talk about that. The department requires secrecy there. Mr. Pollak: And I respect all of the guidelines that you follow, Roger, of course. I guess in these major cases that you wanted to talk about, ABSCAM and Hinckley, you had a close relationship with the Bureau in terms of the investigation. Mr. Adelman: Correct. ABSCAM. Are we now there? That case was the most well-known FBI undercover investigation into political corruption. Mr. Pollak: And what gives it its name? What is its name? Mr. Adelman: The FBI gives acronyms to some of its major investigations and cases, and ABSCAM was the name the Bureau gave it. – 89 – J. Edger Hoover passed away in 1972. He was not a supporter of undercover investigations. After he died, the FBI management began to use undercover investigations, particularly with the aid of the then new technology of videotaping. The most important development leading up to ABSCAM was a case called the “D.C. Sting.” That took place in 1975 and 1976. It involved a combined FBI and police task force. They set up a sham fencing operation where agents posed as people who would buy stolen property. The building was completely wired for video and audio. The FBI and the police posed as gangster-type people at a counter in the building and people would come in who stole property. They were “fences.” The word got out that you could sell stolen property to them. The name of the operation was PFF, Inc., which really stood for “Police FBI Incognito.” PFF ran from 1975 until March 1976. From this case, the FBI learned much that they used in ABSCAM. During that period of time, the police, FBI, a sting, had several hundred people come in and they would bring them various stolen items. They didn’t know who the sellers were, so in their conversations they’d try to get them to identify themselves. Nor did they know where a particular item of property came from or how and where they got it. And they had to be very careful because they couldn’t encourage them to go out and commit a crime, that’s an illegal inducement. On the other hand, a lot of these sellers would like to talk about, look, I can get you . . . they had people come in with stolen cars, tires, wheels, all kinds of things, because they paid well. All of the transactions were videotaped. The undercover officers tried to get information from the seller to find out who they were. They – 90 – may not give their proper name, but they’d give a nickname. The police had a nickname file. And the FBI probably did too. And, they had Styrofoam cups there. They would give the guy a cup of water to drink, and he would put his fingerprints on it as he drank from it. They ran this operation until March 1976. In late February they put out the word. They said, “We’re going to have a party” because one of the agents, nicknamed Pasquale LaRocca, is moving up in the “organization,” “So we’re going to have a farewell party and you’re invited.” It was on a Saturday night. They actually on that night had an FBI agent from New York, Dick Genova, who was one of the real fine FBI agents I ever worked with, came in a limo wearing a tuxedo posing as the “Don.” The people who were invited came in, they let them come in one at a time, and they’d say, “Welcome to the party,” and they’d pull out their badges and arrest them. The DC Sting was the first use of electronic surveillance and videotape in this District, and the Bureau and the police learned how to conduct undercover operations using video and audiotape. The sting cases were brought in both the U.S. District Court and the Superior Court. The defense often raised entrapment but that didn’t work. Entrapment does not mean it is improper for law enforcement to set a trap. It prohibits putting the criminal intent in somebody’s mind, creating the crime. In the undercover fencing situation, the people had already perpetrated the crime – robbery or theft – and they came in to the fencing operation to dispose of the proceeds. The FBI then began other undercover investigations around the country – 91 – using videotape. In 1978, they began an investigation on Long Island into stolen art. They set up an operation in a warehouse with an undercover FBI agent and an informant named Mel Weinberg. Mr. Weinberg had been caught by the FBI committing frauds and he pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. The operation to purchase stolen art was set up much in the same manner as the D.C. Sting. Along the way they met Bill Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg told them he needed political help. He told him that he needed help to have some Arab, Middle Eastern, people brought into the country. This was right around the time the Shah of Iran fell. And they needed green cards. They were told (I believe by Rosenberg) that he knew Congressmen who would sponsor legislation to cause green cards to be issued to these people. So somehow it evolved that they had a meeting with people who would do this, congressman, on a yacht in Florida. The yacht had been seized by the FBI in some other case, and they manned the yacht. Mr. Pollak: “They” being who? Mr. Adelman: The FBI. The FBI manned the yacht, all with FBI agents posing as crewmembers. Mr. Pollak: I see. The FBI people being a continuation of the sting of the buying art group? Mr. Adelman: Right. And remember the FBI is a national organization, so what they learned in Washington and New York, they also knew in Florida. They then had people on the yacht, or somebody on the yacht, but as they went up the intracoastal canal, they sailed by the yacht of then former-Dictator Somoza who had just been kicked out of Nicaragua, and they were talking about his problems of – 92 – coming into the country. And I think at that point, maybe that’s when the issue came up, about sponsoring the legislation of getting people into the country, and then they said, well, do you know any congressmen who could do this. And I think Rosenberg was the person who said, yeah I do. And all this is being fed back to the FBI and Washington and the Justice Department, and as I told you before, this is a situation, again with the prosecutors you’re involved directly, and in this case Phil Heyman who was head of the Criminal Division, and Irv Nathan who was his Deputy. They were monitoring this all along. So jointly they proceeded. The center of gravity of this case became Brooklyn, the Eastern District of New York. The federal prosecutor who ran the Eastern District Strike Force was Thomas Puccio, and as it evolved, the congressman to whom they referred, they put him on videotape. They had an undercover agent, Tony Amoroso, he was an FBI agent, and Weinberg and they would sit in these places and they had several congressmen come in and they offered them money in order to introduce legislation to have people get green cards for admission to the United States. Those people who agreed eventually got charged. Some of the undercover operation took place in Washington, at a townhouse in Northwest Washington that the FBI had rented. They wired it and put hidden video equipment in the house. Two congressmen, Richard Kelley and John Jenrette, visited the D.C. townhouse at different times and unbeknownst to each other. They agreed to accept money in exchange for their assistance in sponsoring legislation to enable certain people to immigrate to the United States. In Mr. Kelley’s case, the undercover agent actually gave him the money – 93 – during the meeting. He put $25,000 in his pockets while being videotaped. And then in New York there were other Congressmen who were charged, Congressman Lederer, Congressman Ozzie Myers, Congressmen Thompson, and Senator Harrison Williams as well. They were all charged in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn. We tried two ABSCAM cases here. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kotelly was the chief prosecutor in the Congressmen John Jenrette case, and I was the chief prosecutor in the Congressman Richard Kelly case. There were convictions in all of these cases. There were just three ABSCAM venues – Washington, New York and Philadelphia. The whole group of cases took about a year-and-a-half to try, and the government was successful in all of them. There were motions attacking the nature of the investigation, entrapment and other techniques, most rejected at the trial court level. There was one exception. After the trial of Richard Kelly, Judge Bryant decided the FBI operation was an illegal investigation and he threw it out. And so the government appealed. And the D.C. Circuit reversed him and sent it back to trial court for sentencing. Judge Wald wrote the opinion. Mr. Pollak: Did you try the full case before Judge Bryant? Mr. Adelman: Yes, I was the chief trial lawyer and the jury returned a guilty verdict. Mr. Pollak: How long of a trial? Mr. Adelman: Several weeks. I remember, it started in December and we finished the end of January. But it went through the holiday period. In any event, I didn’t argue the appeal. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Farrell, now Judge Farrell, was the – 94 – then-head of the Appeals Section, and he argued the appeal in the Circuit Court of Appeals. But Congressmen Kelly, Jenrette, all the people in New York were tried, convicted, and sentenced. ABSCAM, at least for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, then became the model for the FBI and local law enforcement to do undercover “stings” of various sorts. For instance, BRILAB in Louisiana; the Graylord investigation in Chicago involving public officials. Mr. Pollak: But in my memory, ABSCAM was the biggest collection of federal legislators that was ever picked up for corruption. Mr. Adelman: I think that’s right. And none of the Congressmen who were convicted in ABSCAM were re-elected. Mr. Pollak: What did you think about, you became completely conversant with the facts involving Congressmen Kelly and what overall conclusions or thoughts did you have about the whole event? Mr. Adelman: Well first of all, decisive evidence. Guilt from his own lips on videotape. Number two, clearly corrupt and illegal behavior on his part. Number three, the investigation, I didn’t have any problem with because it was run by professionals and I’m satisfied that it was ultimately fair. With Kelly, one of the key moments was the undercover agent gave him the money, and said, “It’s up to you” whether to take it. They gave him the choice and he took the money. Mr. Pollak: So what was there to try? Mr. Adelman: Well the government had to prove its case, and we had to prove the undercover methodology was fair and proper. I recall the agents testified, as well as – 95 – Weinberg. At the trial itself, Mr. Kelly testified. He called a number of character witnesses. His defense was that he, Kelly, was investigating them, the undercover agents, and that he took the money in order to turn them in to the FBI. Besides its basic incredibility, one of the flaws of his defense was he never turned the money into the FBI. He kept it. And the FBI, he was encountered, I believe, on January 8, and the investigation ended several weeks later. So Kelly on the day of his arrest when it was announced publicly that he would turn over $25,000 to the FBI. Unfortunately for him, the FBI Xeroxed each the bills he was given – they were all copied. Some of the bills that he later turned back in when the case became public were not the bills that the FBI had given him. The case became public in February 1980, he had run out and got some other $20 bills to replace the ones he had spent. So we introduced evidence of the discrepancy. So we introduced the copies of the original bills and the copies of the bills he returned. But his claim was that he was conducting an investigation of them, so naturally I asked him on cross, why didn’t you report it to the FBI. He said he didn’t want anything to be compromised. Mr. Kelly had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the 1950s and he was a friend with FBI people, so I asked him why he didn’t report it to them, and he said he didn’t want to compromise them. It just didn’t fly. Mr. Pollak: Who represented him? Mr. Adelman: Mr. Anthony Battaglia. He was Mr. Kelly’s friend and had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney with Mr. Kelly in Tampa in the 1950s. In the 1970s, Mr. Kelly was elected to Congress. He represented an area just north of Tampa. He – 96 – testified and gave this defense. There were two or three other people who were involved in the scheme and were charged as co-defendants, and their lawyers cross-examined Mr. Kelly too. Mr. Pollak: So, when Judge Bryant threw out the convictions because he found the investigation, I guess, improper, in violation of the Constitution, or some law — Mr. Adelman: What he said basically was the inducement was too great. But he was reversed in the Court of Appeals. Mr. Pollak: So procedurally, what then happened? The Court of Appeals reversed? So the conviction stood. And all that remained then was sentencing? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: And what sentencing did he get? Mr. Adelman: I think Mr. Kelly got 18 months. I’ll have to check that. He filed post-trial motions and there was other litigation. I believe one of the co-defendants was re-tried and was convicted. Congressman Jenrette’s conviction was affirmed as well. Mr. Pollak: Did any of them plead in the Eastern District of New York? Mr. Adelman: I don’t think so. I’ll check. Mr. Jenrette’s defense was the incriminating statements he made on the videotape were because he was intoxicated. But when he testified, the cross-examination by my colleague, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kotelly, that was beaten down. He didn’t take money on tape, but he agreed to have his friend take the money. The same corrupt agreement, if you will. Mr. Pollak: Well that must have been an exciting case to prosecute. – 97 – Mr. Adelman: Exciting. Fun. Judge Bryant gave the lawyers on both sides a chance to put everything in they wanted to. And Mr. Kelly’s testimony was rather lengthy, and as I mentioned, there were at least three crosses of him, mine and the other defendants’ attorneys. So it was quite a show. Mr. Pollak: Well, I think that brings us probably up to a point where we should adjourn for today with the agenda for next time being the Hinckley case, and anything else you would want to say about the conclusion of your time in the United States Attorney’s Office, and then we ought to turn to your private practice. Mr. Adelman: Okay. Mr. Pollak: Is there more you would say today? Mr. Adelman: No. Mr. Pollak: Okay. Thank you, Roger. Oral History of Roger Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on December 18, 2008 at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the fifth interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon, Roger. Mr. Adelman: Good afternoon. Good to be here. Mr. Pollak: Well, we scheduled today and possibly even another session for you to talk about the matter of the prosecution and the issues raised by the prosecution of John W. Hinckley, Jr. So, why don’t you introduce this topic and your role in it for our oral history. Mr. Adelman: Fine. Background is important here, particularly because the insanity defense had been the subject of a great deal of litigation in the District of Columbia. The “insanity defense” is actually a misnomer. It’s really the “criminal responsibility” defense. The issue in such a case is not whether the defendant is “insane” at the time of the crime, the issue is whether the defendant is “criminally responsible” for his crimes. There may be people who suffer from mental diseases or defects who are criminally responsible for their acts. Mr. Pollak: I did bring down 18 U.S.C. § 17, and you could read into your record the relevant provision and also you could orient the readers of this oral history because the relevant federal statute may not have been reading the same way at the time of the Hinckley case. Mr. Adelman: Until 1984, two years after the 1982 Hinckley trial, there was no federal statute governing criminal responsibility. Until then the standard was governed by case law. The most significant decision for the District of Columbia was that of – 99 – Judge Bazelon in 1954 in the Durham case. He ruled that the standard for criminal responsibility would be whether the crime was a “product” of a mental disease or defect. That standard was applied, with some modifications, until 1972 when the D.C. Circuit en banc in the Brawner case ruled that the standard would be changed from Durham to the American Law Institute standard. The ALI as described in Brawner was the standard used in the Hinckley trial. Another important issue was the burden of proof. In the late 19th century, in the Davis case, the Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant raises a defense based on criminal responsibility, the burden would be on the government to prove him sane or responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the rule under which the Hinckley case was tried. After the Hinckley verdict, one of the issues widely discussed was that the prosecutor had the burden to prove Hinckley criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a pretty high standard. The Supreme Court case Davis was decided in the 1890s. At that time, a lot less was known about human psychology, so the view of the Supreme Court then was probably not that sophisticated. Mr. Pollak: I think you indicated what the Durham test was. Can you state the Brawner or ALI test? Mr. Adelman: Brawner basically says that “criminal responsibility” is determined by whether the defendant, as a result of a mental disease or defect, was either unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. In 1962, after the Durham decision in 1954, the D.C. Circuit provided a definition of mental disorder as an abnormal condition of the – 100 – mind that substantially impairs behavioral controls or mental processes. And after Durham, there was concern in Congress that Durham would result in people who had been NGI’d [found not guilty by reason of insanity] being set free. Congress enacted legislation requiring mandatory commitment to St. Elizabeths Hospital after a successful defense of insanity. It also established that a person found NGI could not be released from St. Elizabeths Hospital, unless a judge decides that he is no longer dangerous to himself or others because of mental disorder. Through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the District of Columbia had a number of criminal cases involving the insanity defense because the Durham standard was liberal and the government had the burden of proof. I did a lot of work in the criminal mental health field before 1981. In the 1970s I tried a lot of murder cases, and the insanity defense was often raised in these cases. So I got experience dealing with the insanity defense. I learned how to cross examine psychiatrists, of course with the assistance of Vic Caputy, whom I’ve discussed. Mr. Pollak: Did you handle release hearings? What are those, and how do they come up, and what was your role? Mr. Adelman: People who had been sent to St. Elizabeths hospital after being NGI’d could not be released, either on a limited release or on full release, unless a judge approved. The United States District Court had jurisdiction on most of these because before 1971, the local courts didn’t have felony jurisdiction. People who had been tried and who had been NGI’d in the 1950s and 1960s and early – 101 – 1970s – had been tried in the District Court and their release hearings were held in the District Court. In the 1970s, I happened to handle a number of those release cases and the related litigation. We would retain independent doctors to evaluate people applying for release. These are judge hearings, not jury trials. There were appeals to the D.C. Circuit in some of the cases I had, particularly United States v. Louis Ecker and United States v. James Snyder. The decisions in Ecker and Snyder set the standards for release at the time. Mr. Pollak: Now I come to a point where I want to ask you this question about how you unfold the Hinckley case. You could start with Roger Adelman, and that is, how did it come to your attention, and then what ensued and address matters as they came up in your movement through your responsibilities in the case. Mr. Adelman: I was still trying cases very frequently in the U.S. District Court at that point in 1981. The United States Attorney was Charles Ruff. The Reagan Administration was in place but Chuck was still the United States Attorney. He was a very wise man, a very smart guy. The shooting occurred in the afternoon on March 30th. I got a call from Mr. Ruff shortly after the shooting and he told me that that he wanted me to handle the case along with him. I then talked to the police and the FBI. That evening there was a presentment hearing before the United States Magistrate in Washington D.C. Mr. Ruff and I represented the government. That’s how I got involved. Mr. Hinckley was a young man who had been born in Texas in 1955. His father owned an oil company in Colorado. He grew up in Dallas and then moved to Denver with his family when he was a young man. He had an older – 102 – brother and sister. John Hinckley seemed to be sort of the fifth wheel. He became increasingly alienated from his family. He developed some conflict with his parents, particularly his father. Eventually, I believe in late 1979 or early in 1980, his father told him to leave the house and do productive things. Mr. Hinckley left and told them that he was attending Texas Tech University and that he had a girlfriend. As it turned out that was untrue. The departure from his home was important because that set him off on a cross-country trip in 1980 and 1981. He had developed an interest in the actress Jodie Foster. I didn’t know who she was until the Reagan shooting took place, but she was about 19 years old at that time. She had been in several movies, one of them was Taxi Driver that was released about 1976. Mr. Hinckley watched that movie many times and was most interested in Jodie Foster. Basically, the movie was about a taxi driver in New York, Travis Bickle, who goes off the track psychologically and becomes a stalker of a political candidate and wanted to shoot him. Bickle was played by Robert De Niro. Bickle becomes enthralled with the Jodie Foster character. Hinckley watched this movie many times, and at trial the defense contended he was influenced by the movie. In 1980 and 1981 he purchased hand guns. Before the election of President Reagan, he had stalked President Carter in Dayton, Ohio and Nashville, Tennessee. We know he did that because the Secret Service customarily takes pictures of the crowds whenever the President appears in public, and after March 30, 1981, they were reviewed and revealed pictures of him in the crowds in Dayton. When he was in Tennessee, he was – 103 – stopped at the airport carrying a gun, but because one could lawfully carry a gun in Tennessee at the time, they let him go. That led him eventually to Washington, D.C. He had purchased a gun at a store in Texas where at that time you could easily purchase a gun. He arrived in Washington D.C. a few days before March 30, 1981. He checked into a hotel near the White House. At trial we put into evidence pictures of him standing outside the south fence of the White House and in front of Ford’s Theatre. So the idea of shooting the President was based on a lot of things, including this movie and his infatuation with Jodie Foster. By 1981 Jodie Foster was a student at Yale University. Mr. Hinckley had followed her through the quad at Yale and left notes for her at her room. But he never interacted with her. On March 30, 1981, at his hotel here, he wrote a letter to Jodie Foster. In that letter, he professed his love for her, he stated he was going to do an historical act so that he and she would go down in history together. He left that letter on the bed in his hotel room, then he went up to the Washington Hilton Hotel where President Reagan was speaking. He had the .22 pistol with him, it was a Saturday Night Special. He had loaded it not with standard .22 bullets but special .22 bullets called Devastators. Those bullets have a device that explodes on impact. They’re used to shoot animals. He selected those particular bullets to put in the gun, a six-shooter, and his use of Devastators became an issue at the trial. On March 30, President Reagan was speaking to a labor group in the early afternoon. Mr. Hinckley was in the crowd, waiting with, actually standing with, the press group when the President arrived. The President got out of the – 104 – limousine, went in to make his speech. Hinckley didn’t act then, and we argued at trial that this was important because it showed his ability to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. He waited for about 45 minutes until the President came out to enter his car. At that point, Hinckley then turned, assumed the attack position – he crouched down, he put his hand, held his right hand as one does when they shoot a handgun seeking accuracy – and he fired several rounds. The first round hit Jim Brady, who was the President’s Press Secretary. Brady was just a few feet from Hinckley. He was hit in the head with a Devastator bullet. Mr. Brady suffered permanent brain damage. Then Hinckley fired and hit a Metropolitan police officer, Tom Delahanty, and then he fired at the President and at the President’s limo. Special Agent Tim McCarthy of the Secret Service turned and took a shot in the chest intended for the President, and the President meanwhile was protected by Gerry Parr of the Secret Service. Gerry Parr was a senior Secret Service agent on the scene. He pushed Reagan into the car and saved his life. But one of Hinckley’s shots hit the divider between the front and back doors, and then ricocheted and struck the President in the chest. The car immediately drove away, and at Gerry Parr’s direction, they took the President to GW Hospital. He was operated on there by Dr. Giordano. He survived the shooting. Of course, Jim Brady suffered permanent damage and has been impaired ever since. Tom Delahanty retired from the police department. Tim McCarthy retired from Secret Service. He’s now a Police Chief in Illinois. – 105 – Hinckley was immediately apprehended. The people in the crowd jumped on him, the Secret Service jumped on him. He was disarmed and taken into custody. He was brought first to the police headquarters here in Washington, at the homicide squad, where an initial interrogation took place. It was decided that these were federal offenses as well as D.C. offenses. Mr. Hinckley was transferred to the custody of the FBI and taken to the FBI Field Office. Later that night he was brought before the court for a preliminary presentment. Chuck Ruff and I represented the government. Mr. Pollak: And a Magistrate took the presentment? