RICHARD KIRKLAND [“KIRK”] BOWDEN 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 RICHARD KIRKLAND [“KIRK”] BOWDEN Interviews conducted by: Joshua Klein, Esquire November 28, 2007; July 30, 2008; March 6, July 2, 2009,; January 19, May 6, 2010 Interview conducted by: Stephen J. Pollak, Esquire June 23, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ……………………………………………………………. i Oral History Agreements Richard Kirkland Bowden. ……………………………………….. iii Joshua Klein, Esquire……………………………………………… v Stephen J. Pollak, Esquire. ……………………………………….. vii Oral History Transcript of Interviews: Interview No. 1, November 28, 2007…………………………………… 1 Interview No. 2, July 30, 2008………………………………………. 33 Interview No. 3, March 6, 2009. …………………………………….. 54 Interview No. 4, July 2, 2009……………………………………….. 85 Interview No. 5, January 19. 2010. …………………………………… 97 Interview No. 6, May 6, 2010. …………………………………….. 119 Interview No. 7, June 23, 2011. ……………………………………. 128 Index. ………………………………………………………….. A-1 Table of Cases. …………………………………………………….. B-1 Biographical Sketches Richard Kirkland Bowden. ……………………………………….. C-1 Joshua Klein, Esquire……………………………………………. C-3 Stephen J. Pollak. ……………………………………………… C-5 Appendix: . ………………………………………………………. D-1 The Soul of Our Court: Recollections and Remininisces, A Tribute to The Honorable William Benson Bryant, by Kirk Bowden, Deputy United States Marshal. 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. © 2011 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. i 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. 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. Both the interviewers and the interviewees have had an opportunity to review and edit the transcripts. With the permission of the person being interviewed, oral histories are also available on the Internet through the Society’s Web site, Audio recordings of most interviews, as well as electronic versions of the transcripts, are in the custody of the Society. ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN First Interview November 28, 2007 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place on November 28, 2007. This is the first interview. Mr. Klein: Mr. Bowden, I think I’ll start by asking you to give us an overview of your life and the various interesting segments of it. Mr. Bowden: First of all, my name is Richard Kirkland Bowden. I was born in Memphis, Tennessee, December 24, 1935. I attended public high schools in Memphis and college in Memphis – LeMoyne College. I entered the military in 1954, the United States Air Force, honorably discharged in 1958. I came to Washington, D.C., joined the Metropolitan Police Department in 1958 to 1962. Then the United States Marshals Service in June 1962 and retired January 1987. Came back as a contract employee in the Marshals Service in 1990, 1991, and I am presently a contract employee. Mr. Klein: Expanding on what you just said, I think you said you’d like to start with talking about your career in the U.S. Air Force? Mr. Bowden: Yes. I entered the United States Air Force with the intention of becoming a pilot, and after completing the written exams, I took the physical. I thought I had done well on the physical. I found out that at some point in some of the questionnaires I had indicated that I had injured my knee while playing basketball. That injury was not a serious one, didn’t require any medical attention, but it was documented, and I was told that because of that knee injury, I could not become a pilot in the United States Air Force. I was told later by a person of authority that 2 they had their quota of African-American pilots so I was redlined and put in another career field, which turned out to be in law enforcement. Mr. Klein: When you said they had their quota of African-American pilots, I assume it was a very low quota, it could not have been very common. You were not running into a lot of African-American pilots on base, is that right? Mr. Bowden: That’s right. Remember now this is 1954, and the person told me, told me in strict confidence, that they had their quota of African-American pilots and had processed them all. So my first assignment was at the Lackland Air Force Base in basic training. I was teaching remedial math, and I found that very boring. But to my surprise, it may have been the best thing that happened to me. I was being investigated for a possible career as a criminal investigator. One weekend I was visited in my room by three men who interrogated me about my background and how I grew up and that type of thing. I was whisked off to California, where I went into intensive training in criminal investigation. Subsequently assigned to the Criminal Investigation Unit in the United States Air Force, and that’s where I did my career in the investigative capacity. While there, one of my commanding officers had a brother who was a high-ranking officer here in the Metropolitan Police Department. When I approached him at the time of my discharge, my commanding officer wanted me to stay in the military, but I thought I should move on. He said if I wanted to stay in law enforcement and if I was ever in Washington, D.C., to look up his brother. He gave me his brother’s name, and after I was discharged, I did come to Washington, D.C. and looked his brother up. On a Thursday, I believe. That Friday, I took the written exam, and they called 3 me that Monday, and I was sworn in as a Metropolitan Department police officer in 1958. I worked as a Metropolitan police officer assigned to the Morals Division. In that division, we had the Narcotics Section, the Prostitution Section, and Gambling and Liquor Section. So my primary concentration was in the narcotics undercover capacity. There came a time when I realized that there were no more advancement possibilities in the Metropolitan Police Department, and I had had some interfacing with members of the United States Marshals Service in Washington, D.C. So I applied for a position as a deputy in the United States Marshals Office here in Washington, D.C., and was accepted in June of 1962. Mr. Klein: I’d like to go back and ask you a little bit more about the Air Force and the Metropolitan Police. First, in the Air Force, what kinds of investigations were you doing? Mr. Bowden: Criminal investigations. Many of the cases I worked on were with internal staff of government property. I was in the Strategic Air Command, and a lot of aircraft, for obvious reasons, were under high security, and very limited people had access to them, for obvious reasons. Some of the aircraft had what they called 800-day clocks in them. There were personnel who were removing the clocks, unauthorized removing of those clocks, and selling them on the market, on the black market. They were very expensive pieces of equipment and also required the aircraft not being able to fly because they didn’t have that timepiece. Mr. Klein: What is an 800-day clock? Mr. Bowden: It’s a mechanism in the cockpit that keeps exact time, and it ran on the system outside of the aircraft itself for 800 days. So they were very valuable on the 4 market. So people were taking them out of the aircraft and building clocks for home use, fancy handcrafts and that kind of stuff. Mr. Klein: When you say Strategic Air Command, those were aircraft carrying nuclear weapons? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Remember this is 1954, 1955, 1956. We were just getting out of Korea at the time, so they were armed aircraft. I did a lot of penetration of secure installations to check the security detection that the command, the base, was setting up. Mr. Klein: What would that involve? The penetration? Mr. Bowden: Presently, most government buildings you go in now you must show an ID card or a photo ID to enter the building. They didn’t have magnetometers in those days, but they did have picture IDs. Picture IDs were color-coded, some of them had number codes that permitted you to go from one position to another position within a confined area on the base. One of my tasks was to penetrate that as an unauthorized person. So I used some various ruses in order to gain access to areas that I should not be in. When I did, then I had to leave a message to verify that I was there. For instance, a vulnerable part of an air base is the tower. If a terrorist wanted to take down an air base, the first place they’d go is the tower. You take the tower down, you’ve pretty well crippled the aircraft coming and going because they didn’t have communication from the tower. So one of my responsibilities was to penetrate that security, to get into the tower and disseminate a bomb in the tower or to disseminate poison gas, something that would disable the personnel that were operating that tower. There were radar 5 sites off-post that were scanning the skies. My mission was to penetrate that, to disable that site, so that an enemy aircraft, if it was disabled, could penetrate the perimeter, take advantage of that being disabled. Mr. Klein: What kind of ruses would you use to get in? Mr. Bowden: First of all I had to come up with a false ID, so I would get on base the best way I could, sometimes with fraudulent paperwork that made it appear that I was assigned to a particular division. I would just stand around and wait for my opportunity for someone in a public place, maybe they’d take their coat off and they’d have their badge attached to it. I’d take the badge and use their badge to gain access. Sometimes I would take their badge, take it back to my hotel, take their picture out, put my picture in, put a picture of a gorilla or whatever I thought would get me through the checkpoint. Sometimes I would secrete myself in a vehicle that I knew was going to an area that was restricted. You stand around and you watch the security procedure, and you see who’s lax and who’s not lax, and you take advantage of that, particularly in the wee hours of the morning. I remember very distinctly Caribou, Maine, in November or December. My mission was to penetrate that airbase up there. When I got there, they had 67 inches of snow on the ground. The first thing I noticed there was no fence around the parked aircraft because the snow had covered the fence. No one had thought to put an extension on top of that in order to protect from walking along the backside of the airbase up to the aircraft. They had military personnel outside in winter gear walking around the aircraft. It was something like 40 below zero, wind blowing, snow blowing. They were there for four hours on their shift. 6 Their concentration, their concern, began to wane after a while. So I would wait until they slowed their walk down, set down between the wheels of the aircraft to stay warm, and I’d go in and do my bidding and leave my simulated bomb. Then I’d make my report, call it in as to where I left the object and identify what aircraft. I’d be out of the area by then. Of course there was no way to connect me physically with the mission. So I would maybe hit four or five aircraft that night. I may have been in the area two weeks in order to get the confidence in the personnel. Sometimes you walk by an officer two or three times, speak to him and wave to him, he gets to see your face, and then the next time you walk by without an ID card, just speak to him, he doesn’t look at the ID card. That’s a violation. A physical check should be done each time. So you do what you have to do in order to gain entry. Mr. Klein: So you were doing what sounds to me like very high-level security infiltration, testing the security. You said there was no opportunity for advancement in the Air Force, so could you explain more about that? Mr. Bowden: Well, I’m not bitter, it just didn’t come. One thing, I moved around a lot. I only had two commanders, but I was never physically with the commanders. I was off other places. We communicated mostly by either teletype or by telephone. I was later given an American Express card for expenses so I could do my infiltration stuff. And so I was not seen, if you will, by anyone, only by written report or by verbal report. I guess they didn’t see it necessary to promote a person who was not physically there. 7 Mr. Klein: Again, we’re talking 1954 to 1958. Besides what you heard about the pilot entry selection, was there visible, evident racism in the military, in the Air Force? Mr. Bowden: As far as I know, at that time I never heard of or saw another African-American investigator. There may have been, but I was a young fellow at the time and it wasn’t high on my list. I was having a great time. I was enjoying the career, the travel, the adventure, so looking at the racial issue was not what I was about – because I was a military person in a civilian life, if you will. I didn’t wear a uniform unless I was actually on base. If you were in civilian clothes you drew attention, so if you were on base, you wore a uniform. I had uniforms, so I wore whatever I thought would get me through the day. If I wanted to get into an area where officers did not go, only enlisted people, I would wear a uniform with the enlisted insignia. I’d try to blend in with the environment. If I wanted to get into the officer’s club, where I would sit and listen to hear what was going on, then I would disguise myself as an officer. You had to play the role. Mr. Klein: Did you like that? Mr. Bowden: I did. Time just went “whoosh.” When I looked up, I had been in four years, had been around the world two or three times, enjoying it. I was not bitter. Mr. Klein: What rank did you leave the military? Mr. Bowden: I was not a commissioned officer. I was an enlisted person. So I left as a Technical Sergeant. Mr. Klein: When you went to the Metropolitan Police? Mr. Bowden: The interesting thing about it is that I took the exam, I believe, on Friday, and got a phone call that Monday, and they told me to report. I was sworn in that 8 Monday. I did not go to Metropolitan Police training until I had been on the Department over two years. I was sworn in by a Deputy Chief, and he sent me directly to the Morals Division. I didn’t go inside that building headquarters for two years. It’s right across the street from this courthouse, 300 Indiana Avenue. I worked in the streets. I had two contact detectives. They would bring me my advance funds that I would need to operate. I would give them the drugs that I purchased, whatever documentation that I had, in a meeting place. I didn’t wear a badge nor carry a gun or anything to identify myself as a police officer for two years. At that time, there were eleven people assigned to the Narcotics Division at the Metropolitan Police Department. We covered the entire city of Washington. The drug of choice at that time was heroin. Mr. Klein: What would be involved in an operation? How did you operate? Mr. Bowden: I played the life of a drug addict, and all I was doing was making purchases in an area where it was known that drugs were being sold or distributed. I would always try to get to the source of the drug, I suppose, with an addict who only has drugs on his person because he needs the drugs to survive. I was looking for the supplier. So I had to work my way in and up through the chain. Sometimes my contact officers would introduce me to someone whom they had cultivated as an informant who would lead me for a while. And then we would separate and I would go on my own, not to identify him or her as a person who’d introduce me to the source or introduced me to the supply line. So I was able to function in that way. Most of the traffic at that time was concentrated in the northwest section of the city. A few cases in southeast, but most of the drugs were concentrated in the 9 northwest section of the city. So a small geographical area that I was working. A lot of people, but a small area. Mr. Klein: I imagine that being undercover like that is really full-time, 24 hours. Mr. Bowden: No. That was the joy of it. Because traditionally, by nature, drug addicts don’t hang out a lot. They go in and make their purchase and leave. Go shoot the drugs and enjoy their high in seclusion, out of the public. So I could go at any time of the day or night and make a buy, and then the rest of the time was my free time. So it was not a demanding hourly job – it was just being at the right place at the right time. There were certain times of the day when drugs are more plentiful on the street than other times. We’re talking about heroin. Mr. Klein: But what about staying in character all the time? Or were you able to live a separate life, an ordinary life? Mr. Bowden: I lived a very normal life. I was single at the time. Many of my friends and associates didn’t know what I did for a living. My apartment was near the Howard University campus. I did that deliberately, so I could mingle with my age group. So many of my friends and associates were students at Howard University and they thought I was a student at the University. So if you know the city, Howard University was near where, at that time, the heroin traffic was plentiful, around 14 and U, 7 and U, 14 and P, Swann Street, Corcoran, and th th th further south. So it was always walking distance from where I lived, and it was walking distance from the campus. So if I was seen on the U Street corridor by a student, it would not be unusual for me to be in the U Street corridor, going to a movie or going to a club or something. And if I was seen up on Georgia Avenue 10 by someone who was in the drug culture, I wouldn’t be out of place because that’s where students go. So it was a good location for me to live and to socialize. Of course you dressed differently when you – sometimes when I’m working cases, I would stay away from the campus because the way I was dressed I would be in character. After that two-year period of undercover, I came off the streets and went into plain clothes, and I was working out of 300 Indiana Avenue. Mr. Klein: Just to ask more about the undercover period, it sounds like these were the years 1958 to 1960? Mr. Bowden: Exactly. Mr. Klein: Were there times when you felt your cover was blown or that you were in danger? Mr. Bowden: No. When I left the undercover capacity and went into the plain clothes capacity, that meant I was riding in a squad car. Folk who I had seen earlier didn’t recognize me. I had a situation where they once detailed me to the gambling and liquor squad. There was a fellow in the District who had several after-hour places. After-hour meaning in those days whiskey stores, ABC stores, closed I believe at 11:00, so if you wanted to buy a bottle of whiskey after 11:00, you couldn’t get it from the ABC store. So there were people in private homes who sold whiskey without a license. And on weekends the bars quit selling whiskey after 12:00 on Saturday, so if you wanted a drink after 12:00, you had to go to an after-hour place. A speakeasy. There was one fellow who had several of them. I was able to go in and out of there with the greatest of ease. It got to the place that he had someone take a picture of me out on the street, posted a picture on the side of the door. He said look at the picture. If this guy knocks on the door, don’t let 11 him in. He’s the police. I’d knock on the door, the guy would look at the picture, look at me, and say come on in. Maybe I just looked like the average Joe. So, no forced entry. I’d just walk up and knock on the door. He’d say, come on in. I’d go in and make my buy, or go in and sit around and laugh and talk. It was a fun thing as far as I was concerned. But I was making good cases. I never, never made a report that I didn’t feel comfortable with. If I made a narcotic buy, I wouldn’t make just one, I’d make three, four, five. Because I wanted to be able to sit in a grand jury or look anyone in the eye and say I made these purchases from that person, I’m convinced that person is in the drug business as opposed to happenstance. I’ve seen addicts who would spend their last money and buy caps and then realize he didn’t have anything to eat so he’d sell somebody else a cap just to get $2 or $4 or $5 so he could do something else. To me he’s not selling drugs. Legally yes, but he’s not the guy I’m after. You appreciate what I’m saying? He’s not the dealer that I was after. I was after the guy who’s not addicted, he’s in it strictly for the profit. Mr. Klein: Does this give you a certain perspective on what you’ve seen in the trials, you’ve seem later on, you know, more recently? Mr. Bowden: I look at it with different eyes. I look at the cases now with eyes that other folk may not look at cases with. I wrote a paper back in the 1950s to my commanding officer in the Narcotic Division because I saw what heroin was doing to the community, the drug itself, and I proposed that they legalize heroin, with very very rigid restrictions. I saw some property, a building, Whitelaw Apartments, that at the time was vacant, and I used to hang around in that area, and I said, 12 “That would be an ideal stop to set up a clinic and staff it with medical people – nurses, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, the whole gang.” Because I knew a lot of drug users, addicts, good people. One guy, Hezekiah Blue. He was a graduate from Howard University School of Architecture. Smart as a whip. Read three newspapers every day and could talk to you about everything he read. Couldn’t keep a job because he was addicted to heroin. First of all, he was a black architect. There weren’t many positions for him, to begin with. Now he’s got this drug problem. A wasted man. Very articulate, knowledgeable, but he’s an addict. He died, literally died, on the streets of Washington. My proposal was to go in and sit at the table with all these professionals and qualify as an addict, get a card. And when you need your drug, come here to this spot, they will give you the drug, you use it right here, then go the other way. The police commanders told me I was mad, out of my mind. Years later, they came up with methadone, but that wasn’t the answer. I’m talking about heroin. There are some people who are called chippers. They only shoot a little bit of heroin just to keep them still on that high. They don’t nod. They don’t go into the depth of illusions, they don’t lose consciousness, and they are not addicted, but they are controlled addicted, if that makes any sense to you. They use just enough to maintain that modicum of calmness, if you will, about the body. He’s a chipper. He’s not mainlining, and he has not lost control. Just to keep them going. And they only do it on weekends. Interesting. During the week, full-time employee. People who work with him every day never know that 13 he uses drugs. Because in those days there was no urinalysis. But on the weekends, he chips. He starts coming down Friday, chips all weekend. Mr. Klein: Was the drug trade that you were investigating violent? Mr. Bowden: No. Heroin addicts are unique people. They’ll steal. They’ll lie. Can’t give them a gun. They won’t break into your house. Very rarely have I heard of an addict breaking into someone’s house. They’ll break into a car. Take your camera, anything of value, but he’ll move quickly. To get the nerve enough to get into somebody’s house, very rare. Very docile. Laid back, cool, just wants to enjoy his high. But then it gets out of control, and that’s when you see them walking down the street nodding, saliva dripping from his mouth, he’s lost control. That’s the guy I’m talking about, who would have benefitted from going to that treatment place. Mr. Klein: It sounds like you actually have a lot of compassion for the users. Mr. Bowden: Oh yeah. I would follow a dealer all day long if necessary. Time meant nothing to me a long as I felt I could accomplish what I wanted. I did it legally. Never a hummer. Mr. Klein: What’s a hummer? Mr. Bowden: Lie on a guy, a dealer, do it illegally. I had one guy who I knew was a dealer, and I knew he had drugs in his pockets, but I had no legal reason to search him. I’d follow him for about five hours. He came to the courthouse. I knew he had drugs on him, he had a lot of drugs on him. I knew that. Came to the courthouse, reported to his probation officer, and left. He went to 5 and G Streets, there was th a newspaper stand. 