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Magistrate Lawrence Margolis. Mr. Hinckley had requested counsel when he was in police custody. Hinckley had told the FBI and the police when he was arrested and processed that he wanted to speak with a lawyer. And he even named the lawyer – a lawyer in Texas who had some connection with his dad. The FBI tried to reach that lawyer. Shortly after the 30th of March, Williams & Connolly was engaged. Vince Fuller was the lead lawyer, Gregory Craig was his assistant, as well as Judy Miller and Lon Babby. They represented Hinckley throughout the pretrial period, the trial, and for several years after 1982. Both sides immediately recognized that the issue in this case would be insanity, or as I have put it, “criminal responsibility.” Mr. Pollak: And how did you conclude — Mr. Adelman: Well, it’s not too hard. When you learn that a young man shoots the President of the United States to impress an 18-year-old actress, you may want to check into his mental condition. We also learned that he was being treated by a – 106 – psychiatrist in Colorado. So mental condition was something we knew right away we had to deal with. Mr. Pollak: And is it an inference that you make that the defense immediately centered on insanity? Mr. Adelman: In this case it was virtually understood because there was no doubt about who did the shooting or what was done by Mr. Hinckley. Almost immediately both sides took steps to engage the services of psychiatrists and psychologists and other mental health professionals to examine Mr. Hinckley. First he was sent by the court to the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina for a mental evaluation. Butner has a mental health hospital. That examination was conducted by the Bureau of Prisons. And their chief psychiatrist was Dr. Sally Johnson. She became a government witness in the case at the trial in 1982. In addition, the government engaged several independent private psychiatrists to work on the case. Those people include Dr. Park Elliot Dietz, who at that time was at Harvard, Dr. Jonas Rappaport, who was a forensic psychiatrist in Baltimore, and Dr. Jim Cavanaugh, who was a forensic psychiatrist in Chicago. As time went on, we retained other experts. Dr. Rappaport was then the dean of forensic psychiatrists. Dr. Dietz was a younger doctor, very thorough, very meticulous, very studious. Dr. Cavanaugh had a well-regarded forensic psychiatry practice in Chicago. In the selection process, I talked to other psychiatrists, but those people were the people that I thought would do the best job. What we were looking for was of course skill, – 107 – their experience, and their ability to testify in court, because this case was clearly going to trial. Mr. Pollak: Did you cross any trail of the defendant’s in searching – did you center on a psychiatrist that they were talking to? Mr. Adelman: There might have been an incident where we contacted someone who had been contacted by the defense, and of course you can’t cross paths that way. The defense selected a number of psychiatrists. Dr. William Carpenter, who was then, and still is, at the University of Maryland Medical School. He was a specialist in schizophrenia. Their other experts were Dr. Thomas Goldman from Washington, D.C., and Dr. Ernst Pralinger, who was a professor at Yale. How and why they were selected, I don’t know. With the criminal responsibility defense, you have quite different rules of evidence. In the ordinary criminal trial, the issues are who committed the crime and what crime or crimes were committed. In most insanity cases, those questions are usually already decided. Rather than those questions, the insanity defense involves the more difficult question of why the defendant committed the crime. So the trial has a much broader scope. So you look for forensic psychiatrists who are willing to go back in time and look at the factors indicating the “why.” As an example, Dr. Dietz read everything that Mr. Hinckley ever read or wrote. Mr. Hinckley wrote poems and stories. Dr. Dietz read all of those things. In the ordinary trial, the rules of relevance are pretty tight. In the area of insanity, or criminal responsibility, it’s quite different. The D.C. Circuit Court – 108 – has established that basically any evidence that influences mental process, regardless of how tenuous or how old, may be relevant in a criminal responsibility case. In the Hinckley case, the criminal acts occurred within a few seconds in 1981, but yet Mr. Hinckley was permitted to introduce evidence from his parents of what he was like as a teenager and a sub-teen, such as that he was obsessed with the Beatles. I raise that because it is certainly logically important to go back into the past to understand one’s mental condition, but still, it is tremendously distracting and may be confusing to a jury to introduce such evidence, because they may think, right or wrong, that because he was treated harshly by a school teacher, or he didn’t complete his math assignment, or something like that, he suffered from a mental disorder and was not responsible for a criminal act years later. Criminal defense opens broad areas of relevance. At the trial, the defense, for instance, was able, over our objection, to play the movie of Taxi Driver for the jury. It was good entertainment but was diversionary because it was later argued that Mr. Hinckley was influenced by the movie, which I thought was problematic. Because of the broad rules of relevance, we engaged in extensive investigation. With the insanity defense in mind, we asked the FBI to look for “proximal witnesses,” people who had interactions with Hinckley immediately before the shooting. They found the maid who serviced the hotel room in D.C. in which he was staying. She was called as a witness. We found a maid that serviced a room in a motel in Denver where he had stayed, and she testified. Those people are important because although they don’t know anything about – 109 – psychiatry, they speak in common sense language that the jurors understand. It’s more understandable and sensible for one to say, “Well, I didn’t see anything odd.” Mr. Hinckley on the other hand called people to say just the opposite, particularly his parents. We engaged psychiatrists to do an independent evaluation of Mr. Hinckley. Those were Dr. Dietz, Dr. Rappaport, Dr. Cavanaugh, and Dr. John Monahan from the University of Virginia who is an expert in the prediction of violent behavior. So we developed what I call a wall between us and the psychiatrists. In other words, we were not permitted to have the psychiatrists interview Mr. Hinckley in the next few months and report back to us on what he said. Mr. Pollak: Not your psychiatrists? Mr. Adelman: The prosecutor can’t do that. Mr. Pollak: Because that would be giving you a discovery opportunity? Mr. Adelman: Yes. We gave the psychiatrists we retained access to all the evidence collected by the FBI, all the witnesses that they wanted to talk to, all lay witnesses, to any experts they wanted to use. But we never, until the spring of 1982, when they filed a report, never got any information back from them. Mr. Pollak: I see. But so the flow, just to be clear about that, was they did a lot of work to try to form opinions about whether the act was a product of mental illness? Mr. Adelman: They did it independently of any input from us. In other words, nobody steered them. Mr. Pollak: Then they wrote a report? Mr. Adelman: Yes. – 110 – Mr. Pollak: Each one wrote one? Mr. Adelman: They wrote a joint report. It details all their study and their analysis. Basically they reached the conclusion that Mr. Hinckley suffered from personality disorders but not from a psychosis. On the other side, the defense – Mr. Pollak: Well let me ask another question. So you received a report, and was it your intention to put them, or one of them, or two of them, on the stand? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: And under the rules, what opportunity did you have to prepare with the psychiatrist? Mr. Adelman: Quite a bit. Mr. Pollak: You did? And you could handle your wall and still prepare them? Mr. Adelman: Well the wall came down after they handed us their report and it was given to the defense. Their report was filed months before the trial. Mr. Pollak: I see. Mr. Adelman: The need for the wall is to insure that the prosecutors or the FBI do not use the psychiatric interview as an interrogation device. This was not novel with this case by any means. The defense, on the other hand, didn’t have such a restriction. Now I don’t know what they did because they operated under attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege. When the defense doctors actually testify, the privileges are waived. Eventually, their doctors, particularly Dr. Carpenter and Dr. Goldman, came to the conclusion that Mr. Hinckley was not criminally responsible because he suffered from schizophrenia, or as Dr. Carpenter put it, that he had “process schizophrenia.” That of course became a – 111 – big issue at the trial. Much of the testimony of Dr. Carpenter was devoted to that. But in any event, during the pretrial phase, there were some significant legal developments here, motions. One of them was — Mr. Pollak: And who was trying the case? Mr. Adelman: Well, Judge Barrington Parker was the trial judge. Mr. Pollak: I have in the office here two District Court opinions that probably were issued pre-trial to rule on issues that would address the kind of evidence the court would receive. And those District Court decisions were decisions of Judge Parker? Mr. Adelman: That’s right. On the evening of the shooting, Mr. Hinckley was first brought to the D.C. police headquarters, then later taken to the FBI office. He asked for a lawyer when he was at the D.C. police headquarters. Under Miranda, once counsel is requested, no interrogation can occur. So the police and the FBI didn’t interrogate him. But during the processing at the FBI, as they took his fingerprints and they took his picture and did other processing, he and the agents engaged in banter about the national college basketball final that night. LSU was playing. Mr. Hinckley told the agents that he was an LSU fan and talked to the agents about the merits of the LSU team – typical sports banter. That may seem totally innocuous, but that was very important from our point of view because it was some evidence of his ability to relate to reality on March 30, 1981. He knew about the game, he knew who was playing who, he talked about some of the – 112 – stars for LSU, and the agents said, nah, they liked the other team, you know, typical back-and-forth that sports fans do. We sought to introduce that to show his mental state. We argued that it showed he was in touch with reality, because he was accurately telling them about what was going on that night regarding the game. The defense made the argument that his earlier request for counsel prevented this under Miranda. We answered by saying Miranda only covers statements offered to incriminate. We contended that we were not seeking to introduce the banter to incriminate him, but as evidence of his mental state. Judge Parker ruled in favor of the defense. We appealed to the D.C. Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Hinckley. So we couldn’t introduce that evidence. It was suppressed. There was another issue I might mention. While he was at Butner, the guards seized papers from Mr. Hinckley’s cell. We wanted to introduce some of those. The judge ruled that he had a right of privacy in the jail cell, therefore the seizure of those papers violated the Fourth Amendment. We appealed to the Circuit, and we lost that one as well. Some years later, the Supreme Court, in another case, ruled that a person doesn’t have a right of privacy in a jail cell. One other point became a theme in the trial, as I mentioned, part of the standard was whether you can appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct, and the defense took the position that “appreciate” means subjectively appreciate. In other words, the focus on each individual’s ability to appreciate. We took the position that appreciate means objectively appreciate. The issue was never resolved at trial, but Judge Parker ruled, when Dr. Carpenter testified, that he – 113 – had to confine himself to a form of objective appreciation. The trial started in late March of 1982. Mr. Pollak: A year later? Mr. Adelman: A year later because we had these appeals, and we had an extended time for examination of Mr. Hinckley. The examination was not only oral examinations by the different doctors but also physical examinations and psychological tests. And I recall that Mr. Ruff was still the United States Attorney when these issues arose so it must have been late in 1981 or early 1982, we were still litigating these motions. Mr. Pollak: There’s generally a speedy trial requirement. Did the parties agree on the schedule? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Because it was certainly in the defense’s interest to have as thorough an examination of the case and of Mr. Hinckley by their people as they could do, and likewise with us. Mr. Pollak: Did you spend your full time preparing the case in that year? Mr. Adelman: Yes. In the spring of 1981 I was devoted almost entirely to that case. I had some other trials, but I think after then, I was doing that entirely. We formed a team of prosecutors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Dick Chapman and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Tucker. We were three prosecutors in court. When Mr. Ruff was U.S. Attorney in 1981 and early 1982, he was in court and spoke for the government. In early 1982, Mr. Ruff was replaced by Stanley Harris. Mr. Harris became the United States Attorney, and he supervised the Hinckley case. Mr. Pollak: By then, you were fully in charge, although you might report to Stanley Harris? – 114 – Mr. Adelman: Yes. That’s right. Mr. Pollak: Was there any possibility that when you appealed these rulings that you lost in the Court of Appeals and you lost there, that you’d try to take them to the Supreme Court. Mr. Adelman: That was considered – I think the Solicitor General’s Office looked at these issues. The Solicitor General decided, on balance, that we should to go forward with the trial. Mr. Pollak: The trial. Mr. Adelman: The trial began in late March with jury selection that consumed several days. We had an individual voir dire, which takes a long time because you bring each juror up to the front of the judge and ask questions privately, of course, specific individual questions, and the typical question of course was have you heard, or what you heard and read, can you put that aside and decide the case for which you’re in court, and people would tell us one way or the other. Other issues of course included whether any of the jurors had any background or treatment or whatever in the area of psychiatry or psychology and so forth, so it was rather extensive. This one took a long time. Mr. Pollak: We skipped over the indictment. Is there anything to put on the record about that? Mr. Adelman: Well, one significant thing about the indictment, of course, was that Mr. Hinckley was charged under the federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or attempt to kill the President. Therefore the investigation of the shooting would be conducted by federal authorities, the DOJ and the FBI. Mr. Hinckley – 115 – was charged with several D.C. offenses. I believe it was a 12-count indictment. The indictment basically used standard language. In the District of Columbia, indictments are somewhat formalistic. A lot of the detail that I have mentioned was not in the indictment but was part of the proof at trial. The presentation of the insanity defense in the District had a different format than a typical criminal trial. In the usual criminal trial, the government goes first and introduces evidence to show guilt. The defense then responds. It may put on no evidence. And there may be some rebuttal by the government if appropriate. That’s it. Where the insanity – or criminal responsibility – defense is involved, the government presents its evidence of the crime. The defense then presents its evidence on the issue of a defendant’s criminal responsibility. In the Hinckley case, the shootings were televised so they didn’t dispute that he had a gun or that he shot the President or the other victims. They called psychiatrists, psychologists, they called Mr. Hinckley’s parents, they called other people who knew him over the years and also introduced his writings. Mr. Hinckley wrote poetry and prose, and also there was an occasion where he tape recorded himself, I think on a New Year’s Eve, and they introduced that tape. The defense rested. Mr. Hinckley did not testify. Then the government put on rebuttal of the criminal responsibility evidence. We put on our doctors, other witness evidence and documents. After we presented our rebuttal, the judge, over our objection I might add, allowed the defense to present a “surrebuttal,” to recall some of their psychiatrists to answer the testimony of our psychiatrists. – 116 – But that was the judge’s call. As I say, we objected to it. Then the jury was instructed, and we proceeded to the verdict. Essentially we proved in the first part of the case what happened by showing the tape, by the videotape, by calling the witnesses who were next to Mr. Hinckley including people from the press who were just there covering the President’s appearance and speech, as well as other people who were there. We introduced the gun, we introduced all the physical evidence involving what had happened, plus all the things that had been seized at his hotel in Washington. Much of that evidence, like the letter to Jodie Foster, bore both on his criminality and mental condition. This is why it’s such a close case – both sides wanted the letter to Jodie Foster introduced. We wanted to introduce it because it showed before the crime, it illustrated his intent to kill. They wanted to introduce it to show this is somebody who shoots a President to impress a teenage actress. Another example, before the shooting, Mr. Hinckley had travelled around the country, almost peripatetically on buses and so forth, to the west coast, Midwest, and so forth, back east, and eventually to Washington. We wanted to show that to show his ability to organize himself, to make, you know, make the schedule in Denver, make the schedule in Chicago, to integrate or organize his behavior. They wanted it in to show that he was acting bizarrely, travelling all over the place without direction. Such evidence supports both sides. That’s why this was a tough case. Our basic presentation of the facts was to introduce the facts but also lay the foundation in the fact evidence to show back down the road when our doctors testified that he was responsible for the – 117 – acts that he committed. For instance, I mentioned the Devastator bullets which had exploding tips. He had in the hotel room about 34 bullets, only a few of which were Devastators. But he loaded the entire cylinder of the gun with Devastator bullets. He left the ordinary bullets behind. That became an issue in my cross with one of the defense psychiatrists. So that’s the way we went about our proof. The defense then came on. Essentially they said as follows: “This is a bizarre act. This is not the act of a normal person.” Dr. Goldman and Dr. Carpenter said, “This man is schizophrenic.” Schizophrenia, of course, is a serious mental disorder characterized by delusions and loss of contact with reality. The cross-examination of those doctors was directed to show our position that notwithstanding the label on his mental condition, he still had the ability to appreciate and conform. For example, Dr. Carpenter testified that he didn’t have that ability. I led him through the fact that he had a gun in his room. He left the room, and he walked ten blocks to Connecticut Avenue, he got into the crowd, he waited there for 45 minutes. So we would later argue that he was able to hide the gun from detection. As we saw it, he understood the wrongfulness of what he was undertaking, and he could control his behavior. He didn’t shoot the President when he first arrived. He didn’t go into a rampage. He waited until he got a good shot which was after the President came out of the hotel after his speech. Mr. Pollak: Was the jury attentive? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Absolutely. – 118 – In any event, I keep mentioning these two psychiatrists. They called other witnesses including psychologists, they called Mr. and Mrs. Hinckley who described in great detail his history from the time he was an infant all the way through and — Mr. Pollak: They were probably very much convinced that he was sick. Mr. Adelman: Yes. They also called Dr. Hopper. Dr. Hopper was a psychiatrist Mr. Hinckley was seeing in Colorado before he left Denver. Dr. Hopper conceded that Mr. Hinckley didn’t tell him important things. Dr. Hopper didn’t have a full understanding of Hinckley because Hinckley didn’t tell him, for instance, that he was travelling around the country or that he had a phantom girlfriend. But they called him. When they rested, then we put on our doctors, first Dr. Sally Johnson. Dr. Park Dietz represented our team of doctors. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, we called a number of ordinary folks, people who saw him along the way, while he was travelling, people who cleaned the room and so forth, to explain what they thought of his mental condition was. D.C. law permits lay people to give opinion as to mental condition. You can’t call a lay person to say, well I think he’s organic or I think he’s got schizophrenia, but they can say, hey, he seemed normal to me. Both sides put on psychological testimony as well as psychiatric testimony, so it was a full presentation. I don’t read the newspapers during a trial. I don’t watch TV, so I had no idea how this was registering. I do that because I don’t want to be influenced by somebody’s view in the media. And – 119 – of course the jurors are instructed not to read the newspapers. Jurors are not permitted to do that. Mr. Pollak: Do you think they obey that? Mr. Adelman: Yes. The issue is, though, and I argued this to Judge Parker, we had an issue as to whether jurors should be sequestered. That is to say, whether jurors be kept in a hotel during the trial. He ruled no. We argued that the jurors probably would obey the admonition not to discuss the case. But the court can’t control people around them – their families, their friends – who might discuss the case with them. Mr. Pollak: Did you present the final argument, or did you share it? Mr. Adelman: I did both arguments. I did the opening, I did the closing. And Mr. Fuller did the same thing for the defense. Mr. Pollak: It perhaps maximizes your chance of making a connection with the jury. Mr. Adelman: Well, you can debate it. I’ve seen trials where the prosecutors split opening argument and the rebuttal argument. It just depends. But that’s the way it was done here. Then the judge instructed the jury, and as I mentioned, he applied the Brawner standard. That was important, and also instructed that we had the burden of proof to show Mr. Hinckley was responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. The deliberations lasted through the weekend. The case was argued on a Thursday. Mr. Pollak: How long was the trial? Mr. Adelman: Well, we concluded on June 21st. We started, I believe, in late March. – 120 – Mr. Pollak: Would you go four days a week? Mr. Adelman: Five. We had one interesting interlude if I can tell you one of the reasons the trial was long. At one point the defense called a psychiatrist who took the position that based on his analysis of the structure of Hinckley’s brain on CT scan, if the sulci were wide and so thus would suggest that he might have schizophrenia. We argued that his opinion was outside settled science, was misleading, and was unfairly prejudicial. We had a hearing on the matter outside the jury’s presence. The judge basically allowed the jury to hear that testimony. He didn’t allow it all in, but he allowed them to introduce the CT scan of pictures of Mr. Hinckley’s brain, CT scan, and some testimony about that. So we argued the case, jury got it. They deliberated through the weekend, and on Monday night they come back with the verdict. They found Mr. Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity on all counts. The reaction was strong in the public and the media. I have not read all of that, but I’ve read some of that, and certainly a lot of people didn’t agree with the verdict. Mr. Hinckley was immediately committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital under the 1955 statute. That statute requires that an NGI-acquitter be committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. At the hospital of course they’re supposed to receive treatment for the mental disorder. Over the years after the case there have been several requests by Hinckley to be released. Most of those occurred after I left the Office at the end of 1987. Mr. Pollak: You’ve been a spectator? – 121 – Mr. Adelman: Totally. I’ve had nothing to do with the case since 1987. We had hearings from 1982 through 1987 periodically on his release, but not anywhere near the number of hearings that have occurred since 1988 going forward to now, and I can just today say the case is now assigned to Judge Paul Friedman. One more thing about the reaction to the verdict, which was the public reaction and the Congressional reaction. Hearings were held in Congress, shortly after the verdict. I didn’t testify on any part of that, some prominent psychiatrists and students in the field testified. Congress also called some of the jurors. Some of the jurors testified. I don’t think this was a good idea to put jurors in that position. Jury service is a public service, and I don’t think people should have any responsibility beyond their service as jurors, particularly to explain their verdict, especially since jury deliberations are secret. Caution has to be used with post-verdict interviews of jurors, no matter whether by lawyers, a senator or anybody else. The jurors who testified basically said the burden of proof was a factor. It shows the significance of the Davis decision by the Supreme Court putting the burden on the government. So Congress took that into account, and in the fall of 1984 enacted for the first time federal legislation to deal with the defense of insanity, or as I would put it, “criminal responsibility.” One important part of the new statute was that the burden should be on the defendant to prove his insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 17(b) enacted in 1984 says, “The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.” Secondly, Congress repealed part of the defense in the Brawner – 122 – standard. It said a defendant can be found NGI if “unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.” Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 17(a) says “The defendant must have a severe mental disease defect,” not simply any mental disease or defect. Mr. Pollak: There was a significant move toward the prosecution. Mr. Adelman: Absolutely. And it was mirrored by later changes in the laws of almost every state. As a consequence, since then there have been relatively few insanity defenses raised in federal court. So that’s a significant part of the after-math of Hinckley. Also in 1984, Congress modified the Federal Rules of Evidence limiting expert opinion testimony. Mr. Pollak: Interesting. It’s interesting in that I’m aware because I was a practicing lawyer during all that time. I’m aware that there was a lot of back-and-forth and criticism of the Durham rule, a lot of people of whatever persuasion thought it went too far. Mr. Adelman: You’re talking in the 1950s and 1960s? Mr. Pollak: Yes. I’m just not as versed on the criticism of Brawner, but I think it probably still drew its share of criticism, and I’m not aware that 18 U.S.C. § 17 has been a subject of much debate. Mr. Adelman: I don’t recall extensive criticism of Brawner. The issue that endured after Brawner was the loose definition of mental disorder. Secondly, Brawner also reaffirmed that the burden was on the government. The 1984 federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 17, calmed the waters. – 123 – Mr. Pollak: You described all of the events and a lot of your role. What would you like to say for history about the whole experience and what you took away from it? Mr. Adelman: Well, I was honored to try this case. I was surprised at myself that I was not more nervous in court, largely because, and it may seem silly, but you’re really not facing the audience when you examine a witness. You face the witness or you face the jury. I also walled myself off, as I mentioned, from outside influence. Mr. Pollak: In hindsight, would you have done anything differently? Mr. Adelman: No. Mr. Pollak: Without either seeking praise or denigration of the defense team, did they make any moves that you thought were unusually helpful to them? How did they handle their responsibilities? I know you have high regard for them. Mr. Adelman: I do. The one thing that struck me about their presentation was the focus, both in the evidence they brought out from their witnesses and examination of our witnesses. I recall Mr. Fuller and Mr. Craig had particular issues they wanted to develop, and that was it. In other words, they had a pre-planned purpose for direct and cross and got to it and that was it. Mr. Pollak: Did that serve them well? Mr. Adelman: Well I guess it did. You never know and frankly I never talked to any of the jurors. So we just don’t know why they decided the way they did. Mr. Pollak: Did anything come out when the jurors were testifying? Mr. Adelman: Only a few of the jurors testified before Congress. The only thing that sticks in my mind is they mentioned that the burden of proof was a factor. But I caution – 124 – you on that. Post-verdict interviews of jurors either collectively or individually are quite unreliable because the jury’s reached a verdict; one side is delighted, the other side is disappointed, and depending on who talks to them, they’re going to say different things. A jury verdict in a criminal case is literally a collective decision of twelve people, so to ask a few of them “why did you reach that conclusion,” they can’t speak for the whole twelve. A jury verdict is a collective dynamic. I don’t think any one juror or a group of jurors can fully recreate it. Mr. Pollak: Did you ever talk about the case with Barrington Parker after? Mr. Adelman: No. Judge Parker was a by-the-book, straight-laced fellow. I tried a lot of cases in front of him afterward, but we never discussed the case. Mr. Pollak: Were you disappointed? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Mr. Pollak: How do you handle something like that? Mr. Adelman: You put your head down and just keep going forward. Just go back and start trying cases, which I did. And I think that’s probably the attitude the other prosecutors had – just get back into the fray. Mr. Pollak: How long did the jury deliberate? Mr. Adelman: The court submitted the case to them on Thursday. They were out part of that Thursday, then Friday, Saturday, and for some time on Sunday, and then all day Monday. I can’t compute the number of hours, but it was quite a while. And of course you know you’re talking about several weeks of testimony, a lot of documents, technical issues, medical issues, and so there’s a lot to talk about. – 125 – Mr. Pollak: I think it’s wonderful to have your report and to have your recall, and I believe that history is the beneficiary. So we’ll close it out for today. Mr. Adelman: Okay. Oral History of Roger M. Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewee is Roger Adelman, and the interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on February 16, 2009 at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the sixth interview. Mr. Pollak: Today is Monday, February 16. Good morning, Roger. Mr. Adelman: Good morning, again. Mr. Pollak: When we left off at our last session, it was with the verdict in the Hinckley trial, and you said that you would speak about the post-verdict proceedings. So let’s start there. Both with your involvement in them and what they were. Mr. Adelman: The verdict was delivered on June 21, 1982. There was an outcry in the press and in the public about the verdict. That caused several things to happen that are really important to this day with respect to the federal defense of criminal responsibility or insanity. After the verdict, Mr. Hinckley was immediately committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. He remains there today. Under the law, he must remain there until he’s no longer dangerous to himself or others because of a mental disorder. That determination would be made by a D.C. federal judge because that’s the court from which he was committed. Congress reacted to the verdict by holding hearings on the insanity defense in the summer of 1982. I didn’t participate. Some of the jurors were invited to testify as well as many psychiatrists and other experts. In October 1984, Congress enacted legislation to make the changes in the federal insanity defense, the Insanity Defense Reform Act, “IDRA.” They included, for the first time, a statutory test for criminal responsibility. The 1984 statute requires that – 127 – the defendant must prove a severe mental disorder and that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness at the time of the crime. The conform behavior prong of the ALI test was eliminated. This is the first time Congress had ever legislated in the field of insanity. Mr. Pollak: You mean criminal? Mr. Adelman: Criminal. Yes. Very importantly, Congress also changed the burden of proof. By virtue of the Davis decision of a Supreme Court opinion in the 19th century, when a federal defendant raised the defense of insanity, the burden was put upon the government. The government had to prove sanity, or criminal responsibility, beyond a reasonable doubt. The 1984 IDRA changed that and put the burden on the defendant to show his insanity by clear and convincing evidence. This made a stark change. One of the critiques of the Hinckley trial, justified or not, was that it was a battle of experts. The 1984 legislation also included a provision amending the Federal Rules of Evidence to prohibit expert opinion on the ultimate issue of mental condition. As that has played out, it means experts can testify as to their psychiatric analysis, but they can’t use the magic words, “not responsible,” “responsible,” or “appreciate wrongfulness.” The significance of the IDRA has been profound because many states have enacted new statutes modeled on it, and my sense is that the number of insanity defenses has significantly diminished. Mr. Pollak Have you personally had any prosecutions after Hinckley where the mental NGI defense was raised, or have you been sought out as a private attorney for cases in which mental disorder defense was sought to be presented? – 128 – Mr. Adelman: I stayed in the Office until the end of 1987. I don’t believe that I prosecuted any cases from 1982 to 1987 involving the defense of insanity. Since I’ve left the government, I certainly have represented people who have mental disorders. Now, I can’t go into detail here because of privileges, but I’ve never put on an insanity defense on the merits in court. I wanted to go back to Mr. Hinckley because we left the story in 1982. I stayed in the Office until the end of 1987. During that time, 1982 to 1987, Mr. Hinckley himself on occasion, and his lawyers on occasion, would file petitions with the court for release. Mr. Pollak: Can I just ask, did his lawyers continue to be the Williams & Connolly firm? Mr. Adelman: Yes, they did as long as I was in the case, until the end of 1987 – Mr. Fuller, Mr. Craig, Mr. Babby, and Ms. Miller. The modes of release from St. Elizabeths are as follows. First is absolute release from the hospital with no restrictions or conditions. That person must demonstrate – and on this, the patient has the burden – that he is no longer suffering from mental disease or defect or is no longer a danger to himself or others because of mental disease or defect. The second kind of release is a conditional release which is part of the hospital’s therapeutic plan for the NGIcommitted person to put them on a track where they will be released into custodial, community, or accompanied visits into the community, to get them on the way toward release. The hospital has and has had a penal wing, John Howard Pavilion, where people who have been NGI’d for crimes are housed. Mr. Hinckley was committed to John Howard Pavilion. The patient or his – 129 – counsel can petition the court for release. Or the hospital can initiate the release request. In the 1970s, before Mr. Hinckley was NGI’d, there were a series of hearings in which I represented the government involving people who had been NGI’d. These cases developed important case law in the District of Columbia. One, the burden is on the patient to prove eligibility for release, not the government; two, the government could participate in the release process before the court. It can be part of the hearing process and call witnesses, usually experts, or get independent experts to testify. In one case, it was held by the Circuit Court that even though the defendant had four psychiatrists testifying for him and the government had no experts, the court still had discretion to deny release if evidence did not support release. In 1983, Mr. Hinckley initiated petitions for release. Some of them were relative to the conditions under which he was confined. Some of them were opposed by the hospital, some not. They all were heard by Judge Barrington Parker. Judge Parker continued on the case because he’d been the trial judge. These spawned a litigation of its own. Mr. Hinckley had claimed that he was ready to be released. The hospital found a number of pictures of Jodie Foster in his room, and that became an issue. It also was developed at the post-trial hearing that Mr. Hinckley was writing to Theodore Bundy, a convicted murderer, who was on death row in Florida. We issued subpoenas once we found out about it, and Mr. Bundy’s lawyer responded. We asked him for all documents from John Hinckley, and Bundy produced them. In any event, when the court found out he was communicating with Ted Bundy, that halted that – 130 – attempt by Mr. Hinckley to get released. My recollection was that the letters were of a friendly nature by Mr. Hinckley towards Ted Bundy, so the judge understandably didn’t grant those releases. In fact, I think the hospital, when they found out about the correspondence, withdrew their release petition. Mr. Pollak: Withdrew their position on — Mr. Adelman: Yes. They didn’t support it. That raises the question generally of the adequacy of the investigation that the hospital did. I left the Office in 1987, and Mr. Hinckley’s case remained in front of Judge Parker until he passed away. It was assigned then to Judge June Green. Now it’s before Judge Paul Friedman. Those assignments were made by the court at random. From 1988 onward, there has been litigation on Hinckley’s release. Hinckley has filed applications for release, assisted by counsel. The government’s been represented by AUSA Dick Chapman and AUSA Tom Zeno. And Tom Zeno has carried the case since Dick retired. Tom was not on the trial team. From time to time issues have arisen about his releasability. There was an occasion, and again I’ll sharpen this up for you, where in this last decade he sought release, but the hospital produced a witness – I think she was a medical officer or nurse assigned to the hospital – who said that Mr. Hinckley was interested in her in an unwanted way. That’s one example. There were other instances I believe of information coming from the hospital to suggest that he shouldn’t be released. Judge Friedman has written several opinions with respect to the release issues. Now Mr. Hinckley’s family, mother and father, moved some time ago from Texas to Williamsburg, Virginia, and they were very supportive, they have – 131 – always been supportive of him, and sought to have him released into their custody. Judge Friedman has allowed a conditional release for him to go to Williamsburg in hospital custody. Unfortunately, Mr. Jack Hinckley died, and I believe Mrs. Hinckley is not in the best of health. Under the law, the government can oppose release, so, should the judge issue a release order, the government can appeal that too. Mr. Pollak: Has it ever gone to the Court of Appeals? Mr. Adelman: Yes it has. There is a great compendium about the Hinckley trial and the law in a book written by Professors Richard Bonnie, Peter Lowe and John Jeffries of the University of Virginia Law School. It is a teaching vehicle focusing on the Hinckley case and the insanity defense. It’s called The Trial of John Hinckley. It has a complete compendium of law and the opinions. I should say I have had nothing to do with, and will never have anything to do with, the release hearings. I’m out of the government, I left the business to be handled by the lawyers, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Zeno, and the other lawyers for the government. I don’t participate. Mr. Pollak: Right. Your statement reflects that from the time you left the government because before then you — Mr. Adelman: From the day I walked out the door on the 24th of December 1987, and from then to now, I have had nothing to do with the case. I followed it in the media with interest, but that’s it. And of course from time to time I get requests to make public comment on it, but I don’t do that. – 132 – Mr. Pollak: It’s a very interesting history in light of the fact that there have been other attempts, some successful, on the lives of Presidents, and I guess Mr. Hinckley’s history is the most extensive involvement of the courts. Mr. Adelman: Without question. Because of the care with which the case was handled by both sides at trial, the scrutiny that he’s been given at St. Elizabeths Hospital, and the public scrutiny of the case throughout the years. Mr. Pollak: Does that close out the commentary that you want to make about the Hinckley case? Mr. Adelman: I think so. Mr. Pollak: Do you think that the height of public interest and press interest in the case had an influence on how it went? Mr. Adelman: You mean on the jury verdict? Mr. Pollak: In whatever happened, from the beginning to the end. Mr. Adelman: During the trial, until the trial’s over, I’m the worst person to ask because I purposely don’t read the papers or don’t watch television so I have no idea what the coverage was. In fact, I still have a pile of newspapers about the case from 1982 that I’ve never read. I really believe that a lawyer should not do that because it tends to influence your judgment in the case. Afterward, of course, immediately afterward, there was a great deal of press on the trial. I’ve read some of that. The jurors were not sequestered during the trial but the judge sequestered them during the deliberations. They deliberated from Thursday to Monday, through the weekend. We had asked prior to the trial, the government, that the jury be sequestered throughout the trial. I remember arguing at the time – 133 – that although I felt that the jurors would obey any instruction that the judge would give with respect to not watching television, reading about the case in the press, whatever, that we couldn’t guarantee that they would be immune from hearing about the case from friends and family members. In 1987, I decided to leave the government, and I decided to go with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. They had a Washington presence. And I certainly felt comfortable there and it was a good opportunity, so I went there in early 1988. Mr. Pollak: So you and I were in the same building, at 1800 Mass. Mr. Adelman: Right. K&L, when I started there, was at 1800 M, then we moved in the mid1990s to 1800 Mass. Shea & Gardner occupied the top floors there. I was a partner at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart for nine years. I was there to do white collar work but civil litigation too. This was my first real exposure to the private practice of law, and also the business of law, the practicalities of getting clients, client relationships, keeping your hours, keeping track of records, managing associates and such. K&L was an extremely well-run firm. They’re now called KLGates. Very good people. High-level management and high-level organization. My practice switched from local cases in the D.C. court system to the broader system of corporate and large entity representation all over the country. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, your cases were in Washington, D.C. In private practice, I had matters all over the country. You deal with different courts, different practices, different judges. I left K&L in 1997 to start my own practice. Mr. Pollak: Is that what you’ve done since? Been on your own? – 134 – Mr. Adelman: Yes. Well, I’ve been on my own. I left in 1997 because while in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I had developed a close friendship with a wonderful guy, Patrick Coughlin. We became very close friends. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C., somewhat younger than me, and I was a mentor to him. He went to California and served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney there, and then in the late 1980s, he joined a class-action law firm in San Diego. In the 1990s, he asked me from time to time whether I would join them. And I, for various reasons, didn’t do that. In 1997 he asked again. The specific reason for that request in 1977 was that at that point his firm had brought class action cases against the large tobacco companies, Big Tobacco. That’s Phillip Morris, Lorillard and others – the well-known big tobacco companies. And Pat was the first lawyer to sue the tobacco companies in California in 1991 and 1992. He carried that through for many years. But in 1997 he called me and said, “We would like you to work with us on tobacco cases.” I said, “Look, I’ll do that but I’ll start my own practice here.” So I did. I have my own firm and I work with his firm but I am not a member of his firm. I’ve had some good fortune in my life, and in this case, the fortuity was being able then to rent office space from Plato Cacheris. Plato is the don of the trial D.C. Bar. He’s been practicing here since 1956. For many years he practiced with a gentleman named Bill Hundley, and they were the best white collar boutique in the city, if not in the United States, but more importantly, Plato was a friend. If there’s a nicer guy in the practice than Plato, I don’t know him. I had known Plato over the years. He was representing people in grand jury investigations when I started the defense – 135 – work, he was in cases I handled, so I got to know him. He’s a real gentleman and he is of the old school, professional and seasoned and is in his 80s and still going at it. In 1997, I decided to leave Kirkpatrick. I decided that these class action tobacco cases was an opportunity for me. These cases were national litigation on an important issue. So I wanted to do it. So I walked down the street to Plato Cacheris’s office. I explained the situation, and he said, “Hey, I’ve got some room, come on down.” So I rented space from him, and I’m still there today. He’s since moved to another firm. We were never partners, we had no professional relationship, but we had a strong personal relationship. So I was able to start my practice, continue white collar work, and then work on cases with the California firm. So I developed a hybrid practice. I have my own practice here, but I also work with the California people around the country on their cases. Mr. Pollak: In those years of criminal prosecution, comment on how often you think the jury reached the wrong verdict. Mr. Adelman: There were cases I lost, or other prosecutors lost, that should have been won. It was sometimes frustrating to try cases only to get a not-guilty verdict or a hung jury. I recall a case we tried three or four times that I thought was straight-up and strong, and in the first trial the jury saw it 11 to 1 to acquit, and in the second trial, the jury voted 11 to 1 to convict, and so forth. You lost cases. As a prosecutor you lose cases and you learn from your losses. I did not follow the practice of talking to the jurors after the verdict, for a lot of reasons. – 136 – Mr. Pollak: Why not? Mr. Adelman: Well, number one, from a practical point of view, you generally can’t get them all together so you don’t get a full picture. Also, under our court rules, if the judge permits it, both sides have to be there, so there’s a built-in pressure. I think the jurors are naturally hesitant to disclose all the details of their deliberation. And jurors are volunteers, and I don’t think that volunteering should include being pressed by the lawyers after the case. Mr. Pollak: What about the somewhat similar but different question and that is the best cross-examiner during your time? Mr. Adelman: The master of the masters, of all the cross-examiners I ever saw, was on the bench – that was Judge Bill Bryant. Judge Bryant, as any judge, had the right to examine witnesses, and many times in my cases and other cases I saw, he would politely say to the lawyers. “May I ask him a few questions,” typically of a police officer. I’d listen to him, and you can see exactly what he’s doing. He always taught by example. For instance, on cross only ask a few questions. I’ve studied some of the cases he tried where he was a trial lawyer, particularly the famous Mallory case, and he and I talked about that and we’ve spent a lot of time talking about cross-examination. I learned a lot from him. I saw Edward Bennett Williams a couple times, and he was masterful. I saw him in the John Connolly case and even in the Bobby Baker case. Mr. Williams was a dominating presence in the court, and was a master of the facts. Mr. Pollak: Let’s move into your private practice. What was it like making the change? And what are the elements that you would identify as reflecting the change? – 137 – Mr. Adelman: First, clients. When I was with the government, we don’t have clients. The people I talked to there were police and the victims and the witnesses. As a private attorney, you see the pressure on people, particularly in a white collar case, that people are under. And I didn’t have that insight before. You may represent a man, but his wife has a ton of questions, and while you are not her lawyer, you’re obviously impelled to answer those questions too. You see the impact that a criminal investigation has on a person. Investigations may or may not produce charges, but the pressure is the same. And in white collar work, so you’re often dealing with clients who haven’t encountered the criminal justice system before. They had no conception really of what would happen in court and usually their only point of reference was television. Mr. Pollak: Did you represent people over the years who were being investigated by Congress, for example? Mr. Adelman: No. Mr. Pollak: Just mostly in federal or state court? Mr. Adelman: Yes. I do not recall anybody who was under congressional investigation directly. In other words, I was never contacted to go up to the Hill with them. Mr. Pollak: You never were a lobbyist? Mr. Adelman: No. Mr. Pollak: Not that defending someone on an investigation makes one a lobbyist. I don’t use the term that way. Mr. Adelman: I know what you mean. Representing people in criminal investigations or a trial is partly a teaching function or a counseling function as it is an on-your-feet – 138 – advocacy. The client has lots of questions, and I tell them rather than sit around and ponder something, pick up the phone and call me. That’s one dynamic of private practice. People ask me how can you change sides. Of course the easy answer to that is that most defense attorneys had at one time been prosecutors, like Bob Bennett or Earl Silbert. But one thing that helped me on the transition issue tremendously is teaching. I taught at Georgetown starting in 1975 and did for 24 years. I taught Evidence; I taught Trial Practice; I taught in the Criminal Justice Clinic. In teaching, you have to study and present both prosecution and defense points of view. So the transition to defense work wasn’t that hard for me. And as a prosecutor, when you prepare a case for trial, you prepare twice. You prepare your presentation, but then you think about the other side, and in your mind, you say, ‘How am I going to deal with this? For instance, what’s Ed Brown going to do with this witness? What’s John Shorter going to do with that witness? Or, for that matter, what’s Judge Bryant going to ask the witness?’ As the defense attorney, one of your roles is to figure out what the government will do. From experience as an Assistant, I can give them some ideas about what the government might do. Mr. Pollak: Did you find over these many years that you’ve done it as a defense lawyer on white collar cases that Washington differs from some other locations? Mr. Adelman: I think it’s easier to try cases in a place that you’re known, you know some of the prosecutors. U.S. Attorneys throughout the country are uniformly professional. They are all governed by the Department of Justice rules. – 139 – Mr. Pollak: What about the move from criminal to civil? Did you immediately begin doing civil as well as criminal defense work? Mr. Adelman: Not immediately, but K&L did a lot of civil securities work. They also did other kinds of civil work such as environmental matters. And I participated in some of that. My task there was to develop a white collar practice. Mr. Pollak: In civil cases, do most of them settle? Mr. Adelman: Yes. Rarely does a civil case go to trial. With the California firm, we tried a tobacco case, a rather lengthy case. I wanted to add that civil RICO is sort of a hybrid between criminal and civil. Mr. Pollak: Did you undertake representations in settlements, to negotiate settlements? Mr. Adelman: Sure. Civil and criminal. And that too is enlightening in terms of trying to think – well, when you work at a large firm, particularly, you have a lot of colleagues. I think that’s the other difference between the solo practice, you have people you walk down the hall and say hey, you’ve done this before, or you’ve done that before, what about this, what about that. In a smaller practice, you can do it but you have to pick up the phone and call someone. Mr. Pollak: Do you want to say something about the kinds of clients you’ve represented? I think you had referred to the tobacco industry, but I don’t believe that you’ve – and maybe you want to handle it over a sort of a timeframe or do you want to state now? Mr. Adelman: In my own practice, because I’m representing almost entirely individuals. They have been from all walks of life – public officials, labor union officials, private citizens, businesspeople, athletes and law enforcement agents. – 140 – Mr. Pollak: We were still in the transition time, from prosecution to defense and civil practice. Mr. Adelman: Another theme I think is important in civil litigation is the significance of documents. In criminal cases, and in some white collar criminal cases, documents don’t play as big a role. It’s usually what a witness saw, what someone said and did. In civil cases, documents become important. and now, of course, to the definition of documents we must add electronic documents. You need people who will spend the time to decide what documents are important, the “hot documents.” So the paper aspect in these cases is much more important. Mr. Pollak: What I understand you to be saying is that a large law firm may have a lot of lawyers who are doing litigation and they may be involved in civil discovery and summary judgment proceedings, court proceedings, but very few of them may have actually tried cases because so few cases go to trial? Mr. Adelman: Exactly. And that is unfortunate. I think the jury trial dynamics, the jury trial training, the jury trial experience, is very important for a lawyer. It helps you advise the client what you think will happen. And personally, there’s nothing better in the world than getting up on your feet and doing it yourself. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win, but you do it and you learn. Mr. Pollak: Right. The deposition is the closest many people come to having a court experience. Mr. Adelman: Well, the deposition is a form of practice. If you go to a basketball game, before the game, the teams come out and warm up. That’s what a deposition is – 141 – like. In the pre-game practice you shoot, there’s nobody guarding you, there’s no referee, and you do crazy shots, there’s no opposition. Depositions are much like that because there’s no judge, the rules of evidence essentially are suspended, it seems that you can ask any related question you want to get information. Mr. Pollak: Megafirms. One of the things that you yourself personally represent is what megafirms have done and that is to bring in capable, experienced trial lawyers who can develop a white collar crime practice essentially like having a boutique within the megafirm. Mr. Adelman: They do. The trial part of it is tough because people like Plato Cacheris, Jake Stein, Ed Brown, John Shorter, Bill Jeffress and Michelle Roberts essentially function independently. The notion of a white collar trial boutique in a big firm is good, but then your fee structure is tied to the firm’s. The small independent white collar boutiques that existed in Washington in the last decade were more able to adjust their rates depending on what the client needed. That’s not so easy to do in a large firm. You have to bill it at the rates the firm charges. Some of the small boutiques here have dissolved; others have merged into a bigger firms. Mr. Pollak: Do you think that the practice is not producing as many, or do you think that as you get older that you don’t know about what it’s producing in the younger crop? Mr. Adelman: There’s been a great concern there. The American College of Trial Lawyers has undertaken studies of the vanishing jury trial. And I think the American Bar Association as well. – 142 – One thing that has really has killed the jury trial practice in the federal courts is the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. They were enacted in 1984. They became effective in 1987. They’re not really guidelines. They’re basically mandatory sentences. The Guidelines basically in my view were drawn up by people who don’t see the criminal process at ground level. There, among the people that use them, they have a totally different impact. They are extremely unpopular. There have been some judges who have resigned from the bench because of them. Judge Bryant of our federal court has refused to sentence anybody under the Guidelines. Essentially what they do is they take the judge’s discretion away in imposing sentence. Before 1987, the judge could sentence within the statutory range. Under the Guidelines, that discretion is gone. The Guidelines dictate, in an extremely obtuse and labored way, a calculated sentence. The government can control sentencing by the charges it brings. It has also used those Guidelines as plea bargaining tools. So they basically can dictate to a defendant, if you plead guilty, the sentence will be in this range. When selecting federal judges, the government picks the best and the brightest. They are given discretion to decide every difficult issue you can imagine. But with the Guidelines Congress says that these same people should have no discretion. That makes no sense. When you counsel a client, you say, well, you can go to trial but you might end up with a severe sentence, or if you plead, the government is going to offer you a lesser sentence. The government is effectively deciding the sentencing. This phenomena has effectively destroyed the Sixth Amendment right to trial. The Supreme Court has now said – 143 – that the Guidelines are not mandatory but only advisory, but still the judge must give good reasons for a non-guideline sentence. So my sense is that most judges still effectively impose Guideline sentences. Mr. Pollak: Well I think we should let it go there for this session. Oral History of Roger M. Adelman This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewee is Roger Adelman, and the interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place on April 20, 2009 at the offices of Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. This is the seventh interview. Mr. Pollak: Good afternoon, Roger. Mr. Adelman: Good afternoon. Mr. Pollak: You may have had something you wanted to say about Judge Bryant and the Sentencing Guidelines if it differed from Judge Harold Greene and the Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Adelman: Judge Harold Greene and Judge William Bryant didn’t like the Guidelines as was true of many judges. Judge Bryant felt that he was being deprived of the discretion to impose a sentence. By the time the Guidelines came into effect, he had become a senior judge so he could take cases as he saw fit. He would try criminal cases, but my recollection is if there was a conviction, he would never sentence a defendant under the Guidelines. He would refer the case to another judge. He felt that strongly about it. Some defense lawyers would say that the Guidelines – have made it so dangerous to go to trial that people are more willing to accept plea dispositions proposed by the government than to go to trial. Mr. Pollak: Is there a balance now that the Guidelines have become advisory? What’s your evaluation of the best of the reasoning that would support having Guidelines? Mr. Adelman: The main rationale is that they create uniform sentences around the country and some predictability in the sentence that you’ll get. But I think those are false – 145 – predictions. Sentences in my view should be tailored to the individual and not to a rigid calculus. The Guidelines amount to “sentencing by the numbers” as a Washington Post series once put it. Sentencing to me is an individual undertaking, depending on the individual defendant and the details of the particular crime. Though they’re now deemed to be advisory, the courts still heed them, the appellate courts in the federal system will look to the Guidelines to see whether the judge strayed too far away from what the Guidelines would prescribe. So in some ways, they’re still in effect. Mr. Pollak: The other items that you may want to put down, down the road, one you referred to as you described your practice where you have your own firm but you relate to the California firm and you were going to speak to that. Mr. Adelman: I have since 1997 had my own practice but then I also do extensive amounts of litigation with the California firm involving class actions, principally securities class actions. I am not part of the firm, but I work with them pretty steadily on particular cases. We’ve done a series of cases, a series of class actions, involving the tobacco industry. I may have mentioned that. And a large number of securities class actions cases. Mr. Pollak: What’s the name of the firm? Mr. Adelman: It’s now called Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. Mr. Pollak: You were speaking to your experience since in private practice since leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1987, and my notes indicate that you’d spoken about the demise of white-collar boutiques and the movement of practice of law to become a business, all unfortunate developments in my view and I think in – 146 – yours. Had you finished speaking to an item on the outline called “litigators supplanting trial lawyers?” Mr. Adelman: It seems that the people who appear in court and try cases stand apart from the people who prepare cases, analyze cases, and do the general sort of workup of cases. Not all litigators are trial lawyers. Most trial lawyers are litigators. It’s roughly similar it seems to me to the difference between a barrister and a solicitor that the English observe. I think the growth of the big law firm litigation has also been accompanied by the growth of the litigator concept, you know, taking depositions, gathering documents, analyzing documents, going into privilege issues, and things of that sort. Put it another way, I think there are less and less opportunities to try cases. We’ve sort of talked about that. So I think the number of trial lawyers is probably correspondingly diminishing. I don’t have statistics, but I have that sense. Mr. Pollak: Because of the risk-averse nature, the cost, or panoply of reasons? Mr. Adelman: A panoply of reasons. One, the Guidelines in criminal cases. Two, I think generally litigation, civil and criminal, particularly civil litigation, is extremely costly and involves a huge risk on either side so there’s a strong tendency to settle, and that being the case, there’s less of a chance of actually going to trial. My sense is that the practice has changed drastically in Washington, the number of lawyers, particularly in litigation, has enormously expanded in the years that I’ve been here. Largely the product of the litigation explosion, and there is that to some significant degree. And the fact that the government produces and trains trial lawyers and litigators, and every year people leave the – 147 – government in Washington and go into practice, and many of them stay in Washington. Mr. Pollak: Nobody who has looked at the practice today and for the past evolution over 20 years or 30 years could reach any other conclusion. I guess the question is, or a question is, is that process just going to continue on and what is its meaning for people becoming lawyers and what is its meaning for clients who need lawyers? Mr. Adelman: I think as the practice becomes more dominated by big firms and then their fee structures, it’s more and more difficult for an individual who doesn’t have great resources to get representation from those firms. And it seems to me that, except if it’s something pro bono or something out of the ordinary, firms aren’t going to represent somebody, particularly an individual. I think it makes it harder for people to become trial lawyers because frankly the economics of doing that are not as attractive as other areas of practice. Mr. Pollak: My observation, Roger, is that almost the only way really to become a trial lawyer today is to go through a United States Attorney or a state’s attorney office. Mr. Adelman: Or a public defender service. Because in a big firm you simply don’t have a steady diet of triable cases. Mr. Pollak: A good-sized firm may have just a handful of trials in a whole year, even though a large number of people may be in litigation, preparing cases which ultimately settle. Mr. Adelman: Right. And if you want a sense, I suspect that will continue. There’s no pressure for that to change. – 148 – Mr. Pollak: It’s always struck me that it has significant implications for the law schools and significant implications for young people in selecting careers. Mr. Adelman: The law schools – particularly the larger law schools – don’t necessarily prepare people to be trial lawyers because that’s not truly a marketable skill. But the curriculum of most law schools is geared toward things that people will need to know to work for a large firm. Mr. Pollak: Legal memoranda. Mr. Adelman: Research and writing. Sure. Mr. Pollak: What about TV lawyers? Do you have a comment about TV lawyers? Mr. Adelman: I do. I think in the last few years there’s been quite a bit of – particularly on the cable networks – the commentary by lawyers, on cases and I think it’s a tough situation for the lawyer actually trying a case to have a person, especially a lawyer who is not that familiar with the case to make definitive, analytic comments about the case. Mr. Pollak: You have an item on the outline called “the function of the trial lawyer.” Mr. Adelman: I feel very strongly that in an individual practice, you have a one-on-one relationship with a client, you don’t have a group of people representing the client, just one person, you. Particularly in a criminal case you have to develop a sense of trust and support. As a trial lawyer you have to stand up by yourself and do what you do in court and some people like that, but many people don’t like