14 Mr. Klein: G Street, Northwest? Mr. Bowden: Northwest. There was a newspaper stand where you’d put a coin in. In those days it was 5 cents to get the paper. Someone in front of him put a coin in, opened the tray, and got a newspaper out. He grabbed the tray and got a newspaper and didn’t pay for it. I said, “Gotcha!” I arrested him for petty larceny. I handcuffed him right there and walked him from 5 and G to Indiana th Avenue, did not search him. He said, “Why are you arresting me?” I said, “Because you stole a newspaper.” He says, “It’s only 5 cents.” I said, “It’s petty larceny, a newspaper.” In front of uniformed officers and everybody. He looked at me and asked why I was messing with him. I said, “Search him.” I didn’t want to search him. I wanted somebody else to find the drugs. They found the drugs. See, when I cuffed him behind, I knew he couldn’t get rid of the drugs. I was not in a hurry. I’d been with him all day long. Another half hour, 45 minutes, was not going to hurt me. But I wanted these drugs to be found by someone else, and I wanted them found in front of several folk so he could never say anything other than “they came out of my pocket.” Those were the kind of cases that I worked on. Mr. Klein: You have to be pretty crafty and patient, it sounds. Mr. Bowden: That’s what it’s all about. Because I learned a long time ago in law enforcement that you wait a while, they’ll come back every time. They had in the District of Columbia a law called the Blue Miller Law. I don’t know whether it’s still on the books or not, but in essence what that law was, a person who has been convicted of a narcotic violation could not be seen in or frequent a known area where 15 narcotics are sold or distributed. So if you saw him there, as an officer, you had to interview him on three different occasions to show consistency that he hangs around there. Then you arrest him for narcotics vagrancy under the Blue Miller Law. I used that as a cushion to go someplace else. That’s how you develop informants. Now I know this guy has drugs on him, and I know if he has drugs on him, he’s got a dealer. He’s an addict. I’ve seen him make his buy. When he leaves, I stop him. I’d say, “Hi Josh, how are you doing?” “Oh I’m doing all right.” “You know, we’ve got to have this little conversation, Josh, you understand that, don’t you?” “Yes sir.” “I’m not going to search you. Don’t worry, you’re all right. If I let you go, you know what will happen if I see you again.” I see him again, “Hi Josh….” Third time, “Josh, that pocket right there, turn it inside out.” He turns it inside out. A pill falls. “Oh, what is that?” “I’d grind it up. I’d see him a fourth time, “Josh, here’s what I want you to do.” Mr. Klein: So you build up a few favors first, and then use the user to get at the person who is selling? Mr. Bowden: Sure. I’d say, “Josh, I need you to do this for me. I need to meet so-and-so, just one time.” You know what I’m saying? Mr. Klein: You’d have him make the introduction, and then he’s gone, and then you do the buy? Mr. Bowden: I do what I have to do. Never involve Josh. And you’re happy. Every time I see you, you’re happy. Today, 2007, at basketball games, football games, I run into people who I treated the same way I treated you. They say, “Hey man, how you doing? You all right?” Some of them come down to this courthouse, their 16 grandson, they say “You still around?” I say, “Yeah, you still around?” “You an all right guy.” And they tell their family, “This man here, he’s all right.” Because he was not a dealer, he was a user. When I knew him. Mr. Klein: Do you think police work has changed with the change in drug laws? Mr. Bowden: With the change in drug laws and with change in people. Crack as we know it changed everything in terms of the criminals on the street. The violence went up. The relationship between police and the streets, police and the community, changed. People have gotten more legally sophisticated, so your approach now as a law enforcement officer has to be the strictest in what you do and what you say, when you do it and when you say it – because everybody now is a constitutional expert, and they look for that violation in the prosecution. Which as it should be. But it makes it more difficult to get at what your mission is, to get the drugs off the street. To threaten a person with jail now, you just can’t do that. Mr. Klein: What do you mean threaten someone with jail? Mr. Bowden: “If you don’t straighten up, I’m going to lock you up.” They’ll run to their lawyer: “Mr. So-and-So threatened to lock me up for no reason at all.” A lot of times you do that just to let them know you know what they’re doing, but you don’t make that arrest. As I told you earlier, the general overall office was the Morals Division, and in that division was the Narcotics Division, Prostitution Division, and Gambling and Liquor. I talked a little bit about the narcotics, a little bit about violation of the ABC laws, and one other section was the lottery. In those days, it was called the numbers game. In the 1970s they had a legal lottery in the District of Columbia. 17 But in the 1950s, there were street numbers, and the numbers were dictated by the folk who controlled the illegal gambling in the community. And that was a fraternity of violators, if you will. They were violating the law, but they were good people, if you will. Nonviolent. Many of them were big financial contributors to the community financially. I know several people, who were in the numbers business, who paid tuition for non-relatives in the community. They saw a young man or a young lady who had potential to go to college but didn’t have the money. I know some number of them, who were in the numbers business, saw to it that tuition was paid. Oftentimes anonymously, but it got paid. That was one area that I really didn’t enjoy as a law enforcement officer, the numbers violators, violators of ABC laws and prostitution. At that time, I considered those victimless crimes because I never knew of a person who was running the numbers as the term goes, or backing the numbers, come up to you and ask you to play a number. They just didn’t do that. You had to seek them out to play the numbers. That was your choice. Violators of the ABC laws, afterhour, speakeasies, there were no neon signs, no business cards, no written invitation. You knocked on that door to go in and to spend your money when you couldn’t buy the whiskey or beer at a licensed place. I only worked those cases because it was a violation of the law, but my heart wasn’t in it. Oftentimes, the man who ran the after-hours club also banked numbers. He’s just a businessman. He didn’t have a license to run that business. Mr. Klein You said prostitution? 18 Mr. Bowden: I wasn’t really gung-ho about prostitution, because prostitution is a contract between a man and a woman. Because I know, I’ve seen guys who work construction, their only job. The guy gets up at 6:00 in the morning and gets off at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. He works hard all day long, five, six days a week. He doesn’t have the time, nor possibly the energy, to woo or to court, to go to dinner, go dancing. But he has biological needs. He’s not a rapist. Here is a lady, who’s of age, who has two or three children, single parent, limited education, limited income, who is willing to accommodate the construction worker for a fee. Where is the harm? His biological needs are met. Goes back to work, he’s happy all week. She has some additional income to feed and clothe her children. Maybe she doesn’t pay taxes. I just didn’t see – I didn’t put the energy in it that I did with the guy who’s selling drugs, who’s pushing that dangerous drug, tearing up families, tearing up lives, destroying folk for the money. Mr. Klein: Is there anything more we should cover about the Metropolitan Police Department before moving on to your decision to join the Marshals Service? Mr. Bowden: Well, when I went into plain clothes, I had to train and educate undercover folk, and there were some coming in who did not know heroin from baking soda. Didn’t know marijuana from Old Gold Cigarettes, never seen it. I taught, trained, educated those who didn’t know the language, didn’t know the street language. From Walla Walla, Kansas, or somewhere in the hills of Pennsylvania, that didn’t have a clue. I walked him through. Six months, a year later, he’s promoted, I’m 19 not. I saw where it was headed. It’s not here. So when the opportunity to come to the Marshals Service presented itself, I went. Mr. Klein: How did the opportunity with the Marshals Service present itself? Mr. Bowden: The United States Marshal in the District of Columbia at the time was Luke C. Moore, who had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney prior to his appointment as a Marshal. He’s originally from Memphis, Tennessee, my home. His younger brother and I were classmates in high school and then in college, so I knew the family well. He knew me in terms of being from Memphis. We didn’t chum around together because he was older. While I was on the Police Department, I was working a big case, a big narcotic case, in an undercover capacity. I had gone back undercover while in the squad just for this one particular case, and I’d made a buy, a big buy, then I was home. I wrote my report and affidavit in support of the search and warrant, left it on the desk in the squad room. My colleague read it, came to me, in the squad car, told me come on, let’s take a ride. I go. Summer Sunday. I lie down in the back seat. He was signaling to me. So we went across town. Mr. Klein: You were lying down in the back seat of the cruiser while he was driving? Mr. Bowden: Yes. We went across town, he stopped the car, tooted the horn, a guy came out. My colleague says, “Do you know this man?” pointing to me. The fellow looks down and says, “that’s Something Slim.” That was my name on the street, Something Slim. He said, “He’s the police.” The guy said, well you got him. My colleague drove off. I said, “Man what the hell is going on?” When I got home, he dropped me off, I went to Luke Moore, who was an Assistant U.S. 20 Attorney then, and told him what had happened because I was scared. I went and talked to someone and got some advice, and the advice was to write up my report as to what happened and give him a copy, and let’s see how it flows. The warrant was never executed. As a matter of fact, I was told to take two weeks’ vacation. I said I don’t have any place to go. Work was vacation to me, because I was enjoying it. Just take some time off, and so I did. The warrant was never executed. Two or three months later, I was coming out of a theatre on U Street. It was snowing, I was with my girlfriend trying to get a cab. This guy walked up to me and said, “Why are you getting a cab?” I said, “Because I don’t have a car.” He said, “I just brought you a car.” The young lady I’m with thinks that I’m a student at Howard University. She looked at me like what is going on, so I excuse myself. He said, “I bought you a brand new Oldsmobile, green and beige, just the shade you wanted.” I knew who had a green and beige new Oldsmobile in the squad. I led the guy to the car and said, “I don’t want your car, nothing from you.” I went back and got a cab. The next day I went to the office and told this person, “Let me see the registration to that car.” He showed it to me, and it was in my name. I said, “Come on.” We went downstairs. We’re going to change this registration now. He did. The person I had gotten advice from, I told him what happened. He said, just wait it out, see what happens. I did not know at the time, but this person was under investigation. My colleague was already under investigation, I didn’t know it. Mr. Klein: Was this the same man, the one who had the car the same one who had driven you across town to see the dealer? 21 Mr. Bowden: Yes. So he went back to the guy and told him in order for that warrant to disappear, I needed a car. You follow me? Mr. Klein: Yes. Mr. Bowden: Some time later, two or three months as best as I can figure, he was arrested, went to the penitentiary, served five years. I said it’s time to get out of here, so I went and applied for the United States Marshals Office. I went to Luke Moore, who was then the United States Marshal, I told him that I needed to get out of that police department. Mr. Klein: This was 1962? Mr. Bowden: June 1962. So I filled out applications and that kind of stuff. So it took some time, some background This was January, 1962, I believe. It took some time to do the background, but I came into the Marshals Office in 1962. Mr. Klein: So you join the Marshals Service in June of 1962. Tell me about your start with the Marshals Service. Mr. Bowden: It was a new experience. I had no idea what the scope of the responsibilities were, except I knew that they had accompanied us on search and arrest warrants, because in those days when we got a warrant from the United States District Court, most of the warrants we got from the U.S. Commissioner. The U.S. Commissioner predated the United States Magistrate. The U.S. Commissioner had limited authority, not as broad as the Magistrate’s authority is now. But you presented your warrant to the U.S. Commissioner, and that warrant would always say, “From the President of the United States to the United States Marshal of the District of Columbia or his designated agent.” So all of the District of Columbia 22 warrants, or the warrants that we in the Metropolitan Police Department sought, had that language on them. So a search warrant, if we thought it was going to be a fairly good seizure out of U.S. District Court, we would always have a deputy marshal along with us who did absolutely nothing but just stood around and watched. Mr. Klein: So you didn’t have to have the deputy marshal for every warrant, but if it was an important one or big one? Mr. Bowden: If the Commissioner signed it, you had to have one. Mr. Klein: I see. Who else would sign warrants? Mr. Bowden: Nobody but the Commissioner. I don’t remember ever getting a warrant signed by a United States District Court Judge. Mr. Klein: So every search warrant that was executed had a U.S. Marshal riding along? Mr. Bowden: That I can recall. Mr. Klein: Were all the cases in the U.S. District Court then? Mr. Bowden: Primarily. All of your common-law cases were tried over here. Robbery, assault, carrying a pistol without a license, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, breaking and entering, grand larceny, those kind of cases were tried here. Rape was tried here in this Court. All those search warrants – and I know search warrants had them, I don’t know whether arrest warrants insisted the deputy marshal be there. I know the search warrant did. So that was my introduction to the Marshals Office. I thought, this was a pretty cool job, standing around. So I had invested a lot in law enforcement, and I knew him, made my application, so that’s how I got 23 in the Marshals Service. Then that September, October, things jumped off down in Oxford, Mississippi. So I had that exposure, that experience. Mr. Klein: Can you explain that? Mr. Bowden: James Meredith, an African-American, had made application to go to the University of Mississippi – Ole Miss – as a student, and had been denied. The court order was issued, and there had been some confrontation between the administration and his admittance. So they activated the United States Marshals Service to go down and execute, to make sure that court order was executed. This office, that is, the U.S. Marshals Office in the District of Columbia, was the lead agency in the Marshals Service, because it was close to Justice. The Director at the time, James McShane, he was close to the administration in terms of – Mr. Klein: So the name was? Mr. Bowden: James McShane. He was the Director of the United States Marshals Service. Luke Moore was the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia – who incidentally was the first African-American to be appointed United States Marshal in the continental United States since Frederick Douglass. I say continental United States because there was a Marshal, African-American, who had been appointed in the Virgin Islands. That’s why I said continental United States. Because some historian might catch that. So it was decided that the initial wave of marshals to go down would be white deputies, for obvious reasons. They didn’t want to exacerbate the situation by bringing in African-American deputies. So we were on the second wave, off campus – three, four, five, six of us there. After he, Meredith, was admitted, the confrontation had already been documented 24 as to what happened on that night, so I don’t need to go into that. But from my side of it, this is what I can talk about. We African-American deputies didn’t get involved until Meredith was actually on campus as a student. We were his protectors off campus. White deputies stayed in his room, went to class with him on campus. During non-campus activities, his social life, visiting his family, etc., that was our responsibility, that is, African-Americans. Shopping, that kind of stuff. Speaking of going shopping, in the height of his being on campus, the media, big coverage, both print and television media – every day was James Meredith, James Meredith, James Meredith. He wanted to do some Christmas shopping for his family, so two of us took him shopping. He got whatever he was getting and was getting ready to check out with the cashier. He presented his credit card. The lady picked the credit card up, looked at it, and said, “Do you have any more identification?” I couldn’t resist it. I said, “Miss, do you think that anybody else with their right mind would be in the middle of Mississippi saying they were James Meredith, other than the real James Meredith?” I just couldn’t imagine her reading this name and asking for further identification. Maybe she wasn’t up on what was going on around her, or she was just so stuck on protocol, that James Meredith meant nothing, I got to have another. Of course, he had another identification. But it struck me as very, very strange, as very strange. Mr. Klein: Did she say anything back about that? Mr. Bowden: By that time he had it out. You’ve got to understand, we didn’t want any confrontation. We wanted to get in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible. 25 We don’t want the world to know we were there. There were only two of us to begin with, because we don’t want to go there with a bunch of folk and attract attention. Mr. Klein: Were you in plain clothes? Mr. Bowden: Of course. We were armed, but yes, we were in plain clothes, dressed very casual, no collar and tie. We tried to blend in with the community as best we could, to not look as though we were who we were. I couldn’t resist the comment. But by that time, he had his ID out. She never let on to me basically that James Meredith meant anything. She rung it up, gave him his receipt, went on about her business. Mr. Klein: Were there any altercations where you had to intercede to protect James Meredith’s safety at any point? Mr. Bowden: No. Now I say no because not on his person, but his house was shot at a couple times. Once he was in New York, during that same Christmas, I believe, Christmas break. He went up to New York. I didn’t go. I don’t know if anybody was with him from the Marshals Service, because once he got out of Mississippi, he was just another black guy out on the streets, so there was no need for coverage, if you will. So he may have been in New York alone, but I know his house was shot at. So there was a contingency of deputies. We rushed down to Mississippi and met him in Memphis so he could go to his family. So when you say to protect him, I want to make that clear. Not on his person. I was never with him when there was a personal attack on him. 26 Mr. Klein: How did the Marshals Service as an organization, or the D.C. Marshals Office, handle this very unusual task? Mr. Bowden: It was a learning task. We had never had that kind of exposure, or that test before, except back in the 1950s. There were some Deputies who were in this initial group in Ole Miss that had been in Little Rock, so they were seasoned in terms of that effort. But we did it with small children in Little Rock, as opposed to adults in Mississippi, in terms of protection. We protect children different than you do adults, a family man. So for that, it was a learning experience. The only thing that was troubling when we went to Ole Miss was the equipment that we had. We had no equipment of our own. The gas grenades that we had the night of the confrontation, they were gas grenades that were World War II gas grenades that were on their way to being destroyed because they were aged, and they said we’ll give them to these guys. Some of them were about to be salvaged. You pull a pin and throw it into the crowd. The crowd gets the shell and throws it into our ranks and they go off. Makes for a long night. The radios were hand-medown WWII radios that the Army was getting ready to salvage. We had no riot gear as such. We had an 18-inch baton and an Army helmet that were hand-medowns from the military that had been painted white and stenciled in U.S. Marshal. Mr. Klein: Who were some of the other deputy marshals with you on this? Who was the other marshal on James Meredith’s personal detail? 27 Mr. Bowden: James Freeman Palmer; Joseph Robinson, who is deceased; Howard Riley, who’s still in the area; Cleveland Braxton, who’s deceased; Oscar Spearman, who’s still in the area, and Frank Lamondue. That’s all I can recall. Mr. Klein: Was there someone leading the team? Mr. Bowden: Yes. The team leader, or the supervisor of the detail itself, was Clarence Butler, and then Frank Vandergriff. Frank is deceased. Clarence is in North Carolina last I heard. We used to talk often, but I’ve lost contact. Mr. Klein: They had leadership roles within the Marshals Office? Mr. Bowden: Yes, they were supervisors in the office and they, of course, were supervisors on site in Mississippi. Luke Moore, of course, was the leader, as the U.S. Marshal. He was in and out of Oxford. Marshal McShane was also in and out. Mr. Klein: Did you have the feeling that you were participating in this historical event? Mr. Bowden: No. Unfortunately, I didn’t attach as much importance or historical significance to it as it developed. It was a detail, an assignment – let’s keep this guy alive kind of thing and let’s stay alive in the process. But I was a young fellow and didn’t have the kind of foresight to say, “Oh wow, I’m making history.” It didn’t occur to me to take a camera and take pictures of this. First of all, I thought the whole process was silly. Why do we have to protect someone who is trying to go to school and get an education in America? Why do we have to fight this battle? And then it stopped, if you follow what I’m saying. My concerns stopped – this is the way it has to be so I have to do my job. I never thought to keep a diary of what I did, who I spoke to, who I saw, because it’s going to be history. 28 Mr. Klein: Did your family or friends who were learning about this through the newspapers or TV that knew you were down there on detail, did they mention anything? Mr. Bowden: My grandfather said, “Son, we’re praying for you. Watch the people down there, they’ll try to kill you.” I guess when you’re inside the forest, you know, you don’t recognize the trees, I guess. Mr. Klein: You had grown up in Memphis, which is South, but not Deep South, which is different. Mr. Bowden: I see exactly where you’re headed. In the community where I grew up, Memphis, Tennessee, was an all-black community, separate but not equal schools. I did not experience segregation directly, because if I bought a pair of shoes, I bought them from a black-owned shoe store. My community, was where I survived. Remember, I left at 18. Now outside of the community, I waited tables at one of the exclusive hotels in the South, the Peabody Hotel. That’s where the ducks parade. So I knew what segregation was about at this time, but I didn’t live in it. Do you follow what I’m saying? I knew my place on the bus, on the street car. But it was a short ride. My school, my high school, one through twelve, we had three Ph.D.’s teaching high school. My principal was a Ph.D., a qualified Ph.D., not an Internet Ph.D. So, they wanted to teach, not for the pay but that’s what they liked to do. So my life was good in my community. On my high school campus, we had three asphalt tennis courts and three clay tennis courts. We had a nine-hole golf course, an Olympic-size swimming pool. It just wasn’t integrated. It didn’t occur to me, while I was playing tennis, that my opponent’s not a white guy. I’ve got a good guy over here who’s kicking me. So I didn’t have that 29 confrontation, if you will, or the daily putting in your face that you’re supposed to be a second-class citizen. Am I making sense to you? Mr. Klein: Yes. So, was Oxford – Mr. Bowden: It was not a coffee shop. Because I knew what Mississippi was about. Remember now, I had been all over the country, all over the world, travelling, so I came back with a different head than when I left in 1954 to go into the military. I had been exposed. I spent two years in California, 18 months in North Africa, in and out. So when I went to Mississippi, I was an adult to a point. I hadn’t matured if you will, so I thought this was over, we’re not doing this anymore. Mr. Klein: What was over? Mr. Bowden: Arguing about blacks going to school. Why are we doing this? I thought this had been resolved. But it was not a culture shock. I knew I was in Mississippi. I knew my limitations. While in Mississippi, the second time we went down. Mr. Klein: You went down twice then? Mr. Bowden: Christmas I left and went back. Had the shooting, we went down, then I came back. So the second semester, that is, January to June, if I did go down I don’t recall, but the following – something happened that caused us to go back down. I can’t recall what it was. We thought everything had kind of smoothed out. When we would pick up Meredith on the Exchange, from the edge of the campus, to go wherever, State Troopers would follow us, not as friends but as foe. Wanted an excuse to stop us for a traffic violation. We knew that. But the second time we went down there, we thought things had changed. So we were at the airport in Jackson, Mississippi. I was a junior guy, a small contingency, maybe ten deputies 30 at best, maybe one other black deputy, but I was the junior person. The junior person does all the running. Someone said, “Take Kirk into town, go into the sheriff’s office, see if we can borrow some of their vehicles. I did. Went into the sheriff’s office. The desk sergeant there. Our credentials were a piece of paper that was mimeographed – do you know what a mimeograph is? No picture. It was typed on the card, “so-and-so, Deputy United States Marshal,” somebody’s signature. That’s all it was. I showed this to the desk sergeant and told him I was a deputy marshal. He laughed. I mean a big laugh. He yelled in the back, “Somebody come by here” – using the N-word – “who says he’s a U.S. Deputy Marshal – have you ever heard anything like that before in your life?” They called the Department of Justice to see whether or not there were any AfricanAmerican Deputy United States Marshals. I was there a long time – half-hour, 45 minutes. While I was there, I looked on the wall. The “wanted” posters, sheriff’s “wanted” posters, were segregated. Black wanted folk on one side, and white wanted folk on the other side. Mr. Klein: Even the “wanted” posters. Mr. Bowden: I knew where I was. So I got close and read the description. It was very comical. On the white, it said, “Sam Jones, 6’8”, 3535 Wisconsin Avenue, wanted for robbery.” The black side, “Joe Tribeau, goes under the name of ‘Smoky,’ speaks strange English, generally has an odor about him.” Very, very detailed, you know what I’m saying? I just thought it was interesting. Needless to say I didn’t get any vehicles. 