to do that. Mr. Pollak: You were a prosecutor and being a prosecutor, did that train you to be a defense lawyer? – 149 – Mr. Adelman: I think so. I never had the practice during a court prosecution of talking to the defendant – for a variety of reasons, so you didn’t look over and really see the impact of – you saw the impact but you had no personal sense of what it was. A prosecutor has to talk to witnesses, talk to police, talk to various kinds of individuals, get the feel of the case and understand it. You don’t have clients as such but you have parties in interest like the victims of the crime and so on. I think it’s a different dynamic if you’re a defense attorney. I think you somewhat more live the case. That’s not to say there aren’t prosecutors who live the case, but they’re not living it on an individual basis. Mr. Pollak: I’m sure you like to be in a position of having laid out a full road map so the client doesn’t end up being surprised. Mr. Adelman: As best you can. One thing of course you can’t do is predict the outcome. I tell folks, if you know a lawyer who can tell you how your case is going to end, hire him immediately. Fire me. Because I don’t have that skill. There may be lawyers who think they can do that. There are so many issues that impinge upon the resolution of any case that you can’t predict. You can talk about likelihoods, but you can’t predict. Mr. Pollak: Did we discuss selecting a jury for a criminal case? Mr. Adelman: Jury selection is an idiosyncratic process. I may have mentioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Harold Sullivan who was a prosecutor here, and according to the legend, he was in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 13 years, and he only struck three jurors in his whole career. He usually would take the first twelve that were seated. I had nowhere near the confidence that he did when I was an – 150 – Assistant. I was always careful to try to find jurors who would be favorable to the government’s position. Voir dire in the federal courts is restricted compared to state court so you don’t get a chance to make a detailed inquiry of the jury, so you’re sort of going by the seat of your pants and you’re dealing, as Judge Bryant would say, when you have twelve people in the box, they represent about 600 years of human experience. It’s very hard to predict exactly how anybody, one individual among those twelve, is going to react. You can make general judgments. The other thing that is totally unpredictable is how those twelve people who don’t know each other will coalesce and reach a verdict. The jurors come to court and they are sitting and waiting for a long time beforehand and they read books, so you see the books that they were reading. That would give you some kind of clue, maybe, maybe not. Customarily, jurors are asked about their attitude about the case, knowledge about the case, those kinds of things, and you pay attention to their response. As far as the defendant is concerned, his lawyer wants to be sure the defendant himself is comfortable with the jury. Many defense counsel, just before they say “satisfied” with the jury, turn to the defendant and say, “Do you want anybody else stricken?” Just to be sure that the defendant is comfortable with the jury. That assures the defendant that it’s his jury too. Mr. Pollak: Right. Well I think that would be a wise thing to do. You have control over your oral history. You can publish it right away, you can put it under seal for a little bit of time. So that’s all in the interest of your making a history that is candid and represents your views. There are often trial – 151 – lawyers who speak sort of on the record about their feelings about juries, that they always reach the right result, that they do this, they do that, they do the other thing. You are a very experienced lawyer before juries and I think your oral history ought to include your experienced views about juries and what one can expect from that. Mr. Adelman: I’ve had some jury verdicts that I was surprised by and disappointed by. I’ve had jury verdicts that I was surprised that they voted for conviction. Over time, talking about 300 trials, give or take, I think the juries did the right thing. Sometimes you disagree in individual cases, but if you look back on it, very rarely can you find a situation where the jury was irrational or flatly wrong. Sometimes the verdicts are hard to accept. Among their rights, most people in the United States would feel most strongly about is the right to a jury trial. That’s why I have such negative feelings about the Sentencing Guidelines because I think they have effectively deprived people of a jury trial. If you’re asking whether the jury system is worthwhile, my answer is clearly yes. Mr. Pollak: That’s a very important part of this history that you’re making. Your views come out of a wealth of experience. In any generation there are some people who’ve done 300 trials, but not a great many. Mr. Adelman: Largely in this jurisdiction, Washington, D.C. Mr. Pollak: It’s interesting that in some respects, a criminal defense lawyer has a relationship with a client that’s very much like a medical relationship. The – 152 – client has a grave problem and the client is looking to the doctor or to the lawyer to help him through the problem. Mr. Adelman: And that’s one of the reasons for the attorney-client privilege because, as with doctors, there should be free interchange of information and also, the relationship with the client lasts for a long time. Some doctors of course treat you one day and you’re gone and never see them again. But if you’re representing somebody in litigation, you may represent them for years. This is not a one-shot process. Criminal investigations run a long time. Criminal trial proceedings run a long time. Appeals run a long time. So you may have an ongoing relationship. Mr. Pollak: You’ve had experience with the movement in the law practice of electronics with all of its unusual capabilities. Mr. Adelman: I think it’s changed advocacy and changed trials tremendously. When I started trying cases basically the case was a verbal description by witnesses of what had happened. There’d occasionally be a photograph, other graphic evidence. Now you supplement that verbal description. You can create graphics of an auto accident scene or a murder scene. The other change is that the argument to the jury was basically oral. You’d get up, make your argument, and very little reference to exhibits or graphics. Now, I’ve seen not only arguments in jury trials, but arguments on legal issues, with full electronic outlines being displayed on the screen. The lawyer basically becomes the narrators rather than pure advocates. I learned a little bit about what I do by working with or being taught by some of the great orators of the time – Vic Caputy, who we’ve talked – 153 – about, being one. Vic Caputy would argue without notes. He’d just put his hand on the table, put his notes down, and talk to the jury. And now, that’s unheard of these days because you have a whole outline, you can illustrate just about anything you want in the case so the advocacy now is narration. Mr. Pollak: In a closing, particularly, the advocate may call up some document or may create something. Mr. Adelman: Trial arguments are largely visual events now, not oration, particularly in complex cases, where seated next to the counsel table are the electronics people who flash up the electronic exhibits on the screen, videos or all kinds of exhibits, and cue them in the argument and examination of witnesses. Simple criminal cases probably still are oral presentations, but as you move into the complex cases, civil and criminal, there’s much more electronic displays, videotapes, audiotapes, dramatizations. Mr. Pollak: There are sometimes quite large or even giant criminal cases where a corporation is a defendant. Do you have comments on that kind of practice? It came up over the 20th century, often in antitrust areas. Mr. Adelman: I don’t represent corporations, but of course I represent individuals who are employees of corporations. It’s still rather rare I think that a corporation alone goes to trial. But part of that I think doubles back to what I was saying which is the internal investigation. The way the Department of Justice has proceeded under the Guidelines and under some internal policies is that a corporation, once a criminal activity is suspected, is almost obliged to conduct its own internal investigation to find out what happened. They hire outside counsel and then the – 154 – outside counsel interview the people involved, make recommendations to the board or a special committee which in turn may or may not be turned over to the government. The Department of Justice encourages companies to do those investigations and to turn over the results to them. That raised some problems because the argument was that the corporation would, as the holder of the privilege between it and an employee, would have the right to turn over information the employee gave to the government and if the employee is under investigation, it creates a serious problem. But there’s a great motivation on the part of companies to do an internal investigation, find the problems, find the wrongdoing, expel those who are doing it, and then persuade the government not to prosecute. And that is an expanding area because big law firms are particularly well equipped to do these investigations. They have a lot of people and they can interview a large number of employees in a short period of time. There are corporate guidelines as well as individual guidelines. The guidelines reward corporations that come forward with their own information which has been learned in an internal investigation. My role in that is simply to represent individuals in the corporation who are in the mix. Mr. Pollak: And there are many problems there because the individual may not serve the individual’s interest by cooperating with the investigation because the results may all be turned over to the government. Mr. Adelman: That’s a particular hazard, and if you don’t cooperate with your company, you may be fired. So you have to make that judgment, and a lot of things weigh on – 155 – that – how much you want the job versus whether you want to have what you say turned over to the government. Mr. Pollak: So you might have some privileges, the putative defendant/employee might have some privileges? What about representing people who are either the subject of a grand jury investigation or who have a concern with a grand jury investigation? Mr. Adelman: First, you have to find out this person’s status from the government. The Justice Department, theoretically anyway, has three categories: you’re a target, or a subject, or a witness. Counsel would want the government to commit before the grand jury interrogation of a client what the status of that witness is. If a person is determined by the government simply to be a witness, then there’s no concern about incrimination. If the client is a target, customarily you would advise him not to testify, to take the Fifth Amendment. The toughest situation is where the client is a “subject.” “Subject” is loosely defined as somebody against whom criminal charges might be brought. Then you’re in a really tough situation. Once a person goes into the grand jury, his lawyer can’t go with him. Now the practice here and the practice in the Department I think is to allow the lawyer to wait outside and to periodically consult with the person outside the grand jury. You have to do a fair amount of investigation and get information from the government as early as you can. That’s one of the points that I really want to stress, which is in the older days you waited until trial and then you received the information, you went to trial. Now you have to get the case under your belt and know it early on so you can advise the client on the possible Sentencing – 156 – Guidelines exposure. So that’s where you have to spend time with the client and try to get information from the government which you may or may not get because grand jury investigations are secret, and they’re not going to disclose documents and too much information. So you really are flying – I wouldn’t say flying blind, but you’re flying in a cloudbank. And it’s somewhat hard. So I think many times counsel defending somebody in that situation, where there’s a question, will advise him to take the Fifth Amendment because they don’t know whether they’re going to incriminate themselves. Now a grand jury investigation has another part which is that the government issues subpoenas for documents which you have to comply with. That may give you some idea as to what the grand jury is interested in. But it’s a very difficult situation sometimes, particularly where you know there aren’t many people being interviewed by the grand jury so you don’t know exactly what the focus is. Mr. Pollak: I’ve taken a lot of people to grand juries in my time. If there are enough who go, you can become pretty educated as to what’s going on. Mr. Adelman: Well you can do that because maybe if you enter into a joint defense agreement with the other defense attorneys and you find out from them what the questions of their clients have been or what information they’re looking for. Mr. Pollak: Well, we are down to the. Mr. Adelman: Okay. That is something I started to do in 1997 with my friends in California. As I mentioned, it’s covered a wide variety of things – tobacco, securities, human rights, and so forth. I do that regularly now. My part in this is getting the cases ready for trial when there’s indication the case will go to trial. These – 157 – are massive cases because they’re usually complex issues against large companies, large corporations, involving stock fraud, involving misrepresentations and so forth. And there is a huge discovery period that runs a long time, a number of depositions are taken, documents assembled, and so forth. Mr. Pollak: Is there sometimes a criminal prosecution in the background? Mr. Adelman: Yes, but not many. The closest one I can think of was Enron. With Enron, there was sort of an overlap. There was a criminal prosecution of several executives, most notably, Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling. Those folks were also defendants in our class action but there were many other corporate defendants and financial institution defendants in the class action so there was an overlap. So sometimes there’s one or the other and of course where there’s a criminal investigation, that generally takes precedence and the court will proceed with the criminal case. You can’t depose somebody who’s got criminal liability because they’ll take the Fifth Amendment. I wouldn’t say that that many cases have involved parallel proceedings with a criminal investigation but many of them have involved proceedings before the SEC because these are securities cases and the SEC does its own investigation. I wouldn’t say the SEC and the class actions proceed in synch, but they do proceed along the same lines. These class action cases are brought under the securities laws. There’s a provision in the securities laws for private enforcement of shareholder rights. Class actions are large endeavors in terms of manpower, in terms of the issues. We’ve tried some of these cases, in particular, we’ve tried a tobacco case that – 158 – lasted several weeks. I’m preparing, working with people now, for a case that will go to trial this summer that should last fairly a long time. These are usually all in federal court and, as I say, in different parts of the country. We tried a case in Trenton, New Jersey in federal court. A wide variety of issues within the range of stock fraud. A lot of economic issues, scientific issues, a lot of expert testimony on both sides and that’s a whole other realm of these cases, preparing the experts, selecting the experts, deposing the other side’s experts. Mr. Pollak: Are they generally tried to a jury? Mr. Adelman: Yes. In my experience, they are. Which of course then is a whole other challenge for selecting juries in these kinds of cases. In any event, I’ve done a lot of that work. Cases in Texas – Enron – other cases in Texas, California, and even in the Northern Mariana Islands. Mr. Pollak: What did you do in the Marianas? Because Howard Willens is a colleague. Mr. Adelman: Mr. Willens I think worked on creating the constitution for the Mariana Islands. Mr. Pollak: Yes. He was attorney for the government of the Marianas. Mr. Adelman: The Northern Mariana Islands was captured by the United States in 1943. The Marianas had been controlled by Japan. I’m talking about Saipan and those islands north of Guam. The United States continued to administer the islands as a territory until the mid-1970s. Thereafter, in the mid-1970s, they then obtained territorial status or independent status, and adopted a constitution. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, one of the principal islands in the Marianas – Saipan – became the site of a large number of garment manufacturing operations conducted by Chinese entrepreneurs wherein women were hired from China and – 159 – induced to come to the Marianas Islands, some of them being told they were coming to the “United States,” and basically worked there under what we alleged were slave-labor conditions, involuntary servitude. The products they produced were sold to the major retailers – Target, Ralph Lauren, and other garment purveyors in the United States. In 1999, the firm that I’m talking about brought a class action on behalf of the workers against the garment manufacturers and the garment retailers. There were 20 or 30 defendants. Mr. Pollak: That’s who you meant when you said “we.” That would be the law firm and you? Mr. Adelman: I did not get involved in this case until it was being prepared for trial. I don’t decide who to sue. There is a U.S. District Court on Saipan, and that’s where the case was set in for trial. I participated in a lot of the discovery. Eventually, the case was settled. Damages were obtained for all of the women workers and distributed to them. That’s still going on. There’s a fund being administered that the defendants, both the garment manufacturers and the retailers, that contributed to the settlement fund, and that fund is being disseminated to the workers. Mr. Pollak: Very interesting. Mr. Adelman: We took depositions on the island of Saipan when I was there. It was quite an experience. Mr. Pollak: And why was it quite an experience? Mr. Adelman: You’re helping people. These women were brought there from China under false pretense. The allegations were that they worked more than 40 hours a – 160 – week, they didn’t receive proper compensation, they weren’t free to travel, they were restricted in how they could even move around the island. Brian Ross of ABC did an exposé on this in the late 1990s. Mr. Pollak: Do you want to speak at all about the tobacco litigation. Mr. Adelman: The tobacco litigation were class actions brought on behalf – of labor union health and welfare funds. They acted as a class against the tobacco companies. The theory was that the money that the funds had to expend, or a certain percentage of it, for tobacco-related illnesses, was necessitated by the fact that the tobacco companies had historically, according to our complaint and our proof, misrepresented the dangers of smoking. Some courts accepted the view that there was no direct injury to the funds and therefore no cause of action. One exception was in the Northern District of Ohio where the District Judge ruled that there was a cause of action. We proceeded to try that case. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. But these were not individual smoker cases. Individual smoker cases were excluded from the class action by courts that have ruled that each individual smoking case is a separate and unique claim and not appropriate for class action. Mr. Pollak: You listed an AT&T action. Mr. Adelman: This is an action against AT&T that went to trial in Trenton, New Jersey. It settled in the middle of the trial. It was for stock fraud. It was against AT&T and its then-chairman Mr. Armstrong. We tried that in Trenton in 2004 in front of a jury, and it settled in the middle of trial. Mr. Pollak: What was the issue? – 161 – Mr. Adelman: Essentially misrepresenting to the market the financial status of the company. Mr. Pollak: I have a few questions that I have noted down. A series of questions come from John Cruden. Mr. Adelman: Oh! Mr. Cruden. Is he with your firm? Mr. Pollak: He’s now running the Environmental and Lands Division in the Department of Justice. Mr. Adelman: And he was President of the Bar. I’ve known John since 1979. Mr. Pollak: Right. He said that there was a book written about one of your cases. Mr. Adelman: This was a hijacking case in which in 1978 an East German citizen hijacked a Polish airliner and forced it to land in the part of West Berlin controlled by the United States. It landed at Tempelhof Air Force Base. Because of the postWorld War II Status of Forces Agreement, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia each governed a part of Berlin that they were responsible for. As a practical matter, particularly in the U.S. sector, by 1978 we let the Germans run their own government and courts. However, for basically political reasons, in this particular case, the State Department decided that the U.S. government would prosecute. The West German prosecutor didn’t want to handle it, so we did. It was prosecuted in “the United States Court for Berlin.” After World War II, all of the occupying powers set up charters for court systems in their respective zones. The British did, the French, Russians, and we did too. The U.S. Court for Berlin had a constitution, had a charter, but it never convened. But it was decided by the State Department in this case to have the trial. The State Department appointed the personnel for the case. Under – 162 – international law – the law of war – a party like the U.S. that occupies the land of another country following a war must apply that country’s substantive law but it does so under its own procedures. So we applied German substantive law but followed American procedure. So we had the American Rules of Criminal Procedure, American Rules of Evidence, translated into German. The two parties and the judge had German legal advisors. The judge resolved constitutional questions, American domestic law questions and substantive German law questions. The gentleman who was the legal advisor in Berlin for the State Department was made the U.S. Attorney for Berlin. I was asked by the U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert to go over there and do this case. At first, I didn’t know whether to do it. I was encouraged to do it, so I went over there and I was made an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Berlin. We were all appointed by the Ambassador. The court had a charter that basically provided for criminal charges to be tried, only criminal charges, by the court and did not provide for jury trial. Besides the prosecution group, we had German lawyers working with us. The ambassador appointed us all. He also appointed a U.S. District Judge from New Jersey, Herbert Stern. Mr. Pollak: The United States District Judge? Mr. Adelman: Yes. And also defense attorney Judah Best, here from Washington, and a gentleman named Bernard Hellring from New Jersey and other attorneys both German and American were appointed to represent the single defendant, a male defendant, Mr. Hans Detlef Tiede, who hijacked the plane. We eventually charged a woman who we believed conspired with Mr. Tiede. It took a long – 163 – time to prepare the case because of the geography, and we were all busy in other cases in the United States. We would travel back and forth. The case was tried in the spring of 1979. The judge