31 Mr. Klein: Well I’m guessing there was a reason why the Mississippi Marshals Service wasn’t asked to do this. Mr. Bowden: By design, we excluded them from the detail completely. Mississippi Marshals were not involved, period. Because they have to live there. And rightfully so. They didn’t need to be involved. I thought it was an excellent decision not to involve them. Their kids are in school. Mr. Klein: Looking back on all this, now first of all it seems to me, I was just doing the math, you were about 27 years old when you were down there at the University of Mississippi. Now, with 45 years’ distance from that, how do you put it all in perspective? The events you saw, and your role in it, and how the Marshals Service participated. Mr. Bowden: First of all I want to commend the U.S. Marshals Service for the way they conducted themselves under adverse conditions. You hear the expression, “Cool heads prevailing.” Those guys’ heads weren’t cool, they were frozen. They were not just cool, they were cold in terms of restraint. Because many – in those days, in order to become a Deputy U.S. Marshal, one of the requirements was that you had to have some prior law enforcement experience and some military experience. So I’m certain that those two criteria made it comfortable and convenient for them to have that restraint, because they had had, they functioned at some point in their career under some kind of pressure or some kind of exposure where you had to use that kind of restraint. I venture to say that a person with less experience, that is, no prior law enforcement experience, that is dealing with the public in a law enforcement capacity, military experience, would 32 have overreacted. Because if there ever was a time for you to strike back if you will, violently, and feel justified in doing it, that was the time to do it. Particularly, when you’ve been shot at, and in some cases, some of your colleagues have been shot, as history tells you about the issue itself. I want to reemphasize the coolness of the men on the front lines. Even though that was my introduction, my experience in Mississippi, it gave me an opportunity to grow in law enforcement. It made me feel proud to be in the Marshals Service and to be an American, as I look back at it. I wouldn’t trade that experience and other experiences I had in the Marshals Service – I wouldn’t trade it. I guess that’s why I’m here now today. 33 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Second Interview July 30, 2008 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place on July 30, 2008. This is the second interview. Mr. Klein: I’m going to start by asking you – in our earlier interview, we had you joining the Marshals Service, and we talked about the activities in Mississippi that you were on duty for then, and now I’m going to ask you about your activities in the District of Columbia during the early days of your Marshal service. What were the duties of a Deputy U.S. Marshal? Mr. Bowden: The Marshals Service in the District of Columbia wears two hats – that is, they serve as the federal law enforcement officer for the District of Columbia, executing and carrying out the commands of the federal courts. They also serve the local courts, because Congress mandated that the United States Marshal will attend all courts in the District of Columbia. At that time it was called the Court of General Sessions, and before then, when I first came on, it was the Municipal Court, then changed to the Court of General Sessions. The U.S. Attorney in those days prosecuted common-law cases in the United States District Court, because the local court did not have jurisdiction. Your robberies, your unauthorized use of motor vehicles, rape charges, serious assaults, weapons cases, were all tried in United States District Court. The Municipal Court/Court of General Sessions at the time handled the misdemeanors or minor cases. So we manned both courts, 34 “we” being the Marshals Service. It was not unusual for the United States District Court to have in the cellblock downstairs on a daily basis, maybe 100 people in custody, and probably an equal amount or a little more in the Municipal Court/Court of General Sessions, which at that time was located between 4 and th 5 on E and F Streets. And there was a juvenile court component to that. The th manpower was distributed between two courts, and I suspect that at one time we had close to 200 people, marshals, assigned to both courts. What drove that number was the process – the court orders – that were issued out of both courts. There’s no sheriff in the District of Columbia, so the work that the sheriff would perform in service of process or service of court orders was done by the United States Marshals Office. And that ranged from subpoenas to juvenile hearings, small claims lawsuits, divorce lawsuits – whatever lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia, and a court order or the summons had to be served was served through the United States Marshals Service. Therefore, manpower was needed in order to serve those processes. Mr. Klein: They were all served by deputy marshals? Mr. Bowden: Yes. So you had to physically go to the residence, knock on the door, and give the process to the named person in the complaint as well as the businesses if they were named as defendants in the complaint. After a judgment in the civil case was issued and recovery to be made for the plaintiff, it took several forms. Some were the seized property that had to be auctioned off in order to satisfy a judgment. In some occasions, if the defendant was a business place doing business in the District of Columbia and had a cash register, or cash was being 35 exchanged for merchandise, a Fieri Facias would be issued, which required a bond be paid by the plaintiff in order to indemnify the Marshal from any unlawful seizure of property, and the Marshal would go to the business place and physically seize money to satisfy judgment. Mr. Klein: Would you take the money directly out of the cash register? Mr. Bowden: Take the money out of the cash register, or maybe it was kept in a cigar box. Wherever the money in the business place was kept, we’d seize the money, seize whatever money was necessary to satisfy the judgment. If it was a residence or a place where there was not a cash register, then a replevin would be issued, and along with an appraisal after a bond had been set to indemnify the Marshals Service from any lawsuit for unlawful seizure, we would go out with the appraiser and seize twice the value of the judgment, and then we would have to store that property in a safe and secure place. Oftentimes we would contract with a storage company, two or three storage companies would be available to safely keep the property until it was disposed of, either by public auction or the judgment had been satisfied by other means and the property released. If there was jewelry, we would seize it and put it in a safe deposit box in a bank. The Marshals Service would pay the rent. We had some safe deposit boxes that we maintained for that purpose, pay the rent and the plaintiffs would be responsible for reimbursing the Marshals Service for the rental after the judgment had been satisfied. If it’s an automobile, we would seize it, store it, and given time, it also would be auctioned off. All these auctions are public auctions. We’d advertise in the newspaper of a 36 public auction, post it in a conspicuous place, generally post it at the entrances to the courthouse that an auction was to be held, list the names, the property. Mr. Klein: Was there some administrative office in the Marshals Service that would take care of lots of these details? How would it function? Mr. Bowden: Yes. That’s an Administrative Clerk’s desk. There were two desks, an Administrative Services desk and a Criminal desk. And the administrative officer is the one, the seized-property officer, as it’s now called, the administrative officer in those days who would keep account of the property and its location until it’s disposed of. That was the unit and it was their responsibility. Each district, that is, each United States Marshals Service, was responsible for its own maintenance and auctioning of each public issue; it was not under headquarters control; it was done within the district. We also seized, under the Admiralty law, vessels. Seizing of vessels is a little more complex, if you will, than seizing, shall we say, an automobile. Because an automobile is on land, and in most cases, a vessel is in the water. So to move it, to store it in a safe place, is cost-prohibitive. So what you have to do then is, once you seize it, you have to post a guard on it 24 hours to make certain it will be there when you need it. On some rare occasions, we may totally disable a vessel so it couldn’t be moved. You run the risk of someone moving it. Generally speaking, you would seize it and post someone on it 24 hours to make sure it’s not moved. Mr. Klein: These were vessels that were in the Potomac or Anacostia River, in the District? Mr. Bowden: In the river that is contiguous to the District of Columbia. If it was out to sea, it was free. Out to sea, it’s beyond the boundaries of the United States, it was free 37 of court seizure. If it was within the boundaries of the United States, the district in which it’s located would be the responsible district. That is, the U.S. Marshals Service in that district would be responsible to seize it and to maintain custody of it. In the winter, you had to almost keep it running so it wouldn’t freeze up. So there’s a little more involved in seizing a vessel than in seizing an automobile. Mr. Klein: With the seizures, a lot of them must have been confrontational situations. What was it like to go in and seize someone’s property from their home or business? Mr. Bowden: There were some confrontations, some were calmer. I remember we went out to seize an automobile and you had to seize an automobile while it was on public property. You didn’t have the authority to go on private property and seize an automobile. I remember going with a deputy, who’s a senior deputy at the time, we went out to seize an automobile. The owner of the automobile came out of the home and said, “I want to get something out of the car.” The senior deputy permitted him to do that but got in the car with him, and the guy drove around the street in the alley, then drove it up into the back yard with the deputy in it, so we couldn’t seize it because it was on private property. I thought that was comical. You had some confrontations in the home where you’re seizing property, nothing violent, these are verbal confrontations, if you will. There was a law at one time but I think it’s been stricken. I think the Supreme Court struck it down, but in the District, replevin, it was very easy to come by, and you also had an attachment before judgment, called the ABJ attachment. That usually stemmed out of a purchasing contract. Some department stores in the District of Columbia and furniture stores in the District of Columbia would give a citizen a contract to let 38 them buy furniture on credit, a contract to pay “x” number of dollars per month on the furniture or the appliance that would be delivered to the residence, and the person for whatever reason fell behind in payment. The merchant would come in and apply for an attachment before judgment and got a court order, present it to the Marshals Office to execute. So we would go and seize the property before judgment. On the court order would list, identify, the property based on the sales contract. The sales contract would say, “one refrigerator, brand ABC, serial number, model number.” We’d locate that refrigerator in the home and seize whatever property was on the court order. I’m not sure whether there was a law or a tradition, but you had to leave enough in the home for the family to continue to exist. I don’t want to say it’s a law, because I haven’t seen it in print. So when you are talking about furniture, a 3-bedroom apartment, you had to leave a bed, but the table and chairs in the kitchen you would take. You’d have to leave plates or something to eat off. It’s almost a judgment call for the deputy, if you will. You must understand that that’s not one of the things that we enjoyed doing. It’s a court order and the Marshals Service doesn’t have the prerogative to say, “Well, I’ll do this court order but I won’t do that court order.” A court order is a court order. All of these we’re talking about are court orders so you’re obligated to execute them. The degree of execution is kind of a judgment call on the deputy’s part. I’m talking about early in my career. So that was time-consuming, and it was scheduled generally at night when folk were home. The merchant had to be there, or a representative of the merchant had to be there, to help identify the 39 property. And if the person wanted to satisfy the judgment then and there, then the merchant had to be there in order to accept the satisfaction of judgment. A lot of time, a lot of our energy and time was spent during the day with evictions. As I said earlier, there was no sheriff in the District of Columbia, so residential evictions were executed by the United States Marshals Service. That was a painful order to execute. No one enjoyed doing that. But we didn’t have permission not to do it. I have on several occasions personally given the family money out of my pocket in order to satisfy the judgment so they can stay, with the hope that I’d get my money back. I’ve done evictions where there were children, small children, involved, and I just couldn’t put them on the street. And one time, a week before Christmas, the Christmas tree was decorated, and we had to put them on the street. I want the listeners, the readers, to know that that was not a happy occasion for us, for the Marshals Service, but there was a court order that we had to execute. The court order in Mississippi, we wanted to do it. See the difference? Mr. Klein: Your job was to take the court order and execute it. Mr. Bowden: And execute it. That was the job. Not to evaluate it. Our mission was to execute the court order, not to question the wherewithal of the court order to be executed. Mr. Klein: Let me ask you about service of process. Did people try to evade service? What kind of stories would happen with that? Mr. Bowden: Oh yes. Contrary to what happens in the movies, in a civil process, you cannot use subtlety. You must properly identify yourself at the door, at the residence or the business place, to the person in charge, properly identify yourself, and tell 40 them why you are there. If they refuse to accept the process, that is, take it from your hand to their hand, if you, as the Marshal, totally satisfied yourself that this was the person named in the complaint, the summons and complaint, then you can leave it. If it’s a business place, it should be left with the person named in the complaint or that person’s authorized agent to accept civil process, and you had to get the cooperation of the authorized agent to say I am the authorized agent to accept the complaint. If no one in a business place steps forward as the authorized agent to accept, you must give it to the person named in the complaint. Or if that person isn’t available, you leave the premises. A resident, the most effective service is to give it personally to the person named in the summons and complaint. There are provisions to give it to someone living in the premises who is above the age of consent, and you can leave it with that person and name that person, under Rule 4 of the Civil Rules of Procedure. That’s not the most effective way, because if the defendant doesn’t answer the complaint, the moving party may not be able to get a judgment. It all depends on whether the court is satisfied that the named defendant got notice. Now there are some court orders you can post on the property. Landlord/Tenant complaints can be posted on the property. You’re supposed to make three endeavors to give the complaint to the named defendant in a Landlord/Tenant case. If you are unable to locate the defendant or another person, after three attempts, you are permitted to post it, meaning to tape it, tack it, on the entrance to the property. I want you to understand that in some sections of the District of Columbia in those days eviction notices ran rampant. As I look back on it, an 41 attempt by the landlord to intimidate the tenant to pay the rent on time, also it let the tenant know that an eviction is impending, and it’s an intimidation, a legal intimidation, actually, but an intimidation. Let me describe for you how manpower was dispersed or utilized. In those days, there were 14 Metropolitan Police Precincts, so the District was divided by the Metropolitan Police into 14 different sections. We adopted – we, the Marshals Service – adopted the geographical setting for the assignment of personnel. According to the workload in the Marshals Service, “x” number of deputies were assigned to a precinct. When I say workload, I’m talking about service of process, because out in the community or outside of the courthouse, that’s where the larger portion of our manpower was spent, manpower-wise, serving process. So if a particular district geographically – When I say district, let me change district – if a precinct geographically received the bulk of the summonses and complaints, a commensurate number of deputies would be assigned to that district police precinct. And within that precinct, it was split up in blocks per deputy. The analogy would be the same as the mailman, as you know the mailman today, in terms of territory, responsible territory. So if you looked at the map of the District of Columbia police precincts, management would know who was assigned to a particular street. There were supervisors who were responsible for “x” number of precincts, and deputies were assigned areas within the precinct. So when the process on a daily basis came to the Marshals Service, they were put into pigeonholes according to geographical location and dispersed to the deputies. So if you wanted to determine, you as a manager wanted to determine the status 42 of a particular process, you got an inquiry from an attorney who gave you an address, you didn’t need a case number, you needed an address, you could go to the particular deputy who was responsible for that address and get an answer as to the status. Understand that in some precincts, deputies on a daily basis can have 250 pieces to process, 60% of those would probably be landlord/tenant, small claims, and landlord/tenant is easy to get rid of: you had to go to the address to leave it. As a practical matter, you didn’t make three endeavors to give it to the person, because it just wasn’t practical. When you have 150-200 landlord/tenant complaints, it’s not practical to go there three times just to leave it the third time. But other process, you would make two or three endeavors on it because you want to give it to the person named, otherwise, if you sent it back, two or three weeks later you’re going to get it back, as an alias, and you have to go through it all over again – so you may as well do it right the first time and be done with that particular process. But I was trying to give you a picture as to what the manpower requirements were. Mr. Klein: What was your area? It may have changed over the years, but what part of town were you working in? Mr. Bowden: Northeast. In those days it was called No. 9 precinct and then it became No. 12 precinct, but primarily I had from Massachusetts Avenue and North Capitol Street, north, to New York Avenue, and North Capitol Street over to 15 Street th Northeast and north to New York Avenue. And then, of course, manpower got a little larger, that’s what I had when I first went into the field. And that was from 1964 to when Judge Bryant came on, 1966 or so. 43 Mr. Klein: Let me also ask, you say manpower, were all deputy marshals men then? Mr. Bowden: Yes. The first female Deputy came some time in 1968 or 1969. That’s a good question. I don’t have the exact date. We’ll try to get that date, when the first female was assigned or sworn in. While we’re talking about females, as you know, we also have a responsibility of transporting and moving prisoners within the District of Columbia and outside the District of Columbia, from this jurisdiction to other jurisdictions to institutions. Before we had female deputies, if you had to take – In those days, we had a lot of prisoner movement to institutions for drug rehabilitation. Lexington, Kentucky, was one, and Danbury, Connecticut was the other. Lexington, Kentucky, was the most famous. A person who was convicted or in custody for drug conviction, it was determined he would need to go – before they opened up Danbury, went to Lexington, Kentucky, and it was the Marshals Service’s responsibility, the Bureau of Prison did not have it, because it was presentence. There were two ways to get them there in those days, one by car and the other by train. Sometimes they would hold the defendants in the District of Columbia until they got enough to put on the train. So we’d go to D.C. Jail, put them in restraints, take them to Union Station and lease a car on the train, and two deputies, one at each end of the car, and you rode from here to Lexington, Kentucky, a 12-hour ride. Mr. Klein: With a car full? Mr. Bowden: With the car full of inmates. All men. And generally, they would have a load for you to bring back. Mr. Klein: Those are people who had completed their treatment and were coming back? 44 Mr. Bowden: If not, then you deadhead back, but generally they would try to schedule it so that it wouldn’t be a wasted trip. Twelve hours, two deputies, a carload of inmates. By car, that’s how we transported females. There were two ladies who were assigned to the cellblock in this District Court who were matrons. On a short trip with a female, one of them would go. If it was a long overnight trip, they would deputize a female employee, that is, swear the female in for that purpose. Or the deputy could select their wife or significant other, a female, who would be sworn in for that purpose and paid for that purpose to make that trip. Mr. Klein: Those are people without law enforcement training, but they were female chaperones? Mr. Bowden: Yes. They didn’t have any security responsibility. The only purpose was for obvious reasons. If the female needed to go, have a personal relief, the female inmate had to go on a personal relief, a female would go with that person. And the deputy would pick and choose where that activity would take place, pick a secure place, that he, the deputy, could stand outside and secure, make certain the inmate was there when they needed relief. There has been an incidence where that didn’t take place. It’s your responsibility to make sure whatever place you use is a secure place. Mr. Klein: Now, the car trips would be a personal vehicle? The deputy would use his own car? Mr. Bowden: That’s right. The government did not start providing transportation for the marshals until very late in 1970s, I believe. Way into the 1970s. Prior to then, use a POV and you then bill the government for mileage. 45 Mr. Klein: Would the inmates in the car trip and the train trip be in prison clothes or with restraints on? Mr. Bowden: Prison clothes and restraints. Mr. Klein: So how did people react as you’re doing your car trip, you have someone in prison clothes in the back seat, and you get out at the gas station to go to the restroom? Mr. Bowden: You try to pick your spots where you would not embarrass the inmate. And some inmates, you would dress out in civilian clothes for that reason, so they wouldn’t attract attention, and you would take a coat and put it over the handcuffs with the waist chain off so they could walk. You’d take the leg irons off and walk close to them, try to minimize the embarrassment or the public being aware of what’s going on. If you make that trip frequent enough, you know where the local police stations are, so you try to make it to a city where you knew the local police and use their facilities. Mr. Klein: I imagine also the Marshal would sometimes need a break, if it’s a 12-hour drive. Would you do that at a police station? Mr. Bowden: If there are two of us, often times you’d drive in to a fast food place because many of them have easy access in and easy access out to the bathrooms. You didn’t necessarily have to go through the audience in the sit-down section, just go in and come right out, and you order up food through the drive-in window, stay in the car and get the food. You just worked it out. You try to minimize the exposure. 46 Mr. Klein: This was the same process you used for extraditions on warrants or for writs in other jurisdictions? Mr. Bowden: Same process. Handling prisoners was handling prisoners. Same security. Same procedure. Maximum security was always used any time you take an inmate out of an institution, use maximum restraints. So you got personal with the inmate in terms of cleanliness. If they had to go to the bathroom and you didn’t take the handcuffs off, you had to clean the person. Take the handcuffs off and you run a risk. It’s a judgment call on the deputy whether or not to leave the handcuffs on. Mr. Klein: Would you take different measures according to the inmate? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Oliver Wendel Holmes Morgan was picked up for impersonating a lawyer in the District of Columbia. Tried several cases successfully in the federal courts in the District of Columbia, was not a member of the bar, had not gone to law school, ever. After he was sentenced, I was asked to take him to Lewisburg. I was getting ready to put handcuffs on him. Mr. Klein: Here in this district, in the federal court building? Mr. Bowden: In this courthouse. He was sentenced in Courtroom 15. I want to say Judge Walsh, but don’t hold me to it. I was about to put the handcuffs on him. He said, “Marshal, you don’t have to put the handcuffs on me, I’m an attorney.” I said, “Mr. Morgan, you have been convicted of impersonating an attorney. I have to handcuff you.” The level of security with him was different than the level of security for a person who was charged with armed robbery with a gun, say. But he was still a defendant, so he had handcuffs. 47 Mr. Klein: How many of these trips would you take, would an average deputy take, in a year or a month during the mid 1960s or late 1960s? Mr. Bowden: I can’t tell you. You could almost be guaranteed one or two. Mr. Klein: Did anyone every try to escape on you? Mr. Bowden: Not on me. I’ve been fortunate enough to create the kind of atmosphere with the defendant. It all begins with the first meeting in the institution, as to how you address the inmate, how you tell the inmate what they are expected to do, or how they are expected to act, and what’s going to happen. As long as you give them that alert and stay alert and let them know that you are there for business and business only, it minimizes it. I cannot recall anyone successfully escaping from a deputy marshal in transporting in the District of Columbia. I’m not aware of it. Because the way we train the Deputy is to treat everybody as human beings but let them know that they are in custody, and they will be in custody from here to their destination, and we plan to successfully get them to their destination. How they act in between is determined by how we react in between. So once they understand that, it minimizes the efforts. Mr. Klein: What about bringing people between the courthouse and the jail, the Marshals did that every day? Mr. Bowden: Every day. Two or three times a day, which is a manpower- and time-consuming process. Mr. Klein: Was it in a bus, or what was the process? Mr. Bowden: Several buses. At one point, we were moving 300 people a day between D.C. Jail and both courts. We would start 5:30, 6:00 in the morning, two buses. Two 48 buses and two vans going out of D.C. Jail. Each bus was a 54-passenger bus. That’s 100 people. Then come back and make a second trip. Mr. Klein: How many marshals on each bus? Mr. Bowden: Two, three, with a driver. Mr. Klein: The driver was a marshal too? Mr. Bowden: Sometimes they were contract drivers, a program called WAE, when actually employed. They didn’t have any power of arrest. They didn’t carry a weapon. Strictly a chauffeur/bus driver, if you will. And then there were occasions where deputies would drive the bus because they were qualified to drive a bus. And particularly if we were moving prisoners that we knew were involved in some gang-related stuff or high-profile cases or something, we would have extra security on the bus. Mr. Klein: Where would the deputy stand or sit on the bus? How were they each armed? Mr. Bowden: The bus is caged. It’s specifically designed to transport prisoners. They were converted school buses. They were transportation buses, not a Greyhound bus, but they had bars and mesh wire, and there would be a cage between the driver and the inmates, and that’s where the deputy would sit. So the deputy is locked in between the driver and the inmates. And then at the back of the bus, there’s also a cage where a deputy would be, so he could watch from the back. So you had views from the back and views from the front. So the driver’s responsibility would be to negotiate the traffic. Oftentimes, we would have a van to carry what we call a separation, a prisoner who was not in population for whatever reason. Mr. Klein Just for clarity, what reasons would an inmate not be in the general population? 49 Mr. Bowden: Maybe a witness for the government, against someone who’s in custody, who may have a different sexual lifestyle, got to keep them separated. Mr. Klein: So usually inmates who needed protection from the rest of the population? Mr. Bowden: Right. And then there were some who had not been declared mentally insane by the court but we felt that that person did not need to be, for our purpose, in the general population because of the way they had reacted or created a disturbance. Then some who, in this business long enough, some of them rotate in and out of jail, and you know before the day is over, he’s going back to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital – why put him in the general population where you know he’s going to have a problem, and then you have to go in there to deal with that problem? Mr. Klein: Where was the jail located? Mr. Bowden: 19 and C Street, S.E. Generally where it is now, but it was closer to th Independence Avenue, really 19 and Independence Avenue. th Mr. Klein: And in those days, who ran the jail? Mr. Bowden: The Department of Corrections. Mr. Klein: Would you take them up to the — Mr. Bowden: Inside the institution. Mr. Klein: And then you were done? Did people ever try to escape off the bus? Mr. Bowden: Yes. We had occasions where they would not come off the bus when the load came off the bus, try to hide in the back and hope that you wouldn’t check the bus to see whether or not there was someone still on. You did a headcount. If you put 28 people on the bus, 28 people should get off. Mr. Klein: If there are 26, you know you’ve got a problem. 50 Mr. Bowden: We had a couple of cases where someone tried to intercept the bus between the two points, one or two occasions, but were not successful. Mr. Klein: Were you on the bus? Mr. Bowden: I was not involved. Mr. Klein: These were people planning ambushes? Mr. Bowden: There was a shoot-out. Mr. Klein: How would they do it? Would they block the road? Mr. Bowden: Yes, that’s what the attempt was. Mr. Klein: And then were there problems on the bus trips also with inmates? Mr. Bowden: Oh yes. Almost on a regular basis. There were inmates who had beefs, if you will, with other inmates. Remember, they’re housed separately in the institutions. But there’s not a separation order on them when we get them. If there’s a separation order from the court to keep them separated, then that’s where the van comes in. You don’t put them in the general population on the bus, you put them in the van. But sometimes that conflict is an internal conflict, neighborhoods internal conflict, had nothing to do with the charges against them. Neither one of them is a government witness, nobody knows about this conflict but the two of them. Could’ve been something that happened in childhood, on the playground, you never know, but once they’re in this close proximity, then the confrontation can take place. Mr. Klein: So how would you break that up if you’re in the cage in the bus? Mr. Bowden: You go in there and stop it, unlock it, go in there, and break it up. Plain and simple. You do it carefully. Obviously if you’ve got a weapon on you, you don’t 51 go out there with your weapon. You give your weapon to your partner. If you are close enough to the courthouse, you just wait until you get to the courthouse and deal with it at the courthouse. You do whatever necessary to maintain security and keep somebody from getting killed. If it’s a fist fight, there’s not much fistfighting they’ll be able to do in full restraint. It’s a kicking and pushing and shoving type of thing. So just wait until you get to a safe place where you can safely go in and break it up. But you never jeopardize the operation because of what’s going on in there. Mr. Klein: Meaning? Mr. Bowden: I’m not going to open this gate if there are eight people in there in a scuffle and I’m one person. I’m going to get to a safer place, get inside here, get the doors closed, and then we’ll deal with it. Mr. Klein: Just for the mechanics of how it works, would the bus drive right into the courthouse? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Goes right on in the courthouse, the doors come up, come in the courthouse, doors come down, then you go ahead and do what you have to do. Mr. Klein: So while the bus is loading and unloading, the doors are down and they can’t get out. Mr. Bowden: You don’t want a mass escape. Mr. Klein: Should we keep going for a little bit? We didn’t get to the part so far about in the courthouse. Is there more to cover on outside the courthouse? Mr. Bowden: No. On the evictions, your responsibility, of course, is to make sure that the property belonging to the defendant is put in a safe environment. It has to be 52 taken off of the private property and put on public property, so you notify the Metropolitan Police. They have given us a schedule of evictions, so they know what addresses are being evicted, and it’s their responsibility, the Metropolitan Police’s responsibility, to see that the property is not taken. Mr. Klein: The property is put out on the sidewalk? Mr. Bowden: A public space. Mr. Klein: So they’d post someone there? Mr. Bowden: No. There lies the problem. Neighbors stealing from neighbors. Sometimes you try, if the tenant is not present, you try to find someone who might know how to notify the tenant of what’s going on. You have a lot of confrontations there where tenants would come in and accuse the Marshal of putting the stuff on the street. We’d have to explain to them that this is a court order. It’s between them, the plaintiff and the defendant, we are just an arm of the court. It’s a court order. It’s not my desire to put you in the streets. You’re on the street because of failure to pay the rent, not something that I did. So you have to let people vent. And the nearest person there is you, the Marshal. And there have been some confrontations. Then you have folk who want to go into the property. After you’ve completed the eviction, you can’t let them. Mr. Klein: So once the eviction was done, the landlord would change the locks, or you’d stay there until the locks were changed? Mr. Bowden: That’s right. They don’t have a right to go back on the property. 53 Mr. Klein: It’s been exactly one hour. I think I may have about ten minutes more recording time. We can start in on how the courthouse worked if you want, or we can do that all as one big chunk. Mr. Bowden: Okay. 54 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Third Interview March 6, 2009 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place on March 6, 2009. This is the third interview. Mr. Klein: Okay, we’re live and depending on which subject you want to start first, you could handle – just so we close off the issue – the way prisoners are moved from the cellblock to the courtroom, or the way they were moved then. Or, you can go straight into the Watergate trials if you’d rather do that. Mr. Bowden: Well, let’s do the prisoner movement, cellblock to the courtroom. Without divulging any security information, I can say that the cellblocks behind the courtroom are very, very secure, and the designers, back in the early 1950s, were a little ahead of their time when they took into consideration the movement of prisoners. Because once prisoners are in the building, the U.S. District Court building, they are not exposed to the general public, or the general public has no access to them. The trial courts are on floors 2, 4, and 6. Courtrooms 1, 8, and 15 are on the Constitution Avenue side of the building, and they use a common elevator. On the second floor are Courtrooms 2 through 7; on the fourth floor, on the C Street side, are Courtrooms 9 through 14. On the sixth floor, are 16 through 19. There is no Courtroom 13, and it is alleged that the reason they chose not to use Courtroom 13, or to number a courtroom 13, is that no one wants to go to trial or to be sentenced on Friday, the 13 , because of, in some cultures and some th societies, the significance of Friday the 13 . So where Courtroom 13 in sequence th 55 would normally be, it’s Courtroom 21. There was a practice in this court for many years that all sentencing was done on Fridays regardless of whether the defendant pled guilty or was found guilty by jury. The courts scheduled all their sentencing on Friday. So with fourteen active judges and all sentencing on Fridays, you had a huge population in the cellblock in the basement of this building. Up until 1975, 1976, your common-law cases were tried in this court. So you had a population with violations in the United States Code and you also had some District of Columbia violations. You had unauthorized use of automobiles. They called them “numbers” in those days, illegal lottery, those kinds of cases, and also prostitution. Those kinds of cases were tried here. So you had that population to be sentenced, as well as violations in the United States District Court. So it would not be unusual to have 150 people in the cellblock downstairs on a Friday. So, from a logistical standpoint, that was of some concern. Mr. Klein: How many marshals were there for 150 prisoners? Mr. Bowden: There were maybe 16 to 18 assigned to the cellblock, and then you had whatever was necessary in the courtroom to handle a particular judge’s workload. But before we get there, I came in 1962, there was a deputy marshal assigned permanently to each United States District Court judge. And that person worked in the courtroom exclusively with, and handled all the matters before, that court with assistance from other deputies. In 1962, as I said, the deputies were assigned to a judge. And the deputies who worked in the cellblock brought the prisoners up to the cellblock behind the courtroom. There’s an elevator that serves each of 56 the courtrooms. Two courtrooms side-by-side share a common cellblock behind that courtroom, and the elevators are numbered that go straight up a tier. And you know what elevator to take because you know what floor and what courtroom you’re going to. There were no black deputies, no African-American deputies assigned to the courtroom until 1965, when Spotswood Robinson was appointed. Up until then, there were no black deputies assigned to a judge. From June 1962, to maybe some time that same year, fall or winter of 1962, black deputies did not go into the courtroom with prisoners. The marshal at that time was Luke C. Moore who was an African-American, and he was not aware of that policy. And once he became aware of it, he immediately changed it, or had it changed. Mr. Klein: And it changed, you think, in the fall or winter of 1962, the end of the year? Mr. Bowden: Yes. It was in June when I came and it was going on. And I know it was a couple, two or three months, that black deputies weren’t allowed to go into the courtroom with prisoners. You must understand that the population of the community was different. The jury panel was predominantly white. Many offenders were white at that time. I can only speculate that that was a driving force. But the deputies were all qualified and competent to do the work, and consequently it was proven that they could do the work, and did the work. Now, getting on to juries, sequestered juries, deliberating juries. All of the black deputies up until the mid-sixties only worked in the courtroom temporarily, or a very brief period. They were mostly in the field serving court orders/process, executing evictions, criminal warrants, and that type of field work. They weren’t working in the courtroom at that time. The public is aware of six floors in this 57 building, but there’s a seventh floor and an eighth floor. The public elevator stops at the sixth floor. On the north side of the building, on the seventh floor and eighth floor, were dormitory-type rooms that were used for sequestration of jurors. The seventh floor was relegated for women, and the eighth floor was relegated for men, for obvious reasons. This was before female deputies – sworn officers. So females who were assigned to the office, who worked in the office, were sworn in as matrons. They had no arresting powers. They were only there to assist the male deputies in facilitating the women. So if a jury was sequestered overnight, we had deputies at each end of the hallway of the dormitory setting, in small rooms with a bed, about the size of a hospital bed, and a face basin. There was a community shower, and several commodes that were shared on that floor. So there would be two male deputies, one at each end of the corridor, and a female matron to assist on the seventh floor. On the eighth floor would be two deputies, one on each end just to make sure that no one came up to interfere with the jurors. So that was the layout of the jurors that were sequestered overnight. The first sequestered jury outside of this building was the Watergate jury. Mr. Klein: Before you get to that, just to finish up the sequestered juries in the building. How often would there be a sequestered jury using those dorms? Mr. Bowden: As I recall, maybe once a year. Some of the cases, they weren’t very long. Some were three or four days, maybe a week or two. And I can’t cite the cases, but there were cases that had a lot of notoriety and they didn’t want the jury to be tainted. When the jury was selected, they did not know what deputies would be assigned. 58 Mr. Klein: Meaning? Mr. Bowden: The jury in those days were mostly white jurors, and most of the women on the jury were white. Mr. Klein: Were the matrons white too? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Mr. Klein: So they were selecting white marshals for them. How did jurors react to being sequestered? Did you notice them being resentful or upset? Mr. Bowden: No. Some took it as an adventure. I only worked one or two. I don’t recall any having any real problems. In the basement of this building, there was a cafeteria that was managed by GSA, employees of GSA, but was well-staffed. And it was a four or five-course meal. And there was a room away from the public cafeteria, that was set aside for the sequestered jurors. So they got two hot meals in the building, breakfast and lunch. Dinner was outside the building, be that in a restaurant, or in many cases we used military installations. Mr. Klein: The jurors would all go together to the restaurant or the military base to eat that dinner? Mr. Bowden: Escorted by the marshal. We would charter a bus, put everybody on the bus, go eat, come back. Some judges would permit them to have one cocktail at dinner, but they had to pay for it themselves. Some judges would not permit any cocktail. Mr. Klein: Do you know why they stopped using — Mr. Bowden: Using this building? Mr. Klein: The dormitory style and starting putting them in, I guess, hotels for Watergate? 59 Mr. Bowden: Yes. Because they knew the duration of the Watergate trial would not have been able to accommodate that many people we had, as well as it was too cumbersome. The confinement to stay in this building 24 hours, 7 days a week, it’s just not workable. As I told you, the bathroom situations were dormitory-type. Sharing showers and that type of thing, they had limited privacy. And Judge Sirica, I’m very comfortable by saying that he thought it was best to sequester the jury outside the building. Mr. Klein: Judge Sirica you said? Mr. Bowden: Judge Sirica asked the U.S. Marshal to find a place outside the building. I was detailed to find a place. I was the supervisor at the time and my task was to find a suitable hotel. So we were able to get a contract that the court paid. It was at the Shoreham Hotel. It’s now a Marriott. Wardman Towers. We took a wing at that hotel. Mr. Klein: An entire wing? Mr. Bowden: An entire wing Mr. Klein: Four floors. Mr. Bowden: No, just one floor. But a wing on a floor. And we secured that. We had the elevator situated so it wouldn’t stop on that floor. The general public couldn’t stop on that floor. And each juror had a private room. It was a hotel. And that’s what the judge wanted. Mr. Klein: And the marshals were still keeping guard? Mr. Bowden: Oh yes. Mr. Klein: Multiple marshals? 60 Mr. Bowden: Yes indeed. We had a full staff, 24/7. We moved them by chartered bus. They would have breakfast at the hotel, lunch here at the courthouse, some dinners at the hotel. Weekends we would have some type of activity outside of the hotel, and one or two nights we would eat out of the hotel. Then again we used military installations because they were convenient, secure meals. Mr. Klein: What sorts of military installations were they? Mr. Bowden: We used Bolling Air Force Base, the Officers Club at Bolling Air Force Base. Andrews Air Force Base. Mr. Klein: Did the jurors get any visits with family or children? Mr. Bowden: Limited visits. On weekends, we’d have a schedule for beauty shop, barber shop. We tried to get everybody to go to the same beauty shop, if possible. The same barber shop, as much as possible. For religious services, we accommodate faith as opposed to individual church. Protestants, we’d let the Protestants select what Protestant church they wanted to go to; Catholics select what Catholic church they wanted to go to; Jewish select the synagogue they wanted to attend. Mr. Klein: They selected as a group? Mr. Bowden: Right. We didn’t have the manpower for everybody to go to their individual church. And we would try to get that information at least by Thursday or Friday, those who were interested in going. Because we had to do an advance with the leader of that congregation, with the rabbi, the pastor, or the priest, to let them know who we were, what we were doing, and try to suggest not to use a sermon that’s going to talk about something about Watergate or about that kind of crime. Mr. Klein: So did you have those conversations with ministers and priests and — 61 Mr. Bowden: Yes. Yes. Mr. Klein: How did they react? Mr. Bowden: Fine. I never had anyone say “no, you can’t tell me what to say from my pulpit.” They understood. Some of them didn’t intend to talk about it in any event, so it didn’t alter their sermon or their message in any event. But we wanted to make sure that there was no slip of the tongue and, by all means, don’t say who we are, you know, “We have visitors here.” That type of thing. Mr. Klein: So the group would come in together, escorted by marshals in plain clothes? Mr. Bowden: Of course. We were always in plain clothes. We would try to get there before the mass congregation so we could sit in a group. Sometimes, if it was a large enough church, they would just reserve an area. Just put “Reserve” on it and not say who we are. Just “Reserve.” But now remember, rarely did it get above 10- 12 people in any congregation, so it’s not like we walked in with the whole panel. Entertainment: during football season, we were able to get football tickets for those who were interested in going, we carried them as a group. Saturdays, a lot of activity going on over the weekend. We tried to keep them busy as much as possible so that they would not feel that they were confined. Weather permitting, we would go up to Hershey Park, Pennsylvania, on an excursion – those who wanted to go, have a day out. Now the question that, I guess, is in your mind, “what do you do for clothing?” There were two ways in which you could do it. Some families would bring clothing to the courthouse and leave it at the Marshals Office. And we’d take it back to the hotel and they would switch their clothing that way. Some went to their homes and retrieved fresh clothing. We would try 62 to do it about every two weeks. We would try to give them two weeks worth of clothing. Mr. Klein: They would retrieve the clothes with an escort, or on their own? Mr. Bowden: No, no, no, no. Any movement, any movement, always under escort. Always under the eyes and control of the marshals. Telephone calls were monitored. We had a telephone system set up. I’ll explain that to you in a minute. When we would go to the home, the deputy would go in first. Many times, we’d call and tell the family what time we were coming, because we’d try to make that a family visit, if possible. The family was instructed as to what they could say, what they could not say in front of the jurors. We’d get all the newspapers out of the way that would have some reference to the trial, turn off the radio, televisions, etc. And the juror would never be alone with anyone, this is to a husband, wife or to a significant other. You would not have any private time. We are real people, we understand emotions. So hugging and that kind of thing was tolerated, but there was no closed-door encounter. Not to separate husband and wife conjugal activity – it’s that we did not want any language, or we could say to the court that this person has not been exposed to any language about the trial. Mr. Klein: So would you just stand across the room during the visit, close enough so you could hear what was said, but otherwise – Mr. Bowden: Out of the way. A piece of furniture, if