had ruled that Mr. Tiede had a right to a jury trial. The State Department took the position he did not. So we tried this case to a jury consisting of twelve West Berlin citizens. We had voir dire. We selected jurors, and we tried the case. Now there were obviously language issues because the jurors spoke German, we spoke English, some of the witnesses were from Poland, so in the testimony, we’d go Polish, then German, then English and back to German and then Polish. The defendant was Hans Detlef Tiede, and we went through a full trial. He was convicted of one count of taking a hostage. That was in May 1979. The hijacking occurred in August 1978. He had been in custody since August 1978. The judge released him with time served. At that point, in 1979, Mr. Cruden became involved. He was then Colonel Cruden. Because an issue arose in a separate case as to whether the court had civil jurisdiction. After the criminal proceeding went to jury deliberations, a German lawyer appeared and wanted to file a civil case. According to the charter of the court, it didn’t have civil jurisdiction. This civil case seriously impacted on the U.S. government’s occupation rights in Berlin. The judge said that he thought he had civil jurisdiction. The Department of Justice sent over two other attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Colonel Cruden to deal with this issue. The jury came back, returned its verdict. The judge sentenced Mr. Tiede. – 164 – Mr. Pollak: Mr. Cruden now, not Col. Cruden, asked whether you were a member of the Berlin Bar? Mr. Adelman: (Laughter) I’m not only a member, I’m a co-founder of the “Berlin Bar.” The Berlin Bar was instituted by me and several others when John Cruden was there, not only have we continued meeting, we’re going to meet in about a week. We have annual meetings here in Washington and those people, we have members from D.C., we have some members from Germany, among whom are Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, U.S. District Court; Hank Schuelke, myself, Andre Surena from the State Department; John Cruden, and Arthur Goeller. All the people that participated on the prosecution team. Mr. Pollak: John and I are on the Board of the D.C. Bar Foundation. Mr. Adelman: John was the first government lawyer to be made president of the D.C. Bar. Mr. Pollak: He’s a really estimable man. Mr. Adelman: I like John and we’ve been friends since the Berlin case. Mr. Pollak: I have some I think sort of wind-up questions. I think we’re at the end. I thought that you would want to compare public and private law practice and maybe speak to advantages, non-advantages, or handle it however you might want. Mr. Adelman: I started out in public service with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and that experience I think has shaped my total view toward the practice of law. I always felt as a prosecutor we had the right guy, we were on the right side, and our cause was just and we didn’t have to compromise anything. I felt very much committed – the standard cliché is you serve the public but you’re also – 165 – serving the particular victims, the law enforcement people, and to some extent, the Office. The advantages are, I think, that as a prosecutor you have the prestige of who you stand for – not just you personally. You have the assistance of law enforcement people and between the police, the FBI, DEA, and so forth, they’re there 24/7 and you also have the notion that if somebody in another part of the country is or was an assistant U.S. attorney, you don’t know who they are, you’re talking to them, but you can trust them. Private practice has, as they say, personalized the practice of law for me because I got to see how the process affects people, how this deeply affects people who are charged, families, and so forth. There are limitations in the private practice – and it took me a while to figure this out – you’re engaged by a client to do one particular thing – deal with a subpoena, try a case, do an appeal and so forth. As a prosecutor, you tend to get the idea that you’re a universalist. But in reality, you’re managing the particular case, the police, and so forth. Having spent time in private practice, I got to realize you narrow your focus. But at the same time, I think it’s much more intense. The other thing, in comparing the two, is with the government you get the sense you can spend money willy nilly. You can order examinations, you can order witnesses to come, and so on, and they all happen. In private practice, you suddenly realize you’re financially constrained, not restricted, but constrained. There’s a limit to what you can do. And so that’s part of the mix of how you decide whether to represent somebody in private practice and what you do in representing them. Frankly, the government also necessarily never inculcated in me or anybody the financial value of our service – 166 – because nobody was there to make money. We were just there to do what we had to do. In private practice all of a sudden you have to value your time, and it took a little while for me to realize that you could charge a reasonable amount of money per hour for what you did, and then I realized that it was justified. The government never operated that way. You weren’t paid by the hour or the task or the result and so forth. So I think you move from the world of – I used to tell folks who were leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office, now you’re going to enter the economy. When I was with the government, I was not in the economy in any free market sense, but now I’m in the economy not only from the dealings I have with clients but the competition, with your colleagues, I don’t sense that too much, but there is certainly a strong sense of price competition among some lawyers. I mean people will select people who they can pay less for. Not always. But I had no sense of that when I was with the government. The main thing is with the government you had the feeling whatever you want you can get. I needed a witness from somewhere, the police would get him. And if the guy lived in the far reaches of Tennessee, they would find him. Well, if you’re in private practice, you just can’t do that – unless you have infinite resources. Mr. Pollak: Have you presented appeals in your practice? Mr. Adelman: I have. When I was with the government, I argued a number of appeals. I was in the Appeals Section from mid-1970 through September, 1971. I liked appellate work, I like academic work because that was what I did in law school and I related to it. Many people didn’t in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, they – 167 – wanted to get to trial. But the point was always made to me, and I think John Terry was one of the people who made it, the more law you know, the better trial lawyer you are. And I left the Appeals section with John’s blessing after I argued an en banc case in 1971, and I was assigned to Judge Bryant. And he took me to Judge Bryant, and he said, “This young guy here, he knows the law and you can work with him.” And Bryant said, “We’ll see if he can try cases.” And so for the next 16 years Bryant and I went back and forth about the law and cases. Mr. Pollak: Tell the record in your view of what makes a good judge? Mr. Adelman: Patience. Learning. First in knowing what happens in the real world, and secondly, knowing the law. The judges who get reversed are those who try to wing it, who say, well I’ll read one case and I’ll know what the answer is. On the other hand, I get back to William Bryant again, if you’d say something to him. He and I got into an argument one time about the meaning of the corroboration requirement in a confession. So I’m down there in the courthouse library at night and who’s around the corner? Judge Bryant. He was committed to understanding the law. The other thing is patience. In the perfect trial, you have important issues to try, you have good lawyers on both sides. Well, that rarely happens. It’s like when the phases of the moon come together. Usually you don’t have all three. So you have to be patient. Maybe the lawyers on the one side aren’t as good as you want and you also have to be sympathetic with the position of the lawyers, they’re advocates, the prosecutors take his or her position, the defense attorneys push you in a position. And that’s why I think – 168 – trial judges particularly, should have trial experience – to understand what the lawyers are doing, and Judge Bryant used to call the lawyers to the bench and say, “Mr. So-and-So, I’d like to know why you asked that question. You asked it ….” You know, and/or he’d say, “Mr. So-and-So, you better not ask that question because if you ask that, he’s going to say this and then….” That’s a great teaching experience. But it also shows what a judge really should be thinking and operating. There’s a concern now with less judges coming from trial practice that they are not comfortable with the trial process, and let’s face it, criminal cases in this district and elsewhere, are sort of rough and tumble events. Police do things you hear about, defendants do things you hear about, witnesses, and so forth. Folks with that background are better equipped to be judges. That said, I think Judge Gesell, who I tried many cases in front of, was always a half a step ahead of everybody because he was so smart, he was so sharp. But he was very very conscientious about the law and that was his forte. And you’re right, when he got a reversal, you heard about it. But a great guy. I thought to myself, I’ve been coming down here for almost eight months, and you’ve showed enormous patience with me, allowing me to go through all of this and hearing me out on things that are close to my heart, frankly things that I generally haven’t talked to too many folks about, particularly in an organized way. I consider this an honor. I consider this an important project. Not so much for me but for the court and the bar. I end by saying we have so many good lawyers in the District of Columbia and such a good legal presence – 169 – here that something like this is enormously worthwhile, so I’m honored to be part of it, and I really thank you, Steve. Mr. Pollak: Well, Roger, I felt myself that it was wonderful that you wanted to put yourself into this and put the energy you put into it. I have been involved with the oral history project of the Society since 1993 or 1994, and I’ve done a couple of oral histories that were extensive, just as yours is, but I believe that your breadth of experience in, particularly the prosecutor’s office, brings something very special to the history and something that is really needed as part of the history. The history project wants to know more about the prosecution’s side. That’s not something that’s easily displayed because prosecutors are often silent about what they’re doing and so it’s great to have it. Now, all you have to do is do the hard work, the slogging work, of reading through it and recognizing that it is not a written piece. Every sentence doesn’t have to be perfect. It’s really an oral presentation. Don’t overtax yourself with editing, but you will want to make sure that you’ve got the names right and so forth. Mr. Adelman: Which I’m doing. Thank you. Mr. Pollak: Thank you. A-1 Oral History of Roger M. Adelman Index 18 U.S.C. § 17, 98, 121-22 ABC, 160 ABSCAM, 66, 80, 88, 93, 94 D.C. Sting, 89 D.C. first use of electronic surveillance and videotape, 90 Adelman, Jean, (sister), 1, 2, 7, 9 Adelman, Louis (father) carpet store, 8 registered Republican, 10 South Philadelphia, 1 Adelson, Roger – Personal Boy Scout, 5 Dartmouth College, 5, 6, 8, 12, 17 Beta Theta Pi fraternity, 13 college experience, 11 crew, 13 football, 13 jobs, 6 military, 18-20 Norristown High School, 3, 17 high school sports, 6 Norristown, Pennsylvania, 1 Penn Law School, 8, 11, 13-16, 18, 22, 24 classic Socratic tradition, 14 Russian Language School, 18 school days, 4, 6 sports, 5 summer camp, 5 YMCA, 5 World War II blackouts, 2 rationing, 2 victory gardens, 2 Adelman, Roger – Professional “Tom Flannery Group”, 37, 41, 42 “pocket memo,” 39 antitrust cases, 22 Assistant Prosecutor Office of Independent Counsel, 40 AT&T, 160 attorney-client privilege, 152 civil litigation, 133 civility and ethics, 79 A-2 class action litigation, 156 comparison of public and private practice, 164 corporations corporate guidelines, 154 internal investigation into criminal activity, 153 corroboration requirement in a confession, 167 Court of General Sessions “break-down” policy., 49 “old school” learning, 46 Duane Morris (Duane Morris and Heckscher), 20, 22, 24 electronic evidence, 90, 152, 153 documents, 140 videotaping of depositions, 80 exclusionary rule, 81 Fifth Streeters, 47 Freeway Phantom, 38, 53, 54, 86 function of the trial lawyer, 148 grand juries investigations, 156 joint defense agreement, 156 juries selection, 149 jury trial experience, 140 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, 27, 133, 135 lawyers as narrators rather than pure advocates, 152 litigation explosion, 146 supplanting trial lawyers, 146 megafirms, 141 Pennsylvania preceptorship program, 21 preferred style for prosecutors, 74 private practice, 133, 145 appeals while in private practice, 166 relationship with the police, 85 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, 145 securities laws for private enforcement of shareholder rights., 157 significance of documents in civil litigation, 140 teaching, 138 Criminal Justice Clinic, 60 Georgetown Law School, 28, 62 Prettyman Program, 60 thoughts on what makes a good judge, 167 TV lawyers, 148 tobacco litigation class actions, 160 U.S. Attorney’s Office, 9, 28, 32, 38, 60, 65-68, 70-74, 77- 81, 134, 145, 149, 163-66 Appeals Division, 24, 34, 49, 166 A-3 Assistant United States Attorney. 27 Civil Division, 24, 29, 36 District Court Trial Division, 41 Felony Trial Division, 24, 35 Fraud Section, 30 investigative materials, 31 Major Crimes Division, 30 minority representation, 36 equal male and female, 70 Special Proceedings, 29 Trial Division, 29, 33 videotaping of depositions, 80 white collar work, 133, 137-40 Albrecht, Gary, 86 Albrecht, Mary Ellen, 86 Aldock, John, 37, 41 Alexander, Stan, 87 ALI. See American Law Institute standard Alto, Vince, 28 American Bar Association, 141 American College of Trial Lawyers, 141 American Law Institute, 99, 127 Amoroso Tony, 92 Amsterdam, Tony, 15-16, 24 Penn Law professor, 14 Supreme Court, 15 Armstrong, Michael, 160 Bacon, Sylvia, 36 Baker, Bobby, 136 Barnes, Angela, 54 Battaglia, Anthony, 95 Bazelon, David, 99 Bender, Paul, 16 Bennett, Bob, 37, 41, 138 Bennett, Fred, 29 Berger, Dorothy, 4 Berthold, Fred, 11 Best, Judah, 162 Big Tobacco, 134 Black, Hugo, 61 Blackman, Bob, 11 Bonnie, Richard, 131 Braddock, Rick, 13 Brady, Greg, 42 Brady, Jim, 104 A-4 Brawner case, 99, 119-22 BRILAB (bribery-labor), 94 Brown, Dave, 86 Brown, Jr., Ed, 77, 78, 138, 141 Brown, Sr., Ed, 78 Bryant, Billy Austin, 41 Bryant, William, 44, 52, 66-70, 77, 93, 96-97, 136, 138, 142, 150, 167-68 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 144 Bundy, Thomas, 129 Butner, North Carolina, 112 Butner mental hospital. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Butz, Mary (mother), 1 food business, 9 Franklin Roosevelt supporter, 10 Cacheris, Plato, 134, 135, 141 Caputy, Vic, 25, 66, 67, 72, 74, 72, 75, 78, 100, 152, 153 “Caputy Method,” 75 Canisius College, 73 Georgetown Law, 73 pound-the-table school of trial advocacy., 72 Cardozo, Mike, 18 Carpenter, William, 107, 110-12, 117 Carter, Jimmy, 102 Cavanaugh, Jim, 106 Chaney, Bob, 55, 86 Chapman, Dick, 113, 130 Chertoff, Paul, 29 civil RICO, 139 Clark, Joe, 10 Collins, Bill, 68 Connolly, John, 136 Corcoran, Howard, 44 Coughlin, Patrick, 134 court reporters, 45 Craig, Gregory, 105, 123, 128 Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 46, 61 Criminal Justice Clinic. See Georgetown Law Center criminal responsibility, 98-99, 105, 107, 115, 121, 126-27 Court of General Sessions, 24, 25, 29, 42, 46, 47, 49, 58 Cross, Lee, 36 Cruden, John, 161, 163, 164 Daly, Ed, 25 Dash, Sam, 60 Davis, case, 99, 121, 127 A-5 D.C. Sting, 90 De Niro, Robert, 102 Delahanty, Tom, 104 Dickstein Shapiro, 77 Dietz, Park Elliot, 106-7, 109, 118 Dilworth, Richardson, 10 District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, 23-25, 36, 38, 42-43, 46, 49, 58, 69 Drury, John, 55, 57 Duane Morris (Duane Morris and Heckscher), 20, 22, 24 Durham case, 99-100, 122. DuRoss, Ann, 36 Ecker case, 101 Enron, 157, 158 Evans, John, 38 exclusionary rule, 81 Farrell, Michael, 93 Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Institution, 106 Federal Rules of Evidence, 79, 122, 127 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 142-43, 144-45, 151, 153 “sentencing by the numbers,” 145 Sixth Amendment right to trial, 142 Federal Wiretap Statute, 83 Fickling, Otis, 86 Fields, Randy, 13 Fifth Amendment, 155-57 Fifth Streeters, 76 Flannery, Thomas, 23, 27, 30,-37, 40-42, 74 Thomas Flannery Lecture, 42 folie a dieu, 54 Ford, Charlie, 76, 77 Foster, Jodie, 102-3, 116, 129 Fox, Reeder, 21-22 Frankfurter, Felix, 15-16, 62 Freeway Phantom, 38, 53, 54, 86 Friedman, Paul, 121, 130 Frohman, Pat, 36 Fuller, Vince, 105, 119, 123, 128 Garber, Bill, 39, 76, 78 Gasch, Oliver, 44, 57, 72 Geigas, Elwood, 4 Gellar, Steve, 12 Genova, Dick, 90 A-6 Georgetown Law Center, 62 Criminal Justice Clinic, 60 Prettyman Program, 60 Gesell, Gerhard, 41, 44, 46, 168 Glanzer, Seymour, 30, 32, 33 Goeller, Arthur, 164 Goldman, Thomas, 107, 110, 117 Gonzalez, Ray, 86 Grafman, Steve, 37, 41, 51, 57 Graham, Don, 86 Graylord investigation, 94 Green, June, 130 Greene, Harold, 144 Greenhalgh, Bill, 60, 62 Greenwell, Jim, 86 Grillo, Nelson, 86 GW (George Washington) Hospital, 104 Harris, Stanley, 113 Hart, George, 44 Haskins, George Lee, 17 Penn Law professor, 14 Hellring, Bernard, 162 Hennessy, Lou, 86 Heymann, Phil, 66, 92 Hibey, Dick, 28, 37, 41 Higgins, Bob, 37, 41, 77, 78 Hinckley case, 80, 86-88, 97-132 18 U.S.C. § 17, 98 aftermath, 122 analysis of the brain structure, 120 criminal responsibility, 98-99, 105, 107, 115, 121, 126-27 critiques, 127 defense psychiatrist’s conclusions, 110-11 insanity defenses in D.C., 115 parents, 101-2, 108-9, 115, 118 post-verdict proceedings, 126-127 first federal defense of insanity legislation, 121 public interest, 132 presentation of the insanity defense, 115 process schizophrenia, 110 prosecution psychiatrists’ joint report, 109-10 schizophrenia, 117 sequestered, jury, 119, 132-33 subjective and objective appreciation, 113 surrebuttal, 115 A-7 verdict, 120 Hinckley, John W., Jr. Butner mental hospital, 106 Devastator bullets, 103, 104, 117 family background, 101-2, 108 Foster, Jodie, 102-3, 116, 129 petitions for release, 129-31 Reagan shooting, 103-5 right of privacy in jail cell, 112 St. Elizabeths Hospital, 100, 120, 126, 132 Howard Pavilion, 128 travels, 116 Hoover, J. Edger, 89 Hopper, John, 118 Hundley, Bill, 134 in limine cases, 63 Inns of Court, 70 insanity defense, 50, 54, 98, 100, 105-8, 115, 120-22, 126-28, 131 American Law Institute standard, 99 Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA), 126-27 Irvin, Ron, 86 Jackson v. Denno case, 25 Jackson, Lawrence, 32 Jeffress, Bill, 141 Jeffries, John, 131 Jenrette, John, 92, 93, 96 Johnson, Sally, 106, 118 K&L. See Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kelley, Richard, 92 Kellogg, Phil, 23 Kelly, Richard, 93, 94 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, 27, 133, 135, 139 KLGates. See Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kotelly, John, 93, 96 Kraft, Tim, 12 Lamb, Roy, 86 Lamberth, Royce, 164 LaRocca, Pasquale, 90 Lay, Kenneth, 157 Lederer, Raymond, 93 Leventhal, Harold, 50 Levin, Leo, 14 A-8 Lorillard Tobacco Company, 134 Lowe, Peter, 131 Lyons, Jim, 28, 32 Mallory case, 136 Marantz, Mike, 12 Margolis, Lawrence, 105 Marshall, Tyrone, 51-52 Marshals. See United States Marshals Service McCarthy, Tim, 104 McMasters, Al, 86 Miller, Judy, 105 Miranda case, 15, 59, 82, 111-12 Monahan, John, 109 Moore case, 49-50 Moore, Luke, 36, 49 Moore, Raymond, 50 Mortimer, John, 56 Mundy, Ken, 51 Murphy, Tim, 25 Myers, Ozzie, 93 Nathan, Irv, 66, 92 New York Times, 80 NGI (found guilty by reason of insanity), 100, 120, 122, 127-29 Nixon, Richard, 23 Norristown High School, 3, 6, 17 Northern Mariana Islands, 158 O’Brien, Joe, 87 Park, Ellen Lee, 36 Parker, Barrington, 111-12, 119, 124, 129, 130 Parr, Gerry, 104 Perazich, John, 29 PFF, Inc. (Police FBI Incognito), 89 Philadelphia Inquirer, 3 Phillip Morris, 134 Pralinger, Ernst, 107 Pratt, John, 44 Public Defender Office, 61 Public Defender Service, 29, 71 public defenders, 28-29, 39, 47, 147 Prettyman Program. See Georgetown Law Center Puccio, Thomas, 92 A-9 Queen, Evelyn, 70 Rappaport, Jonas, 106 Rauh, Carl, 42 Reagan, Ronald, 101-4 Reath, Henry, 20, 22 Philadelphia Board of Censors, 21 Reitz, Curtis, 14 Roberts, Michelle, 141 Robinson, Kenny, 41 Rosenberg, Bill, 91-92 Ross, Brian, 160 Ruff, Charles (Chuck), 101, 105, 113 Independent Counsel, 80 Rumple at the Bailey, 56 Saint Elizabeths Hospital, 100, 120, 126, 132 Howard Pavilion, 128 Scally, Judge, 25 schizophrenia, 107, 110, 118, 120 Schmidt’s Brewery, 17 Schueler, John, 4 Schuelke, Hank, 164 Schwartz, Louis, 22 Scott case, 84-85 SEC, 23, 157 Sellman, Eddy, 54 Senate Rackets Committee, 34 sentencing by the numbers, 145 Sharp, Jim, 37, 41 Shea & Gardner, 133 Shorter, John, 39, 75-78, 138, 141 Silbert, Earl, 35, 37, 41, 138, 162 Watergate, 33 Simmons, Tommy, 54 Sixth Amendment right to trial, 142 Skilling, Jeffrey, 157 Smith, John Lewis, 54, 56 Snyder case, 101 Spinelli, Jerry, 3, 7 Knots in My Yo Yo String, 3 Maniac Magee, 3 Starr, Ken, 40 Stein, Jake, 77, 141 Stennis, John, 38, 41, 50-53 Stern, Herbert, 162 A-10 Stiller, Stu, 29 Stilwell, Lou, 12 Stuckey, Dick, 42 Subin, Bill, 23 Sullivan, Harold, 30, 31, 32, 33, 78, 149 Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 24, 36, 44, 58 change in jurisdiction between U.S. District Court and Court of General Sessions, 42 Supreme Court, U.S., 60-61 Davis v. United States, 99, 121, 127 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 142-43 Hinckley appeals, 114 Miranda v. Arizona, 15, 59 Jackson v. Denno. 25 right to privacy in jail, 112 Terry v. Ohio, 25 United States v. Scott, 84-85 Surena, Andre, 164 Taming of the Shrew, 29 Tantillo, Enrico, 32 Taxi Driver, 102, 108 Terry v. Ohio case, 25 Terry, John, 25, 34-35, 49, 167 U.S. Attorney’s Office, 24, 81, 166 Thompson, Frank, 93 Tiede case, 161-64 Tiede, Hans Detlef, 162-63 Titus, Hal, 30, 33, 35, 37, 41 Toomey, David, 21 Torres, Ernie, 18 Tucker, Marc, 113 U.S. Attorney’s Office, 9, 28, 32, 38, 60, 65-68, 70, 72, 74, 77- 81, 134, 145, 149, 163-64, 166 Appeals Division, 24, 34, 49 Civil Division, 24, 29, 36 District Court Trial Division, 41 Felony Trial Division, 24, 35 Fraud Section, 30 investigative materials, 31 Major Crimes Division, 30 minority representation, 36 equal male and female, 70 Special Proceedings, 29 Trial Division, 29, 33 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 84, 101, 131 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 23-24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 38- 44, 49, 56- A-11 59, 72-73, 84-85, 90-101, 111, 164 change jurisdiction between U.S. District Court and Court of General Sessions, 42 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 45 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 45 United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 160 United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 159 United States Marshals Service, 44, 45 Valley Forge Brewery, 17 vanishing jury trial, 141 Verdaroso, Bobby, 32 Waddy, Joseph, 44, 51 Wald, Patricia, 50, 93 Warren Court, 15, 25, 38, 59, 60, 61 Warren, Earl, 61 Washington Post, 53, 86, 145 Watergate, 33 Watkins, Bob, 23 Weinberg, Mel, 91-92, 95 Weisman, Mary, 36 Weisman, Ted, 32 Willens, Howard, 158 Williams & Connolly, 23, 105, 128 Williams, Edward Bennett, 70, 136 Williams, Harrison, 93 Wood case, 50 Zeno, Tom, 130-31 Zuckerman, Roger, 32, 41-42 B-1 Oral History of Roger M. Adelman Table of Cases and Statutes Cases Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862, D.C. Cir., 1954, 99-100, 122. Jackson v. Denno, 378 US 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908, (1964), 25. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), 136. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), 15, 59, 82, 111-12 Terry v. Ohio. 392 US 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, (1968), 25. United States v. Brawner, 471 F. 2d 969, D.C. Cir., (1972), 99, 119-22 United States v. Bryant. 417 F. 2d 636, 4th Cir., (1969), 41. United States v. Ecker, 543 F. 2d 178, D.C. Cir., (1976), 101. United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C. 1981), clarified, 529 F. Supp. 520 (D.D.C.), affd 672 F.2d 115, D.C. Cir. (1982), 80, 86, 97-101, 108, 113-15, 122, 126-27, 131-32. United States v. Raymond Moore, 486 F. 2d 1139, D.C. Cir., (1973), 49-50. United States v. Scott, 331 F. Supp. 233, D.D.C., (1971), 84-85. United States v. Scott, 516 F. 2d 751, D.C. Cir., (1975), 84-85. United States v. Scott, 425 US 917, 96 S. Ct. 1519, 47 L. Ed. 2d 768, S. Ct., (1976), 84-85. United States v. Tiede, 86 FRD 227, U.S. Court of Berlin, (1979), 161-64. United States v. Wood 628 F. 2d 554. D.C. Cir., (1980), 50. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 474 (1895), 99, 121, 127. Statutes Federal Wiretap Statute, Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 212; amended Pub. L. 99–508, title I, § 101(a), (c)(1)(A), (4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848, 1851; Pub. L. 103–414, title II, §§ 202(a), 203, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4290, 4291; Pub. L. 104– 132, title VII, § 731, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1303; Pub. L. 107–56, title II, §§ 203(b)(2), 209(1), 217(1), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 280, 283, 290; Pub. L. 107–108, title III, § 314(b), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1402; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(e)(10), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1810, 83. Insanity Defense, Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 402(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2057, § 20; renumbered § 17, Pub. L. 99–646, § 34(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3599, 98, 121-22 STEPHEN J. POLLAK Stephen J. Pollak is senior counsel to Goodwin Procter (October 2004 to present) and was a partner (1969 to October 2004) and former Chair of the Executive Committee of Shea & Gardner (1993-1996) prior to its merger with Goodwin Procter in October 2004. Mr. Pollak joined the Firm in 1969 after serving in the United States Department of Justice and the White House from 1961 through 1969. Among his governmental positions were Advisor to the President for National Capital Affairs (1967) and First Assistant and Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division (1965-67, 1967-69) and Assistant to the Solicitor General (1961-64), U.S. Department of Justice. Since 1989, Mr. Pollak has been a member of the Panel of Mediators appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Panel of Mediators appointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2016, the two Courts designated Mr. Pollak as Chair of the Panels of Mediators. He has served as mediator in approximately 75 cases, and as arbitrator in five cases that went through evidentiary hearing to decision. Mr. Pollak is also a member of the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution’s Washington, D.C. Panel of Distinguished Neutrals. Mr. Pollak has served as a training consultant in mediation for the Office of Dispute Resolution of the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to service as mediator and arbitrator, Mr. Pollak’s legal practice has consisted primarily of representing clients in trial and appellate litigation in the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court (12 cases argued), Courts of Appeals, and various District Courts and before federal departments and agencies. His fields of concentration in litigation have included constitutional law, labor and antitrust law, civil rights, ERISA, and legal ethics. He has also represented individuals under investigation for possible violation of federal laws, including lawyers and law firms against whom complaints have been lodged with the Bar Counsel. From 1999 through 2003, Mr. Pollak served as Special Master in the Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1285, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on appointment by Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan. He was responsible, among other things, for resolving all discovery disputes. Mr. Pollak has served as lead counsel for the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds, a collectively bargained multiemployer benefit fund, in litigation over the validity under the labor and antitrust laws of provisions of the bargaining agreement requiring contributions to the Funds on coal purchased by companies signatory to the agreement. Mr. Pollak has handled more than 50 cases of this nature for the Funds, recovering more than $100 million in contributions. Other litigation for the Funds includes lawsuits testing the meaning of the 1992 Coal Act which created the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund and provided for its funding primarily by companies signatory to prior collective bargaining agreements. During the 1970s and early 1980s, Mr. Pollak was lead outside counsel for the National Education Association in many cases at trial, on appeal and in the Supreme Court presenting frontier constitutional, civil rights and labor issues. Mr. Pollak served as counsel to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, in drafting regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and was counsel for respondent Camenisch in the University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981), in which the rights under federal law of a student with a hearing impairment to have the assistance of a sign language interpreter were at issue. Mr. Pollak was President of the District of Columbia Bar (1980-81) and a member of the Board of Governors of the Bar (1972-73, 1974-75, 1979-80, and 1981-82). He served as Chair of the Bar’s Public Service Activities Committee (1989-95) and was the leader of a review committee that restructured the Bar’s pro bono activities. Mr. Pollak was President (7/2008- 6/2009) and a member of the Board of Directors (2003-2009) of the D.C. Bar Foundation. He is a member of the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission (March 2005-present). Mr. Pollak has served as a member and Chair of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (1984-90, 1994-96), responsible for selection of the Chief Judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as well as presentation to the President of candidates for nomination as judges of those Courts. Mr. Pollak is President and member of the Board of Directors of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit (2003-present, 1993-present). Mr. Pollak is a member of the American Bar Association, serving in the House of Delegates (1978-81), and the American Law Institute. He is a member of the Board of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (1969 to Present) and served as co-chair (1975-77). Mr. Pollak attended Dartmouth College (B.A. 1950) and Yale Law School (LL.B. 1956), and served in the U.S. Navy (1950-53). May 17, 2016 Legends in the Law: Roger M. Adelman From Washington Lawyer, June 2007 During his 37-year legal career, Roger M. Adelman has been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and has handled a number of significant civil and criminal cases. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1966 and a brief stint in the Army, Adelman joined the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., in 1969, where he remained until 1987. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he prosecuted everything from homicide, robbery, and kidnapping cases to white-collar offenses and RICO prosecutions. The highest-profile case of his career was the trial of John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Reagan and three others in 1981. Adelman served as chief prosecutor in the Hinckley case, which had tremendous and far-reaching effects on the use of the insanity defense. In 1988 he joined Kirkpatrick & Lockhart as a partner, and in 1997 he left the firm to start his own practice. As a solo practitioner, Adelman litigates complex civil cases (including class action cases brought against the tobacco companies and Enron) and represents individuals and entities in white-collar crime cases and grand jury investigations. He has shared his knowledge and experience by teaching evidence and trial practice at the Georgetown University Law Center. Where did you grow up? I grew up in Norristown, Pennsylvania, a blue-collar town in southeastern Pennsylvania. It was a closely knit community when I lived there, and I still continue close friendships with many people I grew up with. Where did you go to college? Did you enter college knowing that you wanted to practice law? I was an English major at Dartmouth. It wasn’t until after I graduated from college that I thought seriously about the law. It certainly wasn’t preordained that I was going to become a lawyer. One thing just sort of led to another in my decision to go to law school. Growing up, I didn’t know anybody who was a lawyer or a judge. In fact, I was the first person in my family to go to college. When I decided to go to law school, I knew I wanted to stay in Pennsylvania, so I only applied to the University of Pennsylvania Law School. It was, and is, a great school, and I got a very good education there. I was fortunate to have great professors at Penn, especially a man named Anthony Amsterdam, whom I took several courses with including criminal law. He had graduated from Penn only a few years before me and had then clerked for Felix Frankfurter before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. He drew from his experience in the U.S. Attorney’s Office when teaching criminal law, and his classes and his assistant attorney experience really got me interested in criminal law, but also in Washington, D.C. He also instilled in me the idea that the law can be a powerful tool. Amsterdam was at the forefront of what became the criminal law revolution and the civil rights movement. He was a very inspiring guy. What did you do after graduating from law school? I’m one of the few people who got a genuine intellectual experience in the Army. I served in the Army for 18 months and learned Russian at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Most of my teachers were older native Russian speakers who had lived in Russia before the czar fell, and they would tell stories of Russia before the revolution. I spent six hours a day for an entire year learning Russian. It was a great intellectual experience. Although I haven’t had to use Russian in my practice, about 15 years ago I worked with an American Bar Association–sponsored program that brought 35 Russian lawyers to the United States. One of those lawyers interned with me. She blossomed here; she went to court, saw jury trials, and got on the inside of the American justice system. She went back to Moscow, practiced there, and then became a partner at a British law firm, where she has done very well. I’d like to think that I was a part of putting her on the road to success. I’ve also been involved in an ABA program that promoted jury trials in Russia where we worked with Russian judges and lawyers. How did you come to work at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington? I was a clerk at a law firm in Philadelphia, and they sent me to D.C. to deliver something to the Securities and Exchange Commission. I had a friend who worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, and while I was in the city he invited me to lunch. He introduced me to other assistant U.S. attorneys, and they told me about what they did—they actually went in court and tried cases—and I was hooked. I applied for a job at the office in the summer of 1969 and joined it in November of 1969, where I stayed until November of 1987. What was the U.S. Attorney’s Office like when you began working there? It was much smaller than it is now, and that promoted camaraderie. Your life as a trial lawyer began almost immediately. At that time the U.S. Attorney’s Office operated not only in the federal district court, but also in the local court, then called the Court of General Sessions. After you had been at the office a few days, you watched a couple of trials in General Sessions, and then you were put to try cases yourself. It was really the sink-or-swim method. I liked that. I found out how to put on a trial in court, and to persuade a jury. I made mistakes, and learned by them. In the U.S. District Court, I got to try jury trials in a lot of different circumstances. This taught me how to think on my feet in court, and that is schooling that you can’t learn anywhere else. Do you remember certain mistakes you made when you first began working at the U.S. Attorney’s Office? Many. One example: I tried a case in district court against Edwin C. Brown Jr., a fine trial lawyer who is still practicing in Alexandria. The police found a witness during the trial and I put him on the stand. Ed Brown just ate the witness alive on cross-examination, suggesting that we had to shore up a weak case by finding this man after the trial began. We got a conviction, but it was in spite of me. That was one of those situations where you say to yourself, “Don’t do that again.” What was the first big case you worked on? I co-prosecuted, with Steve Grafman, the trial of the man who shot U.S. Senator John Stennis in 1973 in front of his house. That case got a lot of publicity because Senator Stennis was a senior U.S. senator at the time and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Initially there were speculations that the shooting had political overtones, but it turned out to be a random robbery. We picked a jury, started the trial, and then there was a plea in midtrial. In what must have been your highest-profile case, you prosecuted John Hinckley, the man who tried to assassinate President Reagan. How did you get assigned to be chief trial prosecutor in that case? I had tried numerous murder cases in the 1970s. Many people charged with homicide in Washington, D.C., relied on the insanity defense. So I had a lot of experience dealing with insanity defense in criminal cases in the U.S. District Court. Given that Hinckley had shot the president and three other people to impress an 18-year-old movie star, from the start we thought his defense would be insanity, too. Up until the Hinckley case, what was the ruling in most of the insanity defense cases? Generally those defenses were rejected by the jury. Sometimes either the person would be found not guilty by reason of insanity or the government would not challenge the insanity defense, but by and large it was not a successful defense. How long did you work on that case? I worked on it from March 1981, when the shootings took place, until June 1982. We were fortunate in that my colleagues on the case, Dick Chapman and Marc Tucker, and I were permitted to work full-time on it. We also had full-time investigators and a team of police and FBI people working on it; plus we were able to put together a very good team of psychiatrists to examine Hinckley and testify about him. We were up against Williams & Connolly. Vince Fuller and Greg Craig were lead counsel, so the case was litigated on a very high level. Both sides raised all of the issues that could have been raised. The judge in the case, Barrington Parker, basically permitted each side to put in as full a presentation as it wanted to. It was a unique case in that there were very few insanity cases of this magnitude, that had this kind of financial support and lawyering on both sides, and that went to trial. We tried that case before a jury for almost two and a half months. Were you surprised by the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict? Yes. Anybody’s prosecutor would tell you that he always thinks he’s going to win. If you don’t, you shouldn’t be prosecuting. I thought we’d win, sure. Partly that’s due to my practice of not reading the papers or watching TV during a trial. And I didn’t follow any outside views in the TV media either during the trial, so I didn’t have a sense of what people outside of the courtroom thought about the case. I wall myself off to keep my focus on the case in court. How did you handle the press coverage during the Hinckley trial? To this day I have not read most of the articles written in the newspapers about the case. I’m a great believer in what Judge William B. Bryant, who is one of my mentors, said: “Those who live by the press die by the press.” I knew at the time that the case was getting press attention, but we had adopted a policy of not talking about the case to the press. But wasn’t it difficult to avoid the press coverage? Yes, particularly because I’m an inveterate newspaper reader, and at that time there was also a lot of television coverage of the trial. In a way, Hinckley was one of the first big trials covered heavily by television, although the trial proceedings themselves were not televised. The issue of whether we should televise trials has been coming up over the years. I think that under the proper controls trials should be televised. How many times did you speak with President Reagan for the trial? Just once, in the White House, about a month before the trial. He was very kind, gracious, and considerate. President Reagan did not testify, and, of course, Jim Brady could not testify because of his injuries. But the other victims, Officer Thomas Delahanty and Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy, who were also shot by Hinckley, did testify. What effect did the Hinckley case have on the insanity defense? It had a profound effect. Shortly after the trial, Congress enacted legislation that substantially changed the insanity defense in federal courts, and indirectly in state courts. It put the burden to prove insanity on the defendant, it tightened the definition of insanity, and it restricted the scope of expert testimony that could be presented in these cases. That congressional legislation set the model for the states to change, and in most cases tighten, their insanity rules. Since then, there have been few successful insanity defenses, particularly in federal courts. Why is the legal concept of insanity difficult for most people to understand? Most criminal trials focus on what and who: what crime was committed and/or who committed it? But the insanity defense focuses on the tougher issue of why the defendant committed the crime. In the Hinckley case the shootings took place in front of television cameras, and the media photographers were taking photos of the shooting, so there wasn’t any question of who did the shootings. But the question we litigated was why John Hinckley did it. Once you get into the why question, you get into some deep and murky water. The judge permitted us to explore that. I think we put on our best case. Understandably, people think the issue in an insanity case is whether the defendant was “insane.” But the issue is whether the defendant is “criminally responsible” under the law for his or her actions, and that’s a different proposition. With the responsibility, defense jurors are asked to make a much more fine-tuned decision than simply to decide whether the person is insane. Basically, whether as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, could the defendant appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts? And, of course, insanity is a medical concept that we have engrafted into the law, so we have to have experts come in and testify about it, and they have different interpretations. That was one of the criticisms of how the issue was handled in the Hinckley case. In Washington, D.C., the standard for insanity defense has gone through several permutations. In 1954 the Durham decision set a broad standard for the insanity: basically, whether the criminal act was the product of a mental disease or defect. In 1972 the Court of Appeals adopted the somewhat more restrictive American Law Institute test, which is what applied in the Hinckley case. And then in 1984, two years after the Hinckley trial, Congress passed legislation that changed the insanity defense again and restricted it still more. Does the standard for insanity make a difference? Yes, it makes a difference. It makes a difference in how the prosecutor presents his case, how he rebuts the defense claims, and even whether to prosecute the case at all. And it makes a difference in how the jury is told to evaluate the case. Under the post-Hinckley rules in federal court, the defendant has to show that he had a severe mental disorder. Previously, any evidence of a mental disorder would do. The question that is always put to me is whether the insanity defense is too complex for a jury to handle, and my answer is no. I’m very confident in juries. I live and die by that. I think that jurors can handle just about anything if it’s properly tried by good lawyers. What are some other cases you tried while at the U.S. Attorney’s Office that are particularly memorable? Another significant case was ABSCAM in 1979–81, which involved congressmen taking money on videotape in an FBI sting operation. In many ways these prosecutions were the beginning of the whitecollar era. I tried one of the congressmen, Richard Kelly from Florida. That was an interesting experience, and it sort of got me into the practice of white-collar criminal litigation. What was your experience like as prosecutor in the case against Richard Kelly? Congressman Kelly had been secretly videotaped by the FBI taking bribe money and stuffing it in his pockets. At trial he claimed he took the money not because he was corrupt but because he wanted to turn in the man to the FBI who had offered him the money. As it turned out, the man who paid him the money was an undercover FBI agent. Not surprisingly, that defense did not get too far with the jury. You mentioned that ABSCAM was the beginning of the white-collar crime era. What was your involvement in prosecuting white-collar crimes? The RICO statute—making participation in a corrupt enterprise a crime—which had been on the books since 1970, was not used extensively by the Justice Department for about 10 years. Then in the early 1980s the department authorized RICO prosecutions on a larger scale, so the government could prosecute a criminal organization rather than just the individuals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office here started to bring more RICO cases, and I prosecuted a number of those. One of those cases involved a D.C.