you will. Mr. Klein: How did it feel to do that? Did it feel awkward? Mr. Bowden: It’s an awkward situation. But what we tried to do is to pair the same deputy with the same juror on those visits. That way, the family got to know the deputy, the 63 deputy got to know the family. It was not a stranger coming into their house every week. He’s an outsider, but not a stranger. Do you follow what I’m saying? So I kept a list of two or three deputies who went with this group, and I tried to keep that group together. Mr. Klein: And did you know that some of the deputies, and certain deputies and certain jurors got along better? Mr. Bowden: Yes. You could tell that on going back and forth from the courthouse to the hotel. People are people, and people gravitate on their own. You may find a deputy and a juror who have a common interest in a certain type of automobile; they develop a conversation, a rapport, if you will. They may like the same sports, whatever. So as long as there’s no violation, no integrity violation, that’s the kind of activity you want, because that relaxes the juror. And psychologically, if they’re relaxed, you don’t get any complaints. And if you don’t get any complaints, everybody’s happy. You have a successful operation. Mr. Klein: At this point, were some of the female deputies doing the escorts too? Mr. Bowden: Yes. We had female deputies at that time. That’s how the beauty shop visits got accomplished. And that eliminated a lot of curiosity as to who these people were. You have a female deputy in a beauty shop, that’s a natural scene. A male in a beauty shop is not a natural scene. In those days it was not a natural scene. Mr. Klein: I also wanted to ask about mail and newspapers. Mr. Bowden: Okay. I had the detail in shifts. The midnight to eight in the morning shift. I’m sorry, six to two, midnight to eight, that shift was responsible for censoring the newspapers. They read each page, line-by-line. Any reference to any criminality 64 associated with the indictment, be it named Watergate or anything, they clipped it out, dated it, put it in an envelope, and sealed it. All publications. We had some members of the panel who had magazines that came to their home that they were interested in getting. They would have their family to drop them off, we’d go through them. Anything that needed to be taken out, was taken out. It looked like Swiss cheese was cut out, put in an envelope, dated, and sealed. Mr. Klein: So the jurors got Swiss cheese? Mr. Bowden: [Laughter]. They laughed about it. They laughed about it. They made jokes about it. Paper dolls. They called it cutting out paper dolls. On telephone calls, there were no telephones in the individual rooms. Televisions and telephones were taken out. We had Housekeeping take telephones and televisions out of individual rooms. There were suites, two three-room suites at each end of the hall. Converted those suites into game rooms. That’s where the television was, or televisions. And there’s a deputy there – this is before remote – and he had an electric cord tied to the power cord, and anything that they couldn’t see, he’d just cut the switch and kill the power. Those that had remotes, we just changed the channel. When the news came on, we just changed the channel. Mr. Klein: Would you let people watch the news at all, or was there too much news about Watergate? Mr. Bowden: No. We didn’t let them watch news, period, because you never knew when a commentator might say something. So we just didn’t watch the news, period. Mr. Klein: What about things like the Tonight Show, or something like that? Would their jokes come on or something like that? 65 Mr. Bowden: They’re in bed? They’re in bed. Those that stayed up, we’d find a movie. Live shows or sports, quiz shows, that kind of stuff, but not the Tonight Show. We didn’t take that chance because you never know what Johnny Carson might say. Mr. Klein What about the radio? Mr. Bowden: No radio. It was just too cumbersome to try to monitor that media, radio media. We had games. Card games, Bingo, Monopoly, all kinds of board games. Chess, checkers. Had all kinds of board games. And had a couple basketballs. For those who wanted to go to the gym, the guys carried them. Go to the gym and shoot around, that kind of stuff. Mr. Klein: You were going to explain how the telephone monitoring worked. Mr. Bowden: They’d give us the number and the person they wanted to talk to. We’d call that person and tell that person who we were and who was calling. And monitor the time of the conversation, and we are going to be listening on the conversation and admonish the caller to not discuss the case. The juror knew you were listening, and the person on the other end knew we were listening. And you would log in that information. The date, time, and telephone number, and the general tenor of the conversation. Not verbatim, but the general tenor of the conversation. Mr. Klein: You would put that in the log? Mr. Bowden: Yes, in the log. Mr. Klein: Like what they talked about? Mr. Bowden: Yeah. Not graphic details, but just enough so that I could look at it and remember something about the conversation, what it was about. There were some interesting things said because there were some folk who were single and they 66 made several phone calls to several phone numbers. But you just listened and not listened, if you will. You listened for key words, key stuff, that you knew was not supposed to be said, and you would just terminate the call. Mr. Klein: So sometimes people would overstep? Mr. Bowden: I don’t recall anybody overstepping, and they may have, because I didn’t listen to every call. But the deputies knew what they were supposed to be listening for, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was not an overstep. It wouldn’t surprise me. I never got a complaint from any of the jurors, saying, He cut my call off. Never got that complaint. Because they knew the importance of not violating that instruction on the call. So they were cooperative. Mr. Klein: How long did this sequestration last? Mr. Bowden: I think it was about six months. Six or eight months. It was a long trial. They were in trial a long time. I know they saw four seasons. Because up until recently, Judge Lamberth had the longest trial, which I think was almost nine months. But up until Judge Lamberth had that long trial, the Watergate trial was the longest trial. Mr. Klein: And it was 14 jurors, or 12? Mr. Bowden: Oh no, it was 24, I believe. Mr. Klein: And how did that work? Mr. Bowden: You meant, I thought, during the course of trial. See they were sequestered during the course of the trial, however, during deliberations then it was 12. Mr. Klein: So there were just a lot of alternates on that trial? Mr. Bowden: Yes. 67 Mr. Klein: I see. Mr. Bowden: And I don’t know whether or not the Federal Rule – Now you can only have so many alternates. But I don’t recall whether or not that rule was in effect then. I’ve forgotten now the number we had. We had a busload, I can tell you that. That’s interesting. I’ll have to find out the number. Mr. Klein: During the trial, were some of the jurors dismissed as the trial wore on the several months? Mr. Bowden: I don’t recall any of them being dismissed. I don’t recall. Mr. Klein: And how many marshals, approximately, were in this detail? And were they all from D.C. or did you have to call in others? Mr. Bowden: Yes, they were all D.C. Well, you had six per shift. You had six per shift, and three shifts. Mr. Klein: And you were the supervisor during this time? Mr. Bowden: During that period, right. Mr. Klein: Did you ever run into any of the jurors, afterwards, around town? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Yes. Let me tell you what happened. They developed a good relationship. And for two or three years afterwards, they had a reunion or they had a dinner that they would get together and they invited the marshals. And there were some marriages, or a marriage, that grew out of that. One or two people got married out of that relationship. And some have returned for jury duty and see me and say, “Oh, you’re still here.” I don’t recall their names. They’d have to remind me who they were. But it was a good experience. A good experience. And then there were other sequestered juries that we handled the same way. There have not 68 been any sequestered jurors in the building since Watergate because they found that that worked. We did not have – we, the Marshals Office – did not have in place standard operations for sequestered jurors in hotels. So we had to sit down and draw up some plans, and pass them through to Chief Judge Sirica, and he approved them. And that became the standard order, subsequently, in the U.S. Marshals’ manual. Mr. Klein: Nationwide. Mr. Bowden: Nationwide. As to how you do it. Mr. Klein: That’s very interesting. Mr. Bowden: Now, on Watergate. I’ve been thinking about this and I can’t put a date on it, but at some point during the course of trial, Judge Sirica had a heart attack on the bench. And the deputy by the name of Delovicko was assigned to him. Mr. Klein: Can you report the name? Mr. Bowden: Delovicko. D-e-l-o-v-i-c-k-o, I believe. And I have looked for something with his name on it, and I can’t find it. I know his first name is William. We called him Dutch. Mr. Klein: And he was in the courtroom at the time? Mr. Bowden: He was assigned. He was assigned to Judge Sirica. Remember I told you deputies were assigned? And he administered artificial resuscitation. I don’t think the judge was out that long before he came back. It was toward the end of the trial, and there was some down time. I just thought I’d share that. And what that did is cemented the notion of having a deputy marshal in the court at all times. There was a movement, and there still is a movement – I don’t think that 69 it’s going to go anywhere – but every now and then you get a new person who does not know the history of the Marshals Office and does not know the importance of having a deputy in the courtroom, who comes in – a new administration comes in – and this person was a warehouse superintendent someplace. And he looks at the manpower – and see’s where you put the manpower – and he says, “Well why’ve you got this guy up here standing around in the courtroom, and the judge is on the bench, and there’s no prisoners,” blah, blah, blah. So when that happened, some judges just refused to go in a courtroom. Mr. Klein: Unless there was a deputy. Mr. Bowden: Yes. So they’ve sort of backed down off of it now. But there was a strong movement to get the deputy out of the courtroom. Mr. Klein: But right now, in 2009, is there a deputy in every courtroom? Mr. Bowden: Except on civil trials. On criminal trials, there’s a deputy assigned. Whether there’s a prisoner or not, a deputy is assigned to the courtroom. Mr. Klein: Is there anything more we should cover on Watergate? Mr. Bowden: No, I think that’s about it. I think we’ve exhausted Watergate. Mr. Klein: Two other subjects I thought – there may be something you want to cover before these – but one is the shooting in the courthouse. Mr. Bowden: Okay, shooting in the courthouse? Mr. Klein: Right. Mr. Bowden: The takeover? Mr. Klein: Oh, the takeover; yes. 70 Mr. Bowden: Some time in the 1970s there was a takeover downstairs in the cellblock. I’m not sure whether the takeover was first or Norman Sherriff got killed first, because the Green brothers – they were notorious guys – were involved in both. The takeover came about because there was a conspiracy to free several inmates from D.C. Jail out of the cellblock. They were in D.C. Jail, and they were serial killers. When I say serial killers, one of them, Bruce Green, had killed several folk out in Southeast. He and Willie Strickland and Frank Gorham, a bunch of them, they were bad guys. Anyway, and the Green brothers were robbers, stick-up guys. All of them were in jail, and they all were scheduled to come up here to the United States District Court for their own case, whatever it was. And the Marshals Office got some intelligence that they were going to try to do something, so they split them up and sent two or three of them across the street to Superior Court until they were needed to come over here. And one of them had his arm in a sling, and so it was difficult to search him with that sling. It was a cast kind of sling. And while downstairs, there were some attorneys in there doing an interview, and the deputies down there, and he produced a gun and held the deputies hostage for two or three days. Mr. Klein: How many deputies were hostages? Mr. Bowden: Three. Well, the female deputy that was down there but got out. There was a female prisoner down there. I just remember the guys’ names, Frank Gorham, Bruce Shreeves, and two Green brothers, and Willie Strickland. Willie Strickland had killed two or three people. Mr. Klein: The hostages were held in the cellblock? 71 Mr. Bowden: Yes, the cellblock downstairs. The deputies and one or two lawyers, William Garber. You know William Garber? An old-timer. He was one. He was held. One of those was his client. He was representing one of those guys. Mr. Klein: Okay. You remember that a female deputy was released at some point? Mr. Bowden: She got out. Mr. Klein: She escaped? Mr. Bowden: She got out. She was near the door when they realized there was a takeover, so she was able to get out the door. But some of them got held. Mr. Klein: How long were they held? Mr. Bowden: Two or three days. Mr. Klein: And how did it end? Mr. Bowden: Peacefully. Nobody got hurt. They finally gave up. The thing that sticks with me is that during the hostage takeover, the chief deputy at that time was negotiating with the defendants, with the two defendants, to release the deputies. He made some concessions, or he made a statement that, if you’re a very sensitive person, you may take offense to it. But in negotiations, if you are a negotiator, you’re talking about saving lives. You make all kinds of statements and concessions in order to save lives, and if you say something about a person, that person shouldn’t take it personally, when you’re talking about saving lives. Way into the negotiations, they were making demands – they meaning the prisoners. We knew they were in the cellblock. They were not anywhere in the building, because we had searched the building and we had assured ourselves that all the defendants were still in the cellblock, and they knew they were in the cellblock. 72 This is going into the second or third day, and they knew they couldn’t get out. Even if they killed everybody, they weren’t going to get out of there. That was a foregone conclusion. You’re not getting out of here. Now, let’s make a deal. So, one of the defendants says, “Well, I know the chief judge is going to try to get us life,” blah blah blah, something like that. And the chief deputy is supposed to have said, “F— the chief judge, I can handle that.” Something like that. You understand? And I’m sure he said that to appease these folk, because these are killers. No question about it. They had already killed. So some more notches on their gun. How many times can they die? And the FBI was taping this negotiation, and when it was all over, they played it back, and the chief judge at the time heard the statements and banished the chief deputy from the courthouse. Mr. Klein: The chief judge did take offense at this negotiating tactic? Mr. Bowden: But nobody died. That’s a fact. Mr. Klein: And in the end, all the hostages were released? And, what happened to the defendants? Mr. Bowden: They were prosecuted. Some of them are still doing time. A couple of them died in jail. But the bottom line, nobody died. And they were in charge because they had the gun. Mr. Klein: Do you remember the names of any of the deputies who were hostages? Mr. Bowden: Castille, Joanne Neely. Mr. Klein: Joanne Neely was the woman who got out? Mr. Bowden: Right. 73 Mr. Klein: What did all the deputies think after this happened? Did procedures change? Security procedures? Mr. Bowden: There was no procedure violation. I don’t think they ever resolved fully how that gun got in that cellblock. There are several theories, but nobody knows for certain, unequivocally, how that gun got in that cellblock. The strong inclination is that he brought it in in that cast. Some folk seem to think that it came in an attaché case from an attorney. Mr. Klein: The marshals in the cellblock, they didn’t carry guns? Mr. Bowden: No. We never carry guns while handling prisoners in an environment like that. Not even in the courtroom. Mr. Klein: Would there be marshals who had guns nearby? Mr. Bowden: Nearby where? Mr. Klein: Near the cellblock. Mr. Bowden: No. Mr. Klein: And this was before tasers or anything like that? Mr. Bowden: Right. I’ve got one case I want to talk about. Two cases. Joe Valachi. Did I talk about Joe Valachi? Mr. Klein: No. Mr. Bowden: Joe Valachi, as you know, was crime syndicate – Mafia – out of New York. The reason I’m talking about it is because this was the beginning of the Witness Security Program. When Valachi decided to work with the government to unravel the Mafia, the D.C. office brought him here from New York to testify before Congress. So we went up in a caravan and brought him back in a caravan 74 of cars and deputies and housed him over at D.C. Jail. And when his testimony was over, we took him back to Manhattan. That was the beginning of the Witness Security Program. Mr. Klein: When you say you brought him in a caravan, was that because you were worried about ambushes? Mr. Bowden: Right. Yeah. As I look back on it now, it was a grand movement, because we must have had four or five cars, or POVs. We didn’t have government cars then. POVs. Personal owned vehicles. They had sharpshooters on tops of the buildings. Coming out of New York, they had the Holland Tunnel blocked off so we could expedite through there. Mr. Klein: Were you part of this? Mr. Bowden: I was just a rider. I was just in the car, if you will. But it was exciting now that I look back at it. That was the beginning of the Witness Security Program. And then there was a trial here. The trial of the imposter attorney. His name was Oliver Wendel Holmes Morgan. Tried cases here successfully in U.S. District Court – criminal cases successfully in U.S. District Court – but he was not a member of the bar. Had never gone to law school. And the way he got caught is that – this was before computers – your bar information was kept on a 3×5 card in the Clerk’s Office. And before vouchers, there was a fund. Attorneys were paid through that fund. Mr. Klein: Paid by the court? Mr. Bowden: Right. Through that program. And he had adopted a bar number and was getting paid. And one clerk looked at the card – the number – and saw something that 75 didn’t register. I’m not sure whether it was one digit too many, one digit too few, or an alphabet that shouldn’t have been there. There was something that this clerk saw that everybody else hadn’t paid any attention to, and began to check to see whether or not this was a good bar number. And it, of course, was not a good bar number. He was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced. On the loading dock, where the marshals hook up the prisoners, I was getting ready to take him to Lewisburg as prescribed. I told him to put his hands out so I could put the cuffs on him. He said, “Marshal, you don’t have to put cuffs on me.” I said, “Why?” He said, “I’m an attorney.” I said, “But the jury convicted you. Said that you were not an attorney.” I say that to say that at that time, on his way to jail, he was still convinced that he was an attorney. Mr. Klein: Do you think he really believed it still? Mr. Bowden: I guess he did. I guess he did. But he had won cases. And he lost some. Mr. Klein: Did he represent himself in his trial or did he have a lawyer? Mr. Bowden: He did represent himself. Mr. Klein: He did? Mr. Bowden: He had a standby attorney, but he was pro se. Mr. Klein: Were you in the courtroom for the trial? Mr. Bowden: I was in and out. I was in and out of court, because at that time I was working out in the field. He was tried by Luke Moore and Sullivan, who was in the U.S. Attorney’s Office at the time. I can’t think of Sullivan’s first name now. He tried the case. But it was very interesting. Mr. Klein: Should we talk about that deputy who was shot by one of the Greens? 76 Mr. Bowden: Norman Sherriff. Mr. Klein: What’s the name again? Mr. Bowden: Norman, N-O-R-M-A-N, Sherriff. Common spelling. He was a Deputy United States Marshal. Before Norman was shot, it was commonplace for families and attorneys of folks who were incarcerated to ask the court to release them to go to attend a deceased person’s funeral. And that’s what this was about. The funeral home was at Fifth and Florida Avenue, Northwest – Hall’s Funeral Home. I sent an advance team to go up to check the situation out, to do the advance. I had a number of deputies assigned to take the defendant – one of these Green brothers. An uncle, or father, a male person in that family had died, and they were brought up. One of these brothers was on bond. So Sherriff’s death preceded this takeover, because one of these brothers was out in the community on bond. And the detail went up to the funeral home. We try to make an arrangement with the funeral director to go in early, do the viewing and leave before the family would get there. Because then you’ve got too many people involved. Mr. Klein: So leave before the service? Mr. Bowden: Before the service. Because it was just a viewing. When they got there, it was inside. They noticed the brother on bond came in and left. Sherriff was standing outside by his car – in the winter – watching. I don’t know whether Sherriff recognized this fellow as the brother or not. When he came out, he turned and went away from Sherriff, went around the building and came in the side door of the funeral home. And there were four or five deputies in there. He had a gun, got the drop on the deputies and got their guns. And he came out and started 77 toward Sherriff with his brother who was in handcuffs and leg irons. And Sherriff had on an overcoat, and when he came out, Sherriff didn’t get a chance to get his gun and he shot him. And he went down Fifth Street, had a car waiting, and took off. Mr. Klein: Did Sherriff have a family? Mr. Bowden: Yeah. He had a wife, no children. Mr. Klein: He had a wife. And about how old was he? Mr. Bowden: Mid-forties. He had spent some time in the military. He may have been an early retiree out of the military. Mr. Klein: So how long about had he been with the Marshals Service? Mr. Bowden: About five or six years at that time. They got caught. A Metropolitan Police motorcycle officer caught them going up Irving Street. They were on the lookout for the car and that kind of stuff. Mr. Klein: The same day? Mr. Bowden: Oh, yeah. They were in hot pursuit. So we don’t do funeral details anymore. Mr. Klein: And the brother was tried for the murder of Sherriff and convicted? Mr. Bowden: Right. Well that was part of this – Mr. Klein: That’s how he ended up in the cellblock for the takeover. Mr. Bowden: Yeah, he had other stuff as well. You see one of them was already in jail, and this one had other stuff, but he was out on bond on the robbery case. But now he has got this homicide. So you can appreciate where the Chief Deputy’s mind was. We know who’s in jail. So you can appreciate his negotiating tactics. You know, in negotiations you’re taught to make little concessions at a time until you get 78 what you want. But there’s a point where you’re not going to go any further on concessions. You throw all kinds of balloons up, but you have no intentions of fulfilling them. You understand that. Mr. Klein: Right. Mr. Bowden: So, I thought the Chief Deputy did a hell of a job myself. Mr. Klein: Obviously, he got six or eight people out alive. Mr. Bowden: But, of course, somebody else didn’t feel that way about it. Mr. Klein: Right. How did the other deputies in the Marshals Office react to this death? Mr. Bowden: Oh, it was a sad occasion – a sad thing – because he was a very, very well-liked person. Unlike today, the personnel lived here in the District or Maryland or Virginia. And they were home, if you will, not transient. So you developed relationships, you know, long-term relationships, and camaraderie and that kind of stuff. There’s camaraderie here now, but many of the deputies now are just passing through. Because their families are other places and they are just here to get his two or three years in and he wants to be with his family. So he doesn’t develop that family feeling to the guy who’s sitting next to him because he’s not going to know him but two or three years. Mr. Klein: Right. So you all would know each other well, and your wives would know each other and the rest. So you knew Sherriff’s family? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Outside of work you had a social relationship. You may not have been in and out of each other’s house every day, that kind of stuff, but you knew his wife when you saw her. That kind of thing. Mr. Klein: And just if you want to say a few words about his personality and the rest. 79 Mr. Bowden: Great guy. Easy-going. Very likeable. He was a rising star as far as I was concerned. I saw a lot of potential in Norman Sherriff in terms of being a leader in the Marshals Service because he had that kind of charisma and kind of attitude toward the job and toward people. Very good people person. And it was just a sad case that he died the way he did. He never got a shot off. Never got a shot off. Mr. Klein: Because the gun would be holstered inside of the – Mr. Bowden: Yeah. Because this is a viewing, and it’s in the winter, and on a public street. You don’t want to be standing there with your gun in your hand. Mr. Klein: Is that the only deputy to have died in the line of duty in this office in recent memory – Mr. Bowden: In recent times. In recent memory. Mr. Klein: Since you’ve been in the office? Mr. Bowden: Right. In recent memory. Back in the early 18-something, a deputy got killed. I don’t have any data. But in recent memory we had two to die in office. One had a heart attack in the office, the other had a heart attack on a training mission in Florida. They died in the line of duty, if you will, because they were on duty. But not as a consequence of a homicide. He’s the only one who died in action if you’re trying to make a distinction. Mr. Klein: Have there been other serious attacks on deputies that are worth mentioning as part of this, or – 80 Mr. Bowden: No, not any serious attacks. You’re going to have fights with inmates, but I don’t think it’s anything that I would report. Incidents, but not anything of historical significance I would think. Mr. Klein: I guess moving on I should ask about any other significant trials you’ve been involved in or other significant historical events before we get to the facts of your personal retirement, et cetera. To set a historical record. Mr. Bowden: I sat in on Microsoft which I thought was very, very interesting because it was not a criminal trial. But it was very interesting in terms of the amount of money that the digital age generates. And I’m not being critical of anyone’s ability and fortune, but I heard a statement – supposed to have been a fact – that Microsoft invested $25 million in a project and realized it was not a good project and said the heck with it. And moved on to something else. Mr. Klein: You heard that at trial? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Mr. Klein: As part of the trial? Mr. Bowden: Twenty-five million dollars and they just said okay, that’s alright. We’ll go on to something else. Mr. Klein: Did you sit in on the whole trial? Mr. Bowden: Yes, each day. Mr. Klein: That’s another long one. Mr. Bowden: Yeah, another long trial. There were other interesting facets about it but that just stuck out in my mind how $25 million just “zip.” 81 Mr. Klein: Are there any interesting lawyers that you’ve seen in the courtroom that stuck in your mind that you might want to mention. Mr. Bowden: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Belford Lawson, Ed Williams, Brendan Sullivan, Dovey J. Roundtree, Curtis Mitchell, Vincent Fuller, Vince Alto, Kenneth Mundy, John Shorter, Jake Stein, Plato Cacheris, and William B. Bryant. Mr. Klein: Before he was a judge, you saw him as a lawyer. Mr. Bowden: Saw him try cases. A guy by the name of McLaughlin (or McLofton). We used to call him the Green Hornet. I can’t think of his first name. A very, very dramatic guy and theatrical. Very theatrical. The stuff that he did then you couldn’t – and of course they wouldn’t permit it now. Mr. Klein: Like what. Were these criminal trials or civil trials with the Green Hornet. Mr. Bowden: McLaughlin had a habit of creating documents during the course of trial and he would have it marked for identification, present it to the witness, and ask the witness had he seen it before. Now this was a self-made document that Mac made while at the counsel table. No authenticity about it at all, and of course the witness would say I’ve never seen it before. Do you know what it is, no I don’t know what it is. He’d say, no more questions. And he’d move it into evidence as his exhibit. And during the course of his oral argument to the jury he would talk about that. And he would say they brought this expert in here and he has never seen this document before. And it would just create some confusion to the jury. Mr. Klein: And he was talking about the document that the lawyer had scribbled up? Mr. Bowden: Yeah. It was a phony piece of paper. 82 Mr. Klein: What about Judge Bryant as a lawyer, before he became a judge? What kind of cases was he doing? Mr. Bowden: Mostly criminal. He did some civil stuff, but mostly criminal. But what I remember most about his trying cases as a prosecutor as well as a defense attorney, is the way he would select a jury. Body language from a trial attorney is in some cases more important than verbal language. In those days, when Bill Bryant was trying cases, the court would put twelve members of the jury in the jury box and you would strike from the jury box. When Bill Bryant was the prosecutor, sitting at the table nearest the jury box, he never would look up at the jury. They would put twelve people in the jury box. The court would say, “Mr. Bryant.” He would be busy writing, taking notes, scribbling something on a pad. The court would oftentimes have to call him twice. “Mr. Bryant.” “Yes, Your Honor?” “You have any strikes?” “No, Your Honor, the Government’s satisfied.” And this would go on throughout the selection. The defense counsel would be striking. “Mr. Bryant?” “The Government’s satisfied.” And what this told the jury is, I don’t care who you put in the jury box, my case is strong enough for a conviction. I don’t have to pick over whether you look like you like me or you don’t like me. He had done his voir dire. And he was very effective that way. And his cross-examination of a witness was so artful, tactful. He was just a stripper. If he caught one in what he called an untruth, he would feed him enough concrete around his feet until he would sink himself. And the way he would turn his back on a witness would tell the jury, I don’t believe a word and you shouldn’t believe a word this person is saying. It’s very effective. Now Edward Williams 83 was a lawyer who always knew his cases and always had his facts in order. So did Bryant. Both of them used very, very few notes when doing their closing arguments. The court would allow you to walk in those days. They didn’t have a PA system. So you had to stand where you could talk loud enough so the jury and the court and the jury could hear you, and the court would allow you to move about. And they would just stand and argue their case. Recall names, dates, and places. I just found it fascinating. And when they would ask a question of a witness, the follow-up question made sense. Some attorneys have a list of ten questions that they are going to ask regardless of what the answer is to the first question. The second question is what I have on my list. So the jury loses continuity or loses thought. But these attorneys, they painted a picture in their direct and in their cross-examination. The picture they wanted you to see. Now I’m sure they had a list of questions somewhere in their mind, but they listened to the witnesses’ answer to each question first, before they asked the second question or the follow-up question. Mr. Klein: Did either of them, after a case was done, did you ever have a chance to talk to either of them about what they – Mr. Bowden: Oh yeah. That’s what I enjoyed about being in the courthouse. You got to know them well enough to critique, if you will. Ask them certain things. Now Bill McLaughlin was an orator. Luke Moore was an orator. You could count on them quoting someone, Tennyson, Shakespeare. Because each case they had had some makeup that a quote would satisfy. They either started their argument off with one, or ended with one. And it was their use of the language that would have the 84 jury on the edge of their seats. I retired in 1987 and fulfilled one of my joys of traveling for three or four years and got bored with that and had an opportunity to come back to the U.S. Marshals Office as a private contractor to be with the people and the place that I enjoy, and that’s why I’m still here having fun. Mr. Klein: Sounds good. That’s better than retirement. Mr. Bowden: Right. Exactly. Mr. Klein: Okay. Any other subjects we should cover now or you want us to wait until you see the transcript. Mr. Bowden: Right. And make a note. There’s some other cases. 85 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Fourth Interview July 2, 2009 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place at the Courthouse on July 2, 2009. This is the fourth interview. Mr. Klein: Mr. Bowden, you wanted to discuss some lawyers that you have seen in practice? Mr. Bowden: Yes. I have some names of some attorneys whom I had the privilege of observing try cases in this district, and I was very impressed with their abilities in trying cases. George E.C. Hayes comes to mind; Curtis Mitchell; Kenneth Mundy; Dovey J. Roundtree; Joel Blackwell; and if I did not mention earlier, William B. Bryant; William Gardner; and I think I mentioned Edward Bennett Williams before; Vincent Alto; Joseph Sitnick; Jean and John Dwyer – that’s a husband and wife team; Jim Sharp; Jacob “Jake” Stein. All of those attorneys I mentioned, I don’t have any specific cases that I remember them trying, except I can isolate Luke Moore because he tried the infamous attorney impersonator case. Luke Moore and Assistant U.S. Attorney by the name of Sullivan tried the infamous attorney impersonation case of Oliver Wendel Holmes Morgan and got a conviction. Mr. Klein: I just want to ask – Mr. Blackwell, can you repeat his first name. Mr. Bowden: Joel. He was in private practice and then subsequently went into the U.S. Attorneys Office . A very, very good trial lawyer. Mr. Klein: What sticks in your mind about what made these remarkable lawyers remarkable? 86 Mr. Bowden: Many of them were defense attorneys, and as you know, in most instances, when the government brings a case, they pretty well have good evidence, or they think they have good evidence, to prove their case. So defense counsel starts behind the 8-ball, if you will, and in some of these cases I remember the facts and the circumstances that caused the case to go to trial, and I had my doubts of the defense counsel being able to effectively defend the case, and in many instances, to my amazement, they were able to raise that reasonable doubt to the jury. In some of the cases, they got a split decision. Some counts were not guilty, some counts they were found guilty. From a defense counsel’s standpoint, that’s a win. So I mention these attorneys because I saw them in trial and really take a little defense evidence and make it a winnable position for their client. And all these gentlemen, and ladies, that I mention, were dedicated to the bar, dedicated to the court, and dedicated to the American jurisprudence, and you could tell that by the way they prepared themselves for trial; you could tell by the way that they were persistent. I gave these names because these were not, to use the term, “Fifth Streeters.” These attorneys, the names that I mentioned, to me were those who really are the cream of the crop in terms of trial lawyers that I had the opportunity to see. Mr. Klein: When you use the term “Fifth Streeters,” there were a lot of offices on Fifth Street, right? Mr. Bowden: Yes, and some of these attorneys had offices on Fifth Street. The term “Fifth Streeters,” I guess, is something that evolves – some attorneys who practice law in the Court of General Sessions, Municipal Court, and subsequently Superior Court, did not have a fixed address as an office. They met their clients in the Courthouse and developed what strategy they wanted to implement in the trial, in 87 the Courthouse, and some of them met on Fifth Street, right on the sidewalk, and sometimes it would be the first or second time they had seen their client since the initial arrest, so they were commonly referred to as “Fifth Streeters.” They did not raise a lot of issues that could have been raised in trial; they were not as prepared as they should have been in defense of their clients. Many of them were manipulators, if you will. They were able to do a lot of plea bargains. Some cases were triable cases, should have been tried, but rather than take the time or energy to prepare to try the case, they would work a deal and do a plea. And I can say this because working in the Marshals Service in the cellblock, you would often hear the interview between defendant and counsel, and the defendant would explain to counsel what actually happened in a situation to cause his arrest. And then sometimes later in the courtroom when the case came for a motion, and some of the things that I remember defendant raising with counsel was never challenged in court and it just wasn’t good lawyering, if you will. Mr. Klein: That’s interesting. I know you also want to give an example of, for instance, what you might see as inadequate preparation by a defense lawyer that comes out in court. Mr. Bowden: Some of the instances that stick out in my mind: counsel comes downstairs in the morning and interviews the clients that they were assigned to represent for presentation. Mr. Klein: “Downstairs” meaning? Mr. Bowden: Downstairs in the cellblock, in Superior Court – now Superior Court, then it was Municipal Court, Court of General Sessions. These are “Fifth Streeters” I’m talking about. And they get up before the judge, and the judge would ask some basic questions about the defendant to determine whether or not the defendant can 88 be released prior to trial, and oftentimes the court will ask the counsel, “Is the client married?” Counsel would have to turn to the client and ask, “Are you married?” The court would be asking basic questions, and counsel didn’t have that basic information after having an interview with the client downstairs to be able to articulate it to the court. So that suggests to me that come trial time, if they got to trial, if they’re not prepared with the basic stuff, they’re not going to be prepared for anything to cause some intention to application of law. I’ve heard many of them say after the hearing, “I’m going to talk to the prosecutor and see if I can’t work something out for you.” Unfortunately that happened in a lot of situations. Mr. Klein: I wanted to ask you a quick follow-up question on one of the names you mentioned as one of the very good lawyers you saw. You mentioned William Gardner. Is that any relation to Wendell Gardner who’s a judge? Mr. Bowden: No. That was another Gardner who also subsequently became a judge, William Gardner, who is deceased now. There were two Gardners in Superior Court. William Gardner was one. William Gardner was a partner in the law firm of George E.C. Hayes and William Bryant, and Annice Wagner, I believe, was in that law firm, who is now a Senior Judge in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Judge Margaret Haywood came from that law firm as well. That law firm produced excellent lawyers and subsequently outstanding judges. Mr. Klein: Before moving on to courtroom decorum, I’m wondering when did you start seeing female attorneys in considerable numbers? Was that a change that was remarked on at the time? Did people notice, or was it very gradual? Mr. Bowden: It was very gradual, very gradual. I remember Dovey Roundtree, Margaret Haywood, Jean Dwyer, June Green, Ruth Hankins who was primarily in civil 89 practice. Burnita Matthews, the first female judge in the U.S. District Court. And I saw later some judges who are now on the bench here. But in the early days, it was very gradual. Many of them practiced primarily civil law. Mr. Klein: Let’s talk about two lawyers, Julia Cooper and Joan Burke. Did you want to bring up those names? Mr. Bowden: Right. Ms. Cooper was the first African-American female to be appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office, even though she was assigned to the Department of Justice, and the first African-American female trial attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was Joan Burke. And then after Joan Burke, I believe it was Ruth Banks. Mr. Klein: Was it a name you already mentioned? Mr. Bowden: After Joan Burke, the next African-American female in the U.S. Attorneys Office was Ruth Banks. Mr. Klein: Ms. Banks has now passed away. Mr. Bowden: Right. I don’t know where Joan Burke is now. Both were good trial lawyers. Mr. Klein: Julia Cooper Mack, what did she do after she left the U.S. Attorneys Office? Mr. Bowden: After she left the U.S. Attorneys Office, she went to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She is now retired from that Court. Mr. Klein: Should we talk more about particular lawyers, or should we switch to courtroom decorum? I think you have something to say about that. Mr. Bowden: When I speak of courtroom decorum, I am talking specifically about the United States District Court. When I first came to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, there were certain things that you just did not do in the courtroom, and judges were very, very strict on adhering to those rules. At counsel table, all the chairs were straight. There were no chairs with casters on them so therefore 90 you didn’t move around. Chairs were stationary, and counsel had to keep both feet on the floor. Both of their feet were on the floor and they did not recline in those straight-back chairs. You did not cross your legs while the court was in session. Any time you addressed the Court, you stood first and addressed the Court. You did not address the Court unless you were standing. You stood, got recognized by the Court, and then you addressed the Court. Mr. Klein: They were recognized by saying, “Mr. Jones…”, or by looking at you? Mr. Bowden: It was verbal recognition, and you approached the podium and spoke from the podium, not from counsel table. Women attorneys never wore pants. Always a business suit. Inside the well, moving around inside the well, very, very limited. Either the Marshal would challenge you or the Court would challenge you. Even though you were a participant in the proceeding, once the judge came on the bench, and said remain seated until asked by the court to approach the podium or you got permission to leave the well was just not tolerated. Anyone inside the well had to be properly dressed. That is, a suit and tie and for women a suit but not pants and they had to have on hose (stockings). Personally, as the United States Marshal, I didn’t own a sport jacket. All of my suits were dark colors, dark grey, black, blue or dark brown. Sport clothes, sport jackets and collar and tie was just not tolerated, even from a staff person. You sat up straight in the chair and there was no talking in the courtroom, either in the gallery or inside the well, unless you were addressing the Court. The client and attorney had privileges to talk but not when the Court was talking. Mr. Klein: What would happen if someone was not living up to all this? Mr. Bowden: Severely reprimanded by the Court in an embarrassing way. Mr. Klein: If the judge saw someone slouching? 91 Mr. Bowden: In an embarrassing way. The defense, very strict, very regimented. As I reflect back, many of them had some military background, experience. Some of that carried over from their military experience. Very, very strict. Mr. Klein: Would you ever have a private word with someone who you thought was about to get in trouble with something? The judge is about to come in and someone is slouching? Mr. Bowden: That was one of your responsibilities, to maintain order. You were expected as a Marshal to maintain order and decorum in the courtroom. If you saw an attorney doing something or about to do something, or anyone, it was your responsibility to correct it. Because if you didn’t the judge would tell you to do it, but you knew he expected you to do that anyway. Mr. Klein: How are these standards, or practices, different now? Mr. Bowden: I had a culture shock when I retired in 1987 and came back in the early 1990s to see the carefree attitude and dress in the courtroom, beginning with the Court itself. There was a very relaxed dialog between the Court and participants. I saw judges, even though they had their robes on, you could see that they had a sports jacket on under the robe. And they themselves leaned back and crossed their legs, so when I saw counsel crossing their legs, that was just something I was not accustomed to seeing in the courtroom. The lawyers were moving about, everyone going and doing something while the judge is on the bench, the judge is talking, they’re litigating a case, folk just moving about. I was not prepared for it. Mr. Klein: You can pinpoint the time when the change happened. You can recognize it because you left in 1987 and came back. 92 Mr. Bowden: I left in 1983 and went to headquarters 1983 and retired in 1987. In 1983 when I left, it was very, very strict. Some time between 1983 and 1991, 1992, there was a relaxed attitude. Mr. Klein: What about the way that counsel and the Court would talk during proceedings? Was it more formal and polite in the old days? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Counsel knew not to ever interrupt a judge while that judge was talking, even though they may have been in a heated or action-driven dialog, you just never heard of an attorney cutting a judge off. You stood straight and talked, none of that slouching over the podium or standing with hands in your pocket talking to court. Defendants, we would never let a defendant put their hands in their pocket and talk to the judge. You stood at attention when you talked. Mr. Klein: Was there a time, did you notice, when some of the older judges were still expecting things to be done the old way, and some of the newer lawyers didn’t know? Mr. Bowden: Some of us who were familiar with the judge’s attitude, how he felt, the deputy clerks would tell the attorneys don’t do this, or don’t do that, this is how the judge expects you to act or react. And some did and some didn’t, and they got the wrath of the court. Mr. Klein: Do you have, or do you want to give an opinion, on which way is better? Whether it’s better all-in-all to have courts that are more formal and where the authority lines are clearer, or whether it’s better where everyone seems to relate better and the business still gets done in a relaxed atmosphere? Mr. Bowden: I have not given that any serious thought. I guess if I had to have my druthers, I think I’d – sometimes I’ve seen counsel, to me, very, very close to being disrespectful to the court in their attitude and the way they respond, and that may 93 be a lot of things, that the counsel – that because a lot of judges now who were trial lawyers and they were active trial lawyers and they understand combativeness and how counsel can get wrapped up in a case and kind of lose your discipline, I guess, I wouldn’t want to criticize a lawyer for that because it’s an adversarial situation. They’re trying to do the best they can for their client. So I can’t answer the question by saying which is better. I can say that overall we seem to have a good – my experience – a good cadre of attorneys and excellent trial judges, from my perspective. And the work is getting done. Justice is being served. So I don’t know, I don’t know which is best. Mr. Klein: I have one other follow-up question that occurred to me. Did you ever see lawyers purposefully irritate the judge, some of these rules to get the jury’s attention? Mr. Bowden: Oh yeah. Several of the lawyers I mentioned earlier were good trial lawyers and were also good tacticians. One who stands out to me, he wanted a continuance and the court would not grant him a continuance because he had, in the court’s mind, many, many continuances before and the court wanted to make sure the case got tried. He would fake a heart attack, deliberately, fall on the floor. Get transported to the hospital, and he was popular enough where he had a series of doctors who verified that he needed three days’ rest and medical verification that he needed three days’ rest. Now he had a tremendous calendar, he was very active, both in this court and the local court, but very effective, he was not ready to go to trial in the instant case, ask for a continuance, the judge wouldn’t grant a continuance. Mr. Klein: You were going to talk about a Department of Corrections case. 94 Mr. Bowden: Before Judge Lamberth. I believe it was a civil case where the allegation was that the Department of Corrections had physically abused some inmates, and it grew out of an instance where there had been some disturbance at the cellblock at Lorton. The mission was to retrieve the aggravators out of the cellblock and separate them and put them in another facility, in an institution. The captain in charge of that detail was on the stand testifying for the government. The question was put to him, “What happened?,” and he went on to relate what happened. He said he had three choices. One was to talk the inmates out of the cellblock, so he tried to do that and was not successful. And he said the second choice was to use tear gas to get them out of the cellblock. He tried that. The third choice was to beat the hell out of them. He said that was his third choice, to beat the hell out of them. Judge Lamberth recessed the court just behind that statement. I guess you’re saying what’s the point, why am I relating this story. I’m relating this story because as a person in law enforcement, I was embarrassed that a captain would go on the stand and use that kind of language and to resort to that tactic just to get inmates out of a cellblock. There has to be another way than to beat the hell out of them, as he described. And that was what the allegations were. Mr. Klein: Do you want to say more on that? Mr. Bowden: No. There was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in this jurisdiction, the last name was McLoughlin – Michael McLoughlin I believe was his name – but I was always impressed and fascinated with the way he tried cases. He was a very dapper dresser. He wore the English-cut collar shirts and very flashy cuff links, he was kind of short in stature, and this was before they had a PA system in the courts, in the U.S. District Court. So in order to be heard, counsel would always address 95 the witness from the furthest point in the well from the witness stand, and McLoughlin had a habit of adjusting his tie and putting his cuff links out to be seen, and I’m sure he did that deliberately to get the jury’s attention, because the jury would always turn and watch him, and they would rarely hear the defendant as he took the stand to answer the questions. There were a lot of attorneys who used various tactics to get the jurors’ attention on them and not on the witness testifying. We had one attorney who would ask the Court could he approach the witness, and that was something you always did. You never approached the witness without getting explicit permission from the Court, which today some courts do not require. In fact, some courts today will tell you that you need not get permission. But after this one prosecutor would ask permission to approach a witness, and it was a witness for the defense, and he would show the witness a document or a piece of evidence, and on his way back from the witness stand as he passed the jury box, he would whisper in a very low voice, “Listen to this lie.” And he’s walking along the rail next to the jury. He would go back to that area – we talked about the furthest point from the witness – and ask a question. Now whatever the answer coming from the witness would be, he, the counselor, had already poisoned one, two, or more members of the jury’s mind by saying, “Listen to this lie.” Now I know today counsel would be criticized for doing that kind of thing. Mr. Klein: So that goes to show that even when there were all kinds of rules and “Yes sir, please, can I do this” kind of thing, people were still doing this kind of thing. Mr. Bowden: Exactly. Mr. Klein: So not total control over the courtroom even if people are saying, “Yes sir.” 96 Mr. Bowden: He would say it in a very low voice no one else would hear except one or two members of the panel. They took that information with them into the jury room. Mr. Klein: Are there any other subjects we should cover? Mr. Bowden: Not right now. Mr. Klein: It’s been a real pleasure. Thank you for your time. If you have any thoughts based on your time, something like 45 years in the courthouse, if there’s any sort of overarching thought about what you learned about human nature or how the justice system and courts can serve society and how people relate to it, what might you think? It’s an unfair question, I didn’t tell you I was going to ask that. Mr. Bowden: I can only talk about this jurisdiction and what I have seen in this jurisdiction. This is an excellent jurisdiction, the best in the country in terms of fairness on both sides. I think it manifests itself because of the quality of the judiciary and the quality of members of the bar, both on the prosecutor side and defense side. Even though I talked about the inept attorneys, there were only a few, but there were enough of them to tarnish, if you will, but they didn’t survive, and we are grateful that they did not survive, that the bar eliminated them. This jurisdiction, from what I have experienced here, and I do have some information in talking with colleagues in other jurisdictions, that this jurisdiction is a leader in American jurisprudence. If I were a defendant, I would think that in this jurisdiction I would get a fair trial before this court. Mr. Klein: That is a great thing to say. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time. 97 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Fifth Interview January 19, 2010 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place at the Courthouse on January 19, 2010. This is the fifth interview. Mr. Klein: Mr. Bowden, we’re going to talk now about your early life. Why don’t you starting by telling us where and when you were born, and we will work from there. Mr. Bowden: I was born in Memphis, Tennessee, December 24, 1935, at Jane Terrell Hospital in South Memphis. Jane Terrell Hospital was owned by Dr. Terrell. It is now demolished, but in those days African-American or Blacks were not permitted to be admitted to white hospitals or white medical facilities for medical care. So some doctors – black doctors, African-American doctors – built their own hospital and Dr. Terrell was the owner of the property and lead doctor. Efforts have been made by me to get my birth certificate and other vital information, but in 1935 the government didn’t think it was important to keep records of blacks and when the hospital burned down and was subsequently demolished, there were no records. My birth mother was Susan Margaret Anthony. She was born in Jonesboro, Arkansas, completed high school in Jonesboro, attended Arkansas AM&N College – now University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff – two years. She later moved to Memphis, Tennessee, and took a job teaching in a public school. In 1934 she met my father, who was a dentist in West Memphis, Arkansas, and became pregnant out of that relationship, and I was born. She saw fit to leave Memphis and move to Washington, D.C., and I was adopted by John Horace and 98 Vernetta Constance Bradshaw (her maiden name), last name Bowden, when I was six weeks old. I was reared as a Bowden. I met my biological father in my early teens. He was still practicing dentistry in West Memphis, Arkansas. My adopted parents insisted that I make that contact, as well as keep a relationship with my biological mother, who, after the adoption, maintained contact with my adopted parents. Periodically, as I got older, I was able to visit Washington, D.C., and spend some time with my biological mother. There was never an attempt by my adoptive parents to avoid having a wholesome relationship with both my biological parents. As I look back and listen to the psychologists and psychiatrists of this day, it was a good decision on their part, and I think that they were a little ahead of themselves, or ahead of the times. By speaking of them, John Horace had an eighth-grade education. And in those days, a black man with an eighth grade education was equal to, in some instances, one or two years of college because of the type of teaching that they had. He was a very gifted man, both intellectually and with his hands. His trade was a plumber and a steamfitter. My mother was a homemaker. He refused to allow her to work. He was a homeowner. He worked for a company that was responsible for building Grand Central train station in Memphis, Tennessee. He was the lead steamfitter and plumber when they built the Grand Central station, which has been torn down. I say that because many years later – I was in my early twenties. Remember I was born in 1935, so now we’re talking 1950 or so, 1955, somewhere in there – they had a very severe renovation problem with the pipefitting at Grand Central. He had since retired. There were no blueprints of where the pipes were laid, and it was costing them tons of money and time to locate. And someone remembered 99 that he was the lead person, so they came to him to ask him to help them locate certain pipes. As I said he was a smart fellow. He remembered every foot of pipes, steam pipes and water pipes that they laid, and he charged them an enormous fee to get that job done because they were at his mercy. There were no blueprints, he had it all in his head. I thought I would just share that. Mr. Klein: That’s a good story actually. Mr. Bowden: We lived in a community which was named after Frederick Douglass. It was a self-sufficient community, first grade through twelve. There were several people in the community who taught at that school, certified teachers. There were two private preschools in a person’s home who was also certified. I attended one of the preschools. When I say separate high school, we had at that school many of the amenities that other high schools in the city did not have. There were five public high schools for African-Americans: Booker Washington, Manassas, Melrose, Hamilton, and Douglass. Booker Washington, Manassas and Hamilton were more centralized downtown. Douglass was, I guess you can refer to now as out in the suburbs. It was within the city, but on the edge of the city limits. The school was very, very high on academics. Our principal had a PhD in Theology. My chemistry teacher had a PhD in Chemistry. He couldn’t get a job teaching any place else but in high school. My history teacher had a Master’s in American History. The best she could do was to teach in high school. My music teacher, a PhD from Oklahoma State, the best he could do was teach in high school. And others had advanced degrees, but the best they could do was to teach in high school. And they were dedicated teachers. And we could tell, and as I grew older and left high school, I could appreciate their dedication. They were not for the 100 dollar. Not for the payday. It was because they enjoyed teaching. The school, outside of the churches in the community, was the focal point in the community. During the Depression – 1929, ’30, ’34, ’35 – the members of the community – as I said it was on the edge of the city, so everybody was a property owner. There was no rental property in Douglass. You owned your own home. There were no apartment buildings. Some property was on larger lots than others. There were some vacant lots that I’m not sure who owned them. But those lots that were vacant, people converted them into gardens – vegetable gardens, flower gardens. And during the Depression, the school had a cafeteria and the principal made the cafeteria and the cooking facilities available to the community. So folk would harvest the food, take it over to the school, and the wives or the women would can all of the food that was harvested from around the community, and then they would share it. So I’m told that nobody went hungry because there was plenty of food. Mr. Klein: Were the gardens communal that were in the vacant property? There were plots of land of a lot of different neighbors who had their own plots? Mr. Bowden: Right. It was a combination, because I remember we had, I guess, maybe three to five acres where the family planted the garden as part of the community. We had peach trees, apple trees, pears, you name it. Pecans, and vegetables. Families in the Douglass community planted and worked the garden that provided food. But I’m told that’s the reason they kept the garden and how it worked. It had such notoriety and history behind it that Eleanor Roosevelt came to visit in 1939. It was a newscast that was filmed and went around the country as to how the 101 community came together to survive. This garden project still is working in the community today. Mr. Klein: The community was called Douglass? Mr. Bowden: It was called Douglass. The city refused to let them name it Frederick Douglass because they did not want to give recognition to a black man in the city of Memphis. So they permitted them to name the school Douglass, but would not let them document, officially, Frederick Douglass High School. Mr. Klein: But everyone there knew it was named for Frederick Douglass? Mr. Bowden: Of course. Mr. Klein: The Eleanor Roosevelt visit, you would have been pretty small. Do you remember it, or did people talk about it later? Mr. Bowden: People talked about it later, and the high school had a copy of the newsreel. And on May Day each year there’s a big festival with activities and that type of stuff – they would show that newsreel, and I remember seeing it over and over and over again. So it was documented and etched in my mind. As I said, the school was the center of the community. A lot of activity took place at the school. It had a very, very strong Parent Teachers Association, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, drama club. Didn’t have any foreign language when I was in high school, but we had the math club, chemistry club, Hi-Y club. All kinds of activities. Mr. Klein: What was the last one, High Wire? Mr. Bowden: Hi-Y. Hi dash Y. That was a club that was tied into agriculture. And it taught the fellows social graces. The counterpart to that for the girls, I think, was called The Daughters of Douglass. And then it evolved into the Sons of Douglass, but it started out as a Hi-Y club. And the advisors used just any excuse to get us 102 together as boys and taught us the graces of how to treat ladies as women. How to open doors, how to hold chairs when they sat down. And those kinds of social graces. So that was instilled in us at a very, very early age. And it was fun. School did not end at 3:00 o’clock. Because it was a community school, everybody walked to school so we didn’t have a bus to catch. There was no television and all those other distractions to get you to go home, so everything was done right there at school. You enjoyed being at school. Not only did you have your academic enrichment programs, you had your social programs. The population of the school was 300, that’s for grades 1 through 12. The first graduating class, class of 1946, I think had 23 people. My class, 1953, had 42 people to graduate. So a very small school. Obviously everybody knew everybody, and had a very harmonious relationship. We had an outdoor swimming pool, three tennis courts – two clay, one asphalt tennis court. A ninehole golf course in high school. And this was all on the campus. Of course you had a lot of property and the powers that be in Memphis did not want us using their facilities, so they provided us with ours. See, we had a very, very strong community, and they voted. And they made the politicians aware of their power to vote. So they were able to get things that other folk were not able to get. Mr. Klein: There’s so many follow-up questions I can ask you. You mind if I ask them? Mr. Bowden: Sure, go ahead. Mr. Klein: So which of those school activities and clubs were you especially active in? Mr. Bowden: In the glee club, the drama club, basketball, boxing, swim team. Mr. Klein: That’s a full schedule. 103 Mr. Bowden: And I started out – I was never large enough to play football, physically, but in order to be a part of the football atmosphere, I joined the pep squad. The band director wanted to start a new trend, this was my sophomore year in high school. He wanted a drum major. All the high schools had drum majorettes. That means that girls led the band. He wanted a male figure to lead the band. And I was on the pep squad, and he came to me one day and asked would I be interested in it. I had no idea what he was talking about. But I said yes. Because it tempted me when he said you will be out front leading the band and the girls will be behind you. And I think that got my attention. So then I joined the band and became the drum major. The first African-American drum major – high school – in the States of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. As I said, the accepted behavior in those days was for girls to do it. For whatever reason, guys didn’t want to do it. And we were known throughout the tri-states. They had the band competitions, and we were the leaders, first place, in most of the competitions. Mr. Klein: So you traveled to several surrounding states? Mr. Bowden: To competitions. Mr. Klein: And you played at games too? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Now in the spring of the year, there was a carnival – Cotton Carnival. Memphis was the deportation or the depot where the farmers from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas would bring their cotton – after it was ginned and processed – to Memphis, to be shipped by boat and train to various textile places. So there was a carnival atmosphere. These places that they brought was at the end of Beale Street. Beale Street goes right into the river. Mr. Klein: That’s B-e-a-l-e, right? 104 Mr. Bowden: Yes. It’s known for its music now, but it had other purposes, if you will. So, the high schools – I’m not sure of the origin – but there was a carnival and there was a carnival of all of these bands. And then the bands had a competition. Now this is the black community – the Cotton Carnival on Beale Street – and we would participate. We – Douglass School – would participate, and for three years in a row we won first place in the competition. After high school I was admitted into LeMoyne College, the fall of 1953, I completed two years, was about to be drafted in the military, but I chose to volunteer to go into the Air Force. Mr. Klein: That’s when we started off with all of the things we talked about on your earlier tape. Mr. Bowden: Right. Now, growing up in Douglass was a marvelous experience. It was fun, fun, fun times. At the furthest northern part of the high school campus was a wooded area. Uninhabited woods. I don’t know how many acres, but a wooded area. And within that wooded area was a river, Wolf River, which is a tributary to the Mississippi River. In that wooded area was a camp ground, Camp Daniels, and that’s where all of the black boy scouts would have their jamboree in Memphis and surrounding areas, at Camp Daniels. When it was not being used as a camping site, of course we took advantage of it as a community. Even though we had a city-operated and owned swimming pool, many of us chose to swim in the river. As a matter of fact, that’s where I learned to swim, in the river. Your parents told you don’t get in the river until you learned to swim, which is kind of difficult to do. Mr. Klein: Then who would teach you to swim in the river then if your – 105 Mr. Bowden: The older guys. Joe Washington . . . the older guys taught you to swim. But it was a fun, fun time. Mr. Klein: So if you grew up on four or five acres with all those plants and the rest, were there a lot of chores involved? Were you expected to work a lot on them? Mr. Bowden: Yes. All of that acreage, other folk used it as well. [Mr. Bowden subsequently explained that that land was not exclusively owned by his family.] I had chores around the house. When my father would come home in the evenings, he would start attending his garden. And I used to go out with him and worked with him. So he said to me one day, you know you come out here everyday, you need to do your own garden. I said fine. So he said, I’m going to take a space over here and make some rows for you so you can plant your own garden and learn how to take care of your own garden. I was excited about that. I may have been 8, 9 years old. So he said, “What do you like best? What is your favorite food?” I said spaghetti. I’ll never forget that. He said, “Fine, that’s what you should plant, some spaghetti. Go in the house and get some spaghetti, and we’ll plant some spaghetti.” I remember it as though it was yesterday. I went in the house and got it. He said, “You’ve got to break it up in small pieces.” He showed me how to split the row. I had three rows, put the spaghetti in the rows and covered it up and watered it. He said, “Everyday when you come home you take the water hose, and I want you to water your garden until your spaghetti comes out.” Religiously, after I do all of my stuff at school, I rush home to water my garden. My mom came out and said, “What are you doing?” I said, “I’m watering my garden.” She said, “Oh, that’s nice.” The only thing that would come up would be weeds. And I was pulling the weeds. I don’t know how long it went but it came a time 106 and she said, “Well, what’s in your garden?” I said, “Spaghetti.” And she chased my father with the water hose. She said, “You’re making a fool out of that boy! Have him out here! You know spaghetti is not going to grow!” It was a big joke with him. Mr. Klein: Was your father a big joker? Mr. Bowden: Yeah, he was a big joker. He told jokes. Life was fun. But I remember that as though it was yesterday. Because I was anxious to have my own garden. By the way, I still love spaghetti. Mr. Klein: Do you still garden? Mr. Bowden: Yes, occasionally. Yes, I still garden. Mr. Klein: But with better luck now that you know what to plant? Mr. Bowden: Better choices. Mr. Klein: What sorts of expectations did your parents have for you when you were growing up? Did they have you working pretty hard, or did they have you relaxed and having fun? Mr. Bowden: Relaxed and having fun, but with responsibility. Dad would always tell me, “You can be anything you want to be. If you decide to be a garbage collector, be the best garbage collector they have. Have a reputation among everybody in the community and in the city that ‘there goes the best garbage collector we have.’ Whatever you do, do it right. Do it with all of your heart and all of your might.” I was very active in the church, so was he. She sang in the choir, he was an official at the church. I sang in the choir, as I grew older I taught Sunday school. Very active in the church. So I had a very good religious, Christian-based background. He was my boxing coach, and outside of the baseball team at 107 school, he was the manager and coach of the Little League baseball team during the summer. So he was not a staid person. He loved to play cards. Friendly games, not gambling, but fun games. So that’s why I say growing up was a joy, was a joy. Mr. Klein: Were there a couple of big churches that pretty much everyone was in, or were there smaller churches, or what? Were there divides in town depending on which church you went to? Mr. Bowden: In the community, predominantly Baptist. There was no Catholic church in Douglass. There were several Methodist churches. I can’t recall a Presbyterian church, but they had other churches. I can’t recall a Presbyterian church in Douglass. We did not have to go outside of the community for basic stuff. If you bought a pair of shoes, you bought it from a black merchant. Now if you wanted to get a tuxedo or your better garments, of course you had to go downtown. That was always an interesting experience because I remember always my parents would say, “Go to the bathroom, we’re getting ready to go downtown.” I would say, “I don’t have to go to the bathroom.” “Yes you do. Go to the bathroom, we’re going downtown.” I didn’t realize then the reason for it. I think I was a senior in high school when it really occurred to me the reason they wanted me to do that before we went downtown – because I had to go into a colored-only bathroom and they didn’t want to do that. He was against that. So he’d rather go to the bathroom before you go downtown, or wait until you got back, than to subject me to that colored-only bathroom. Mr. Klein: But he wouldn’t say this to you explicitly? 108 Mr. Bowden: No. No. He never said it. I never heard the words, “You can’t go to that bathroom,” or “You can’t drink out of that water fountain.” Mr. Klein: Would he express anger about the restrictions? Mr. Bowden: No, not that I can recall. He was a very calm and easygoing guy because he kept away from that kind of atmosphere. Mr. Klein: So Memphis was segregated in housing, in schooling, in the public facilities like the theaters, everything? Mr. Bowden: Yes, in everything. My first job outside of carrying the paper or delivering groceries was in the next community called Hollywood, which was a budding community which was all White. That’s where the theater was, and I was the ticket taker. I think maybe I was 15. I was the ticket taker at the Hollywood theater, and the Blacks had to go upstairs. They had an entrance on the side where you bought your ticket and went upstairs. I guess that’s the reason I don’t go to the movies now. I took it as a job, but I didn’t like what was going on. I just never would attach myself to movies. That’s the way it was. Mr. Klein: And you accepted that? Mr. Bowden: I did, because I wanted the job. And then there came a time as you got older you looked for other sources of income. I waited tables for a while, while in college. That was an experience. And then I joined the military. Mr. Klein: What was it about waiting tables that sticks in your mind now? Mr. Bowden: Well, to see how – Well, the hotel where I worked, it’s a famous hotel now – the Peabody Hotel. And the first job I had before they let me go into the dining room was walking ducks. Mr. Klein: Now you should explain what the ducks are. Not everyone knows this. 109 Mr. Bowden: In the Peabody Hotel, there are trained ducks, and three times a day the ducks come into the lobby, get into the fountain and eat, take a bath, and leave. When I was there the ducks had a suite – a two-story suite – in the hotel. The caretaker, which I was one of, was able to adapt to that because we had ducks and fowl at home, so feeding the ducks was not anything foreign to me. So you’d walk the ducks in tuxedo. The ducks would walk you, I should say, because they would lead and you’d follow the ducks, because they knew where to go. They had a red carpet. You’d come down the elevator and the carpet would already be laid out by someone else. You’d follow the ducks. The ducks would go get into the pond – a half-hour to forty-five minutes – and then go back. That’s three times a day, and that was during the summer. And then you got tips. No one was supposed to touch the ducks or anything, but you’d make a tip by letting folk take pictures of the ducks. The manager would turn his head because you weren’t getting paid but like a dollar an hour or some foolishness like that. So you made your money by letting folk take pictures of the ducks. A friend of the family was the head waiter and he brought me on the floor as a bus boy and then he promoted me to waiting tables. Didn’t wait tables that long because I took the lifesavers test because I was a swimmer. I passed the lifesavers test so I could make more money as a life guard at a public pool. Mr. Klein: At a public, not the hotel pool? Mr. Bowden: Yeah, public pool. And it was more fun. Mr. Klein: You were in high school and college? 