-based narcotics ring that was laundering money through what was then Riggs Bank and funneling it into Atlantic City. We brought that case under RICO and other drug statutes. We also tried some cases, along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, involving organized crime members who had set up a drug distribution ring that operated through pizza parlors. In one instance an undercover agent from the Washington field office of the FBI went into a pizza parlor here on K Street, ordered some pizza, and then got some cocaine delivered to him. In 1987 you left the U.S. Attorney’s Office after 18 years as a federal prosecutor and joined Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. After so many years as a prosecutor, why did you decide to become a defense attorney? Being a U.S. assistant attorney is the best job a trial lawyer will ever have. I just thought that the time had come to experience the other side. Why do you think being a U.S. assistant attorney is the best job one can ever have? Well, it starts with the fact that as an assistant U.S. attorney you can stand up in court and say, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I represent the United States. . . .” There are few other places in life that you can do that, especially at 28 years old. You have a great responsibility and you do a lot of important things. The prosecutor is the most important person in the criminal justice system. He or she decides what charges will be brought, who will be charged, and when they’ll be charged. Equally important, the prosecutor decides what cases won’t be brought. The prosecutor really sets the tone for all the other things that happen in the criminal justice system. To be given that kind of authority when you’re just starting out was a big deal, although I didn’t fully sense it at the time. When I started in the office, there was a great deal of independence among the assistant U.S. attorneys. And, of course, you get to try jury trials. Not many people do that on a regular basis. You encounter a wide variety of counsel, witnesses, and judges, and you learn to deal on your own with a wide variety of situations. No one writes articles on how to deal with a witness who has suddenly become hostile, or what to ask a sympathetic character witness called by the defense. These are lessons you carry with you throughout your life. A lot of these tales live on, get retold, and enter the realm of war stories. Most of them are funny, and most of them embody a lesson. For example, listen to the answer as well as the question you ask. Was there a great deal of camaraderie? I was fortunate to be in the office in the late 1960s and 1970s, and worked with a cadre of talented young assistant U.S. attorneys, many of whom are now D.C. white-collar litigators: Earl Silbert, Steve Grafman, Jim Lyons, Ken Robinson, Paul Knight, Jim Sharp, and many more. The experience has bonded this group. We have an organization, the Flannery Group, named after Judge Tom Flannery, a former U.S. attorney, who hired most of us. We get together from time to time, mainly to tell war stories. Also, when you’re a prosecutor you get the chance to work with the law enforcement people, many of whom I now count as very close friends. They’ll do anything for you, they’re dedicated, they’re smart, and they have insights that are invaluable. Has becoming a defense attorney made you change the way you think about the law or certain aspects of the law? As a prosecutor, you think you’re on the right side and you are the good guy, but there’s a lot of good that comes from defense work. As a defendant, there’s a personal element to the people on the other side of the courtroom. When I was a prosecutor, I didn’t talk to the defendant, I didn’t know who that person on the other side of the courtroom was, but now I do. I used to tell law students of Georgetown, if you want to be an idealist, be a prosecutor; if you want to be a realist, be a defense attorney. As a defense attorney, you’ve got to protect somebody else’s liberty interests, but there’s a human element, too. When I agree to represent someone, I give him or her my home phone number, because defense work is a lot of things, and one of them is providing a personal service. Criminal defense clients don’t retain a firm. They retain you personally. So you’ve got to develop that bond. It’s very fortunate that I was a prosecutor before becoming a defense attorney. In the early part of my time at the U.S. Attorney’s Office a lot of the good prosecutors had been defense attorneys. I really believe that if you’re a good advocate, you can do both sides. Prosecutorial experience helps a defense attorney analyze what the prosecution is doing and will do next. Plato Cacheris was a prosecutor before becoming a defense attorney, and so was Bob Bennett. Was there an adjustment period for you when you became a defense attorney? By the time I left the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I had been teaching criminal law and evidence for many years at Georgetown—and teaching requires exploration of both sides, prosecution and defense. So I spent a lot of time thinking about cases through the defense’s point of view before I left the office. What were some memorable cases you worked on when you were with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart? One of the first criminal defense cases I worked on involved the “Ill Wind” investigation, which was an FBI undercover operation run through the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Virginia. During my time at the firm, I represented a lot of people in grand jury investigations and in investigations conducted by companies. In 1996 I also worked out of the firm for Ken Starr as one of his assistants. What was it like working with Ken Starr? In 1996 he asked me to serve as one of his assistants on what was known as “Travelgate.” I was with him four and a half months. I had known Ken for some years though his work as an assistant to the attorney general, as solicitor general, and on the circuit court. He’s a fine man and a man of integrity. I respect him greatly, and I think that he’s a real credit to the profession. When I left his office, we had not brought any charges on Travelgate, and he never did. What did you do after leaving Kirkpatrick & Lockhart? I started my own practice in 1997. I rented office space from Plato Cacheris, the dean of the D.C. trial bar. I went to do white-collar defense work and also participate in plaintiff’s class action litigation against the tobacco companies. Lerach Coughlin was the first firm to bring class actions against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. They brought the tobacco cases in California to the state courts and then began bringing cases against the tobacco companies in federal courts. The cases were brought on behalf of union health trust funds that wanted to recover money from the tobacco companies for their members’ smoking-related health care costs. It was very complicated litigation, and those cases continued until 2001. Although the tobacco cases ended some time ago, I continued to work with the firm on plaintiff’s securities class action cases. Recently, I worked on the Enron civil case on behalf of the shareholders against Enron and the banks that allegedly worked with Enron. What was the outcome of that case? Of course, there was a criminal prosecution case in Houston involving the trial of Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling last year. The Enron civil case involved a huge class action on behalf of Enron shareholders against Enron, its executives, and several banks. Part of the civil case has been settled and the other part was recently dismissed by the Fifth Circuit, but the plaintiffs are seeking to have the Supreme Court review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. If we get to try that case, it will be a long case with many issues and expert witnesses. But the jury in the Enron criminal case had no difficulty with understanding the evidence, and there’s no reason to think that the same would not be true in the civil case. How do you present complicated information to jurors in a way they can understand? Most people don’t understand complex economic issues, social issues, and so forth. The challenge for the trial lawyer is to make such things comprehensible. Now, there are several things that have evolved to make this easier. Number one is graphics. Advanced graphics can make complex issues somewhat simpler to understand. Number two, the quality of lawyers and the manner of lawyers have changed. Some courts are now permitting lawyers to make interim arguments at certain points during the trial so that counsel don’t have to wait until the end of the case to make an argument to the jury, but can do it after every principal witness. Third, some judges will allow the jurors to ask questions after each witness testifies. Judge Walton did this in the Libby trial. So these are things that help the juror have a better understanding of what is being presented. If you’re asking me whether a jury can understand these kinds of complicated issues, my answer is yes. I’ve seen this from the other side. I served on a jury last summer in the district court. It was quite illuminating, and I was impressed at how carefully the jury considered everything before coming to a verdict. I had a new perspective: I was looking at a case from the jury box, where you can see how the performance of the lawyers affects the jury’s view of the case. In complex cases, before you try the case, there are often mock juries or trial juries that allow you to get an idea of what jurors’ reactions will be. That’s very important because sometimes you don’t know how people are going to react to the evidence, what they will understand or what they won’t understand, and what they want explained to them. Any case involving economic or accounting issues is very difficult because the accounting rules themselves are not certainties in the profession. They are based on judgment. Also, in economics there are competing theories just as much as there are competing theories in other disciplines. Those are hard. Up until 1998 you taught at Georgetown University Law Center for 24 years. What was it about teaching that you enjoyed? Why did you stop? Teaching was a passion for me. I taught large evidence classes at Georgetown for many years, but I had to stop because of my work travel. My areas, evidence and trial practice, can be taught from a practitioner’s perspective, along with the theory of the law, and I think my contribution for the students was explaining how these rules and principles work in the courtroom setting. Teaching allowed me to pass on my knowledge, real and practical. Every profession needs part of its learning process to be osmotic, absorbing the knowledge and the skills of the profession from an experienced person. Besides that, I was educated in class. Georgetown students come from different backgrounds and have a wide range of life experience, and it invariably happened that people would bring up perspectives or issues I hadn’t considered. At the end of every term, I thanked each class for educating me. Over the years, I think I inspired some people to be trial lawyers. It’s great when former students call me and say, “Hey, remember me? I have this case I’m working on and I wanted to know what you thought about this. . . . Do you know a case I can use?” I miss teaching dearly, and I would love to do it again, but right now it’s just too difficult to fit it into my schedule. It sounds like you served as a mentor for some of your students. Did you have mentors throughout your legal career? I was privileged to have had two great men as mentors: Judge William Bryant of the U.S. District Court and Victor Caputy, who served 37 years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. Through them I learned trial practice from both sides. Judge Bryant was the master criminal defense lawyer of his time before he was appointed to the bench in 1965, and Victor Caputy prosecuted more cases than anyone in the history of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Victor Caputy’s approach was straight-on: “Raise your voice and fight, fight, fight.” He was a tenacious advocate. But like some tough men, he was really a gentle soul inside. He raised three great sons, recited English poetry by heart, and read Greek literature. I prosecuted cases before Judge Bryant for 16 years. There was no more compassionate federal judge than Judge Bryant. He was no friend of the government in criminal cases, but he taught me a lot about tactics from the bench and in the long talks we had in his chambers. He is the only man I ever knew who had no enemies. When the judge died in 2005, the Washington Post put it best. It wrote that the judiciary and the legal profession “lost a giant.” An Inn of Court was named after Judge Bryant. Can you describe it? The Inns of Court program raises awareness in the American legal community about British modes of teaching trial practice and ethics to young lawyers. The Inn of Court is where one lives and goes to court with an advocate to learn about the law, its tactics, and the ethics of trial practice. In the program we try to imitate that model, and there are now several hundred inns in this country. Professor Sherman Cohn of Georgetown Law came to me in 1988 and asked me to cofound the William B. Bryant Inn of Court with him. I asked Judge Bryant and he didn’t want an inn named after him—he was such a modest man—so I had to talk him into it. The Bryant Inn has a dinner and program monthly, and we have tried to institute a mentoring program where senior lawyers mentor the young lawyers. Our inn was one of the few in the area to have law student members. Do you think that young lawyers today are in need of such mentoring programs? Absolutely. Many of them go to large firms, and while the large firms attempt to provide mentoring, it’s very difficult for them to do so. In Pennsylvania, just before I started to practice law, young lawyers had a person called a preceptor who was their guide into the law. We don’t have anything like that now. And frankly, there are just too many lawyers coming into the practice. Do you think there are too many lawyers here? I do think the legal community is overpopulated in Washington. I see young people that I had as students or whom I know and they don’t have jobs, or they can’t get good jobs, and you wonder why this is. It’s much harder on a young lawyer now than when I was starting to practice. If you were a young person today, would you go into a career in the law? Sure. I would still try to start in the prosecutor’s office, but it would be much harder because young law students often have so much debt now that government service may be out of the question, and they are under such pressure to advance their careers. It’s a very different situation. What else has changed in the legal field since you started practicing? Well, one thing that I’ve noticed is the lack of civility. It used to be that lawyers would do business on a handshake. Now, instead of a handshake, you have to memorialize an agreement in a three-page memo. And there is also a one-upmanship tendency among lawyers today. In a lot of ways, it has ceased to be a profession and has taken on overtones of a business. After 37 years working in the law, what keeps you motivated? Are you still learning new things? In the last decade, besides white-collar representations, I’ve participated on the plaintiff’s side in complex securities cases, worked on cases against the tobacco industry, done some medical malpractice cases and business litigation. I’m still learning about new things in the law, and through these complex cases I learn about accounting, economics, science, and even graphics. So the unique challenges keep coming. That motivates me. Some lawyers will say that one case is just like another, but I’ve never had that feeling. Periodically Washington Lawyer features a conversation with a senior member of the District of Columbia Bar reflecting on his or her career as a lawyer. The “Legends in the Law” are selected by the District of Columbia Bar’s Publications Committee on the basis of their prominence in their profession and their individual impact on the law and the legal profession in the District of Columbia. For past interviews, visit www.dcbar.org/legends (/bar-resources/publications/washingtonlawyer/articles/legends.cfm) . Roger Adelman, 74, Gouernment Lautyer Who Prosecuted Reagan’s 1981 Assailant BYWILLIAMGRIMES Roeer M. Adelman, a govern’ .enilu*y”. whose unsuccessful prosecution of John W. HinckleY ir. in the l98l shooting o[ President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, James S. Brady, ied to significant changes in the law governing the insanity defense in criminal trials, died on Sept. 12 at his home in washington. He was 74. The cause was comPlications of congestive heart failure, said Daniel E. Toomey, a lriend who worked with Mr. Adelman in the United States attorney’s office in Washington. Mr. Adelman was a senlor Drosecutor in that office when Mr. Hinckley shot the President on March 30, 1981, outside tbe Washington Hilton hotel, where Reagan had just addressed labor leaders. Mingling with onlookers’ Mr. Hincktey opened fire with a revolver as Reagan left the hotel, wounding Mr. Brady, a District of Columbia Police officer, a Secret Service agent and, finally, the Dresident, whom Secret Service lgents hustled into his limousine. Mr. Brady, who was shot in the head, sustained brain damage and was partlY ParalYzed. He died in August 2014, and the Northern Virginia medical examiner, 33 years after the shooting’ ruled the death a homicide. At the trial, lawyers for the defense arsued that Mr. Hinckley lived in a iantasy world, obsessed with the film “Taxi Driver” and its Young star Jodie Foster, whom he had hoped to impress bY assasslnating the president. Mr. Adelman argued that Mr’ Hinckley, despite his obsessions, had not acted on impulse but had carried out a carefully considered scheme. “This was not a random or thoughtless act;’ he told the jury on the opening day of the trial. Rather, he said, it was “planned, thought out, calculated.” In his closing argument, Mr. Adelman said: “The time has come for John Hinckley Jr.’ for the first time in his life, to take resDonsibilitv for what he’s done fie can’t ivoid responsibility for shooting President Reagan.” The jury found Mr. Hinckley not guilty bY reason of insanity, a decision that shocked the Public and lawmakers across tne countrv He was sent for treatment to St. Elizabeths, a Psychiatric hosnital in Washington, where he has been confined ever since. In 1984, in direct response to the verdict, Congress Passed the ComDrehensive Crime Control Act, which set a higher bar for the insanity defense in federal courts, Previously, defendants could be found not guilty bY reason of insanity if it could be shown that, because of a mental disease or defect, they could not control themselves well enough to obey the law or could not tell the difter’ Roger M. Adelman in 1988, as a partner.at Kirkpatrick & Lockhai. Before that, he was an assistant United States attorney’ thought were representatives ol an Arab sheikh hoping to buy Po, litical influence. Etut!r ADLER_MOdCIIE B” dred ol her home in 5cor5- dole. NY on seotember lb, oge o8. Devoled wife of lhe lote Theodore w Aoler ono loving mother of Louise ono the lote Thomos. BoTn ono roised In Mississipoi, she oi_ lended’Ote Miss” ono rnen worked ol the Dovton Alr Field where she mel Coploln Teddv.’ Volunteered lor over 45 veors ol the While Plorns Hosodol Pohent Librorv ono Scorsdole womon s Lluo ooerolron Bookshelr’ 5ervl_ ces Privole, RelolLves ooo ffiends ore inviled lo !ne home sundov, SeptemDer.2u’ from l2-zom ond on Monoov, September 2l from 5’lom contributions mov be mooe ro Whne Ploins Hosoilol. BELSON-Jerome’ Dossed owov Peocefullv on Thursdov morning Seolember lTlh surrounded bv hls ro_ milv. He wos Predeceoseo ov his beloved wife Moxine ono son Mlchoel (KorhY). He is survrved bY his son I oo, doushler Brionne (sonford), brother Viclor ond 9rono_ chrldren Mollhew (Jodr), Joshuo (Kolv), Joclvn, Ioov ond Jonolhon, ono greol grondchrldren Nooh, Arlel, ond Poislev. The fune.or wrll be held SundoY, seplember 2oth ot l2Pm or Communtlv Svnosogue of Rve, 2m Foresl Ave. Rve, NY. He wrll oe missed bv ihose wno Knew ham besl for his lorger rnon life Personolilv. In lieu .ot flowers, donoiions con oe mode to New Hooe Commu’ An extroordinorv mon; on ex’ lroordinorv Portnet on exfro’ ordinory lriend _ Never to oe duolicoJed 09oin Love, Phvllis & Alon woloed ence between right and wrong Under the new law, lack of control was no longer a defense. “The Hinckley verdict had a huge impact on insanity defense law,” ChristoPher Slobogin’ a law orofessor at Vanderbilt Universi’ iv who has written extensively on the law and mental health, said in an email. “ln the direct wake of the verdict, several states abolished the defense, and well over half the smtes significantly r€- duced its scope. Since Hinckley’s trial, the insanity defense has never been the same.” Roger Mark Adelman was born on June 25, 1941, in Norrtstown. Pa., where his father, Louis, and his mother, the former MarY .4n unsuccessful case thatled to much srn’cfer limits on the insanity defense. Butz, ran a retail carpet store. He olaved football and basketball at i,toiristown Area High School. At Dartmouth College, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in English in 1963, he was a varsity r0wer. After receiving his law degree from the University of PennsYF vania in 1966, Mr’ Adelman served in the ArmY, which sent him to its language school in Monterey, Calif., to learn Russian. on completing his militarY service, he began working for the United States attorney’s office in Washington, Prosecuting homlcides, robberies and kidnaPPings. as well as white-collar crime and some of the earliest organlzedcrime cases under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, statute. As Dart of the F.B.l. sting operation known as Abscam, he helped prosecute Representative Richard KellY, a Florida Republican who had been videotaPed accepting $25,000 in bribe moneY from undercover agents who he money not because he was cor- I “a.ro*-r”.o-“. rupt but because he wanted .to Llf””l’;,’.**-“.Hi,’J”::lL1 iii,i ii”,n”ii,” ,”;; i;.i.;i; ::li”? iJ”‘ig ::T’ffi”.R had offered him the money.” Mr’ ‘,L^T:’x::.:l nao ollere0 tlllll tllc ]i”‘1″”9″i,: rrrurrsJ, “” 1 liioFe Beison’48L.’80HoN, Adelman told the magazine on exrroordrnorv mor ond-o w”ihiGo” Lawyer in 20d? ‘As I B:[‘3:?:? ‘:il3l’,’.1R'” “JJ]”‘ it turned out, the man who pard lli-!’Jf,l, lii?”.’i.’l”iii him the money was an undercov- J Mox,”e eetson ?.9Hol-\,-9: er F.B.l. ageni. Not surprisingiv, I ftf;:’ ::,.,”J:%”#”.”.”‘i3! that defense did not get too tu: I H:iJifJ'”.:,,?S:’:”::?::”l: with the jury.” Mr. Kelly was I the un,versriv’s boord or found guiliy 6f briberv and con’ $ts’.t1:’.?!3t1″‘hi.”H:’h3* spiracy at his l98l trial and I ocumen. hls comoossion for served 13 months inprison. PSli#;’fi?.1. ii| 33f15913i.!: “At trial, he claimed he took the Mr. Adelman, who leaves no immediate survivors, told washington Lawyer that servillg as an asii.tant attorney with rhe Unlted States attorney’s office was “the best job a trial lawyer can have.” When asked to exPlain, he sild: “well, lt starts with the fact that as an assistant U.S. attorney you can stand uP in court and say, ‘Ladtes and gentlemen, I rePresent the united states.’ There are few other places in life that You can do that, especiallY at 28 Years old.” Starr declined to bring charges. u”‘”,il,1′;TJlA. rimons, oeon In 1997, Mr. Adelman started ondJohnv Brqnnon hi ;’ ;*; i;; ii’;, specializing i ” white-collar defense work and “ii3l”il?’.?,1”,”‘il.”J.””51T:; , o,”-.,t”3$?ii”.”i class-action litigation against to- i bacco companies. He taught evi- ] aersol-:e.o-u. dence and criminal procedure “t i 5i””33S1”,:!tfli!:?:””T! the Georgetown University Law L 6;neEor G;eoler New York center foi 25 years before retir- I q:Yrnonihem”l-o’tt”t, “oi”.3!i ins in lee8. [,’,j:i i::;[:.i’*’;l%.”# tn May, the Council for Court mi-n-r-rd. onJ*ir PeJS-A9T; Excellenie gave him its Justice ::::1 t3′,i'””:i3:'””‘.:f t?'”7 Potter Stewart Award lor his con- | orotne’, chrldren o’d erond’ tributions to the administration ] cn”oren oljustice in Washington. , BELsoN-Jerome. ln 1988, Mr. Adelman became.a n:m?’r’..:f:E:;; fliJi: Dartner in the law firm of Kirk- liiseio-noZ’sr’ne”sneo nim’ patrick & Lockharl. (now K&L i”xfull.9 -,?:;”%;,””‘?,’J.’ .3e'”””‘I;'”‘;t’:ilt[i”il;n’$i[1if,{;3kii’,l1:fi:T+; i