110 Mr. Bowden: High school and college. And then I got certified as an instructor, a swimming instructor. So when I was in college, I made money as a swimming instructor, as well as a life guard in the summer. Mr. Klein: Let me ask, you were a pretty young child during World War II. Do you have memories of that and how about what you knew about it as a child and what was happening in Douglass? Mr. Bowden: Well what I remember most is lights out, sirens going off, and we would turn off all the lights in the house. It was an air raid type of thing. And glass was a premium, and metal. At my age, I may have been the only boy at my age, all the other boys were older, they were doing other things, so I had a paper route. So when I would serve my papers, I would tell my patrons to save your tin cans and bottles and I would be back to pick them up. So I had a bicycle and a wagon, and I would tie the wagon onto my bicycle and I’d go from house to house to collect tin cans. Mr. Klein: So you’d tow the wagon? Mr. Bowden: Tow the wagon, collect tin cans and bottles, and bring them home. And dad had a hand crusher. You put the tin cans in there and crush them and flatten them out. I’d almost forgotten that until you mentioned it. Mr. Klein: And then you’d bring them over – there was a scrap yard? Mr. Bowden: Take them over to the school, and they would weigh them and pay you. On certain days they had somebody over there to weigh and pay. Mr. Klein: And what newspaper were you delivering? Mr. Bowden: The Press-Sentinel and The Commercial Appeal. The Commercial Appeal in the morning, and The Press-Sentinel in the evening. So I’d get up early in the 111 morning – before I go school – and served The Commercial Appeal, and in the evening I’d rush home and serve that before I did anything else. Mr. Klein: Now that was a busy childhood. Mr. Bowden: I was busy. I was busy. Mr. Klein: How old were you when you were delivering the newspapers? Mr. Bowden: Twelve or fourteen, something like that. Of course, I was boxing at the time. Part of my training was running with the papers. Didn’t have time to get in trouble. Seriously. Because we were just so busy doing stuff. Doing positive stuff. Didn’t have time to sit around to think about something criminal to do. Mr. Klein: First I do want to hear about boxing. Mr. Bowden: Okay. Mr. Klein: You said your father was one of your first boxing coaches because he boxed. Mr. Bowden: Yeah. Right. As a youngster, right. Mr. Klein: You’re not a heavyweight, right? Mr. Bowden: When I first started out I weighed 68 pounds, and my last fight I weighed 134. Mr. Klein: So what weight class is that? Mr. Bowden: When I was sixty-eight, that’s called mosquito weight. I stayed mosquito for a long time, then went to flyweight, and lightweight. I boxed from, I guess, about 8-years old until about 16-years old. My last fight was in St. Louis, Missouri. I was always tall and had long arms. I had been fairly successful in AAU and Golden Gloves. Bear in mind the competition was always African-Americans. I had won some trophies and things and I had gotten a little cocky, beside myself if you will. Didn’t train as hard as I should have trained. And the last fight I went to, a tournament I was in in St. Louis, Missouri, and my father told me, “You’re 112 not ready for this fight.” He said, “I’m going to let you fight, but you need this.” I remember that very well. I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m good. And I have a scar on my eye now where this guy cut me. Because he was fast. He was faster than I was because I wasn’t in shape. And I got tired in the second round and I lost the fight. Take them off, I’m through. Mr. Klein: Is that right? After that you figured no more? Mr. Bowden: Because I didn’t want to train. I didn’t want to train. Mr. Klein: You were still swimming and a few other things? Mr. Bowden: Swimming, and by that time girls had gotten my attention Mr. Klein: And then you said you were in the drama club too. What kinds of productions were you putting on? Mr. Bowden: We did musicals. Mostly musicals. A couple comedies, but mostly musicals. We had a high school orchestra called the Douglass Swingsters. And many of those members of that orchestra went on to play professionally. Ben Branch was probably the most noted because he made an album when Jesse Jackson first came out – for Jesse Jackson. His band was the musicians behind Jesse Jackson when Jesse Jackson first came on the scene. There are others whose names wouldn’t mean anything today, but they did well in the music business. Mr. Klein: You mean he was behind Jesse Jackson the preacher? Mr. Bowden: Yes. When Jesse Jackson went to Chicago, Ben was in Chicago. And he had a band in Chicago. He played at Jesse’s church and followed his political functions, and that kind of stuff. I started by saying with the high school orchestra and the glee club, you had your music there. So doing musicals was a natural thing to do. As I said, we had an excellent music director and he was very 113 high on theatre and that stuff. So we did a lot of musicals. Two or three times a year. We were always rehearsing for something. Mr. Klein: Did you have any parts that stuck in your mind? Did you like acting? Did you take the big parts or the small parts? Mr. Bowden: Whatever they gave me. I enjoyed it, it was fun. There were three of us that danced. It was one young lady, and two guys. We were a trio, we tapped. Tap danced. And we would go to other schools or to other places. Fraternities and sororities would have cabarets and dances or affairs, and they would invite us, and they would invite us to come as a show. Mr. Klein: The college fraternities or sororities would invite you? You were still in high school? Mr. Bowden: Still in high school. Fraternities would have their annual debutante ball or conferences, or Black and White Balls, or whatever they would have, and they would invite us to perform. Mr. Klein: And another thing you brought up, you said you were too busy to get into trouble. Mr. Bowden: Right. Mr. Klein: This sounds like a small community, 400-person high school. Was this one of those communities where everyone knew what everyone else was doing and people were all watching? Mr. Bowden: Oh, absolutely. Mr. Klein: You had a lot of parents too. Mr. Bowden: Yes. Everybody was a parent. But one of the things that I treasured was that out of twelve years of schooling, I only missed two days and it was because I had the mumps and they just would not let me go. And I was really upset, because I 114 couldn’t go to school. Because that’s where all the activity was. You didn’t cut class because several of your teachers were in the community, and if you didn’t come to class they would come by your house and want to know why. They wouldn’t call. They’d see your parents on the street and say, “I didn’t see Josh today.” And you knew that. So you just didn’t do that. It never entered my mind not to go to school. And my friends and guys that I hung around with. We enjoyed seeing each other at school. Mr. Klein: And then what were the expectations both in the community and in your house, from your parents, for how people treated other people? How would you act towards older people, towards younger people, men and women? Mr. Bowden: With the highest respect. “Yes ma’am,” “no ma’am.” “Yes sir,” “no sir.” Even today, some of those folk – I go back to the community some of those folk who are still alive, they’re still Mister. I wouldn’t dare call them by their first name. It would never occur to me to call them by their first name. Still “Mister,” “Sir.” “Yes Sir,” “no Sir.” To let you know how close that school community is, we have now, we still have an alumni association, a high school alumni association. We have a chapter in Cleveland, Ohio, a chapter in Chicago, Illinois, a chapter in Detroit, Michigan, a chapter in California, and we just started a chapter in the State of Georgia. The parent chapter is in Memphis, Tennessee. In July, 2009, I was elected the National President. But before that I was always active in that organization. And the mission of that organization is to further the education of the graduates of the school. This past midterm we just gave out $42,000 in scholarships for youngsters who this is their first year in college. 115 Mr. Klein: Is Douglass still operating as a school? These are new graduates of Douglass High School? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Douglass was closed from 1980 to 2009 because they started busing. They bused the black kids out of Douglass into White schools, but the White kids refused to be bused into Douglass. So the school couldn’t survive with no teachers for them because of the lack of interest. So they closed the school. They were able to maintain the elementary school because you had enough of that age group to maintain an elementary school but not a high school. So we were able to get the city, through our city council person who is a graduate of Douglass, to prevail upon the city to rebuild the school. We just needed a $25 million plant. So the first graduating class of the new school will be coming out this June, 2010. There are 147 students in that class. We had a big fundraiser. Our goal is $160,000 for scholarships for those who qualify, who are accepted for secondary education. Mr. Klein: That’s impressive. Very impressive. It sounds like the Douglass graduates have moved all over based on those Chapters. Mr. Bowden: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mr. Klein: Now what’s the neighborhood, Douglass, like now? Mr. Bowden: The neighborhood has changed. It has changed significantly. It hurts me to see it has deteriorated tremendously and a lot of things come to play. Folk were able to move out move up in housing. As folk got older and died off, the children went away, same as I. I knew I was not going to live on Oriole Street any more in life. I kept the property for a while, as long as I could, as rental property. But that was not a workable situation. I was here, and the property was there. Couldn’t get 116 good tenants. So the community physically has changed. The spirit is still there. Now that the school is back functioning, we have visions that community will rise again. Because some of the folk who are grandparents now – who are in my age group – are still in and about the community. So there’s hope that a revitalization will take place. Mr. Klein: Did you grow up with any siblings or close cousins? Mr. Bowden: No. Mr. Klein: So you really were an only child. Mr. Bowden: Right. Mr. Klein: And do you think that affected how you were raised and all? Mr. Bowden: Well, it’s kind of difficult for me to evaluate that. That sounds like a movie, “On the Street Where I Lived.” There was a family – the Mathis – two girls and a boy, and we became very, very close. As a matter of fact, we used to pass off as brother and sister. So I had that sibling relationship, if you will, except we weren’t under the same roof, if I’m making sense to you. As I said, a very small school. So you get to know folk. I have a very good friend, Clarence Hayes who is still in Memphis. We sat beside each other for twelve years – thirteen years – we were in preschool together. We’ve know each other since we were five years old. And we’ve never had a harsh word, we’ve never had a disappointing time with each other. We tracked almost everything except he got married early. He didn’t go into the military. He went to Tougaloo College, I went to LeMoyne, then he got married. But we are as close today as we were then. Mr. Klein: That’s great. 117 Mr. Bowden: So I can call him my brother, even though we are not biological. We talk to each other once a week. Mr. Klein: How do you spell his last name? Mr. Bowden: H-a-y-e-s. His first name is Clarence. Mr. Klein: And when did your parents – when did they pass away? When did John Horace and Vernetta Bradshaw pass away? Mr. Bowden: He died February 4, 1966, and she died December 29, 1967. He was born June 28, 1887, and she was born August 8, 1888. Mr. Klein: Okay. They had almost exactly the same life spans and burials. Mr. Bowden: Exactly. I was very, very fortunate. Very beautiful people. If I had to pick parents, I couldn’t have picked a better set of parents. Mr. Klein: Well then thinking about what marriages were like then and what they are like now, is there anything that strikes you about what you observed as a child watching their marriage? Mr. Bowden: I’d like to say that I patterned myself after him, to a degree. He was very, very influential in my philosophy on life. If I have a personality, he influenced it. My godfather, Samuel Helm, who was one of my high school teachers, had a big influence on me. I was surrounded with very, very strong men in terms of academics, social awareness, political awareness, and how to treat your fellow man. Momma loved to cook. Everybody’s mother is the best cook in town, but she had a reputation as being a very, very good cook. Particularly pies and cakes and pastries, that kind of stuff. To this day, the Fourth of July weekend is a big celebration at Douglass in the park. Folk from all over the country try to get home for the Fourth of July weekend to meet in the park. That way you don’t 118 have to go visit anybody, because everybody’s going to be in the park. The men in the community – many of the men in the community – will start cooking meat a day or so – in the park – before the Fourth. There were stationary barbeque pits throughout the park, and families or associates would choose one area and the men would cook. So you could go over there a day or so before, and you could smell meat being cooked in preparation for the big celebration on the Fourth. Women would be cooking pies and cakes, and that kind of stuff. And everybody would bring this food to the park. So, if you brought something, fine, if you didn’t, no big deal. You just go from place to place all day. There was guaranteed three or four baseball games, age groups, and then sons against fathers. Swimming contests. All those kinds of things took place in the park. So she had to make more pies and cakes than normal because a lot of folk said I want some of her pie, that kind of thing. I hadn’t thought about that kind of stuff, but sometimes when you ask me those questions, it just comes up. Mr. Klein: It does. It brings up that kind of stuff. Mr. Bowden: Those joyful moments. Mr. Klein: Should we keep going a bit, or should we save more for next time. Mr. Bowden: Well why don’t we stop now and if you think of something else you want to get into, we can do more later. 119 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Sixth Interview May 6, 2010 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Joshua Klein. The interview took place on May 6, 2010. This is the sixth interview. Mr. Klein: Carrying on from where the other interviews have gone, today this is going to be talking about particular judges that Mr. Bowden has known and also particular stories from the Courthouse that come to mind and certain personalities and trials that he saw, and so forth. So, I think you were going to start with a story that happened with, was it Chief Judge McGuire? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Chief Judge McGuire. As I may have said earlier, in the District Court in those days, each judge had a deputy marshal assigned to their chambers. The Courthouse was open. We didn’t have the security barriers you have now. The general public would walk into the judge’s chambers unimpeded. So a deputy marshal was assigned to the judge’s chambers, sort of a gatekeeper. Herbert Spiller was assigned to Judge McGuire. He also served as a court crier. So when the judge, this particular morning – the U.S. Marshal has never had uniforms. There was a dress code, I think it said appropriate collar and tie, and most of us took appropriate collar and tie meaning dark suit, white shirt, and long tie to match. On this particular spring day, Herbert Spiller came to work with a pair of canary yellow trousers, a Scottish plaid sports shirt, a white shirt, and a Scottish plaid bow tie that matched the jacket. When the judge went into the courtroom, as the court crier, Spillers opened the court, and after the judge had 120 been seated and the audience sat down, Judge McGuire looked over at Spillers and said, “Who is that clown standing there, and why does he have that clown outfit on?” At that time, he says, “Recess the court.” Spillers recessed the court, and I’m told that Chief Judge McGuire went into his chambers and called Luke Moore who was the Marshal at that time, and complained about the dress that Spellers was wearing. The Marshal told him that there was a dress code but not uniforms. The chief judge directed the court, the Clerk’s Office I suspect, to supply each deputy with two black suits. There was a haberdasher at 9 and E, th the name escapes me now, but we all were to go directly to be fitted. So the entire term of Judge McGuire, each deputy when they went into court wore either that black suit or a similar black suit. That was the closest thing to a uniform that we’ve had. Mr. Klein: That’s a fascinating story. After that, it returned to just each deputy could wear his own appropriate suit? Mr. Bowden: Right. But the message was no more outfits like that. As a matter of fact, my entire career, up until I retired, I didn’t own a pair of casual slacks or a sport jacket, because I knew I was coming to court and I took the term “appropriate clothing” seriously. I’d like to talk about another judge that – well let me say this. All of the persons that I had contact with at the trial level were outstanding judges, outstanding people, made a tremendous contribution to the order of the judiciary here. I’ve only selected one or two that I thought that something of interest of historicalness that the reader or the listener may enjoy. If a guy in a conversation with other folk, a lot of things would probably come up and we could have a good banter about it, but these ones that I’m going to talk about really stand out at this date in 121 my mind. I want to talk about Judge Holtzoff, Alexander Holtzoff, who was in my view very well-read and well-thought of in terms of his judicial intellect, and he wanted to make certain that those standards were carried out in his courtroom. I recall a robbery case. Now you must understand that common-law cases were tried here until, I believe, 1974, 1975, in this court. A robbery case was being tried before Judge Holtzoff, and the defense attorney was a young fellow who was a graduate of Howard University Law School, and during the course of the trial, the jury had been selected and was seated in the box. During the course of the trial, Judge Holtzoff recessed the trial then brought the defense attorney up to the bench and told him that he, Judge Holtzoff, was personally familiar with a lot of professors at the Howard University School of Law and he knew that they prepared their students better than this young man had demonstrated at this trial. Judge Holtzoff said he was going to continue this case for two weeks to give defense counsel an opportunity to prepare his defense, a proper defense, for his client, and to return to court to be in better shape to defend his client than what he was doing at that time. After the court was recessed for the day, I went downstairs to the U.S. Marshals Office, who at that time was Luke C. Moore, and related to him what I had witnessed in the courtroom and told him that I would volunteer to work with the Howard University Law School and help them to prepare law students for trial practice. Some time afterwards, I was invited to come up to Howard University Law School, and there were four adjunct professors who formed the staff of the Trial Advocacy course. That class met on Tuesday nights and Saturdays, and I volunteered to work with them as an expert witness. The adjunct professors were Luke C. Moore, Judge William Bryant, George Windsor, and Julian Dugas. I worked with that quartet maybe 15 or 20 122 years at Howard University School of Law. It grew out of that experience that I witnessed before Judge Holtzoff. Judge Burnita Matthews, first female judge appointed to the United States District Court in the United States of America, a very gracious lady, very motherly, very well-prepared in the business of the court. But what stood out to me every time I think of her is her very, very warm smile that she always carried. Very eventempered in court, never appeared to be riled by anything. Just a pleasure to be in her company. Spotswood Robinson, the first African-American to be appointed to this Court in 1966, was very articulate. You never had to worry about what he said or what he meant. He didn’t mix words or use any ambiguities. I remember one Friday evening, recessing for the weekend, and as the courts always admonish the jury about discussing the case and when they are to return and the conditions when they’re being released. On this Friday, Judge Robinson said that he’s going to recess the court for the day. “The court will not be in session tomorrow,” which was Saturday, “and obviously we will not be in session Sunday. But Monday morning, Monday morning, nine o’clock, the court will be in session. Have a good day and a good weekend.” Moving on to Judge Richey, Charles Richey. Judge Richey was an innovator, meaning that he did not like the oath of office that historically had been presented to witnesses to testify and for criminal jurors and civil jurors, because he felt that the conventional language that was being used may be offensive to people of Muslim faith or people of Jewish faith. Even though he was a very devoted and devout person of his own religious upbringing, he was very sensitive to that of others. So he devised an oath of office that to him covers the meaning of the 123 purpose of the traditional office oath without offending a person. He started out by saying, “Raise your right hand, you are in a court of law ***.” What stands out to me is the term “you’re in a court of law.” Certain phrases stick out. Mr. Klein: He said that when the witness took the stand? Mr. Bowden: Right. Certain phrases stay with you for a long time. And he had a very, very low voice [imitating the judge], “You’re in a court of law.” But this was written out, and I kept this, his former clerk – although he was a strict Methodist at home, he replaced the traditional “so help me God” oath with a version that avoided religious references. I’m not going to offend any movement, I don’t think it’s proper to ask a Roman Catholic to take an oath on a Gideon Bible. I don’t think it’s fair to ask the Jews to do the same thing, and atheists have rights in this world. Mr. Klein: So he would switch all of the oaths to remove religious references and so forth? Do you want to read one of the oaths? Mr. Bowden: Let’s see what you think – although I can’t change it [laughter]. “Do you solemnly swear, affirm under pain and penalty of perjury, that the testimony that you shall give before this court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that you will truthfully answer all questions provided to you. If so, state yes.” To the jury, “Do you, and each of you, solemnly affirm under pain and penalty of perjury before this honorable court, that you will try, and truly try, any true deliverance made between the United States and the defendant, a true verdict rendered according to the evidence and the law? If so, state yes.” Mr. Klein: Interesting. Mr. Bowden: I think he was the first judge to start sending out questionnaires, voir dire questions, in a complicated case. 124 Mr. Klein: These were to potential jurors? These would be printed out for them? Mr. Bowden: Right, and sent to their home. Or, I think he brought them in. I’ll look into whether he mailed them or gave them. Because a lot of folk complained about that. Clerks complained about it, lawyers complained, everybody complained about the time and effort to put the questionnaires together. They do it now as a matter of course in complicated cases or cases that have a high profile, or notoriety. It’s just a matter of course now. The person fills them out, then weed them out. You know what I’m talking about. Mr. Klein: Right. But he would save this for high-profile cases where they’d be bringing in a large number of potential jurors because many would be disqualified for one reason or another? Mr. Bowden: Right. They used to bring them in and voir dire them in person. It would take a long time. He was an impatient guy. He wanted things to move fast. I’m not sure if I want to put that on the record, that he was an impatient guy. Mr. Klein: Let me just ask. Some judges probably – the same case, one judge might be able to try it in one week and another judge might take two weeks, depending on how much you speed along the lawyers and how long you make the jury sit each day and the rest. So he wanted to move the business of the court faster? Mr. Bowden: That’s right. I’m not criticizing anybody else, but he shortened the process, he shortened a lot of stuff, but didn’t offend anybody’s rights. And this innovativeness of this process was to shorten the voir dire process. Mr. Klein: And it’s been adopted you think by the majority of judges? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Mr. Klein: Who else do we have? 125 Mr. Bowden: John Lewis Smith. I hope whoever transcribes this will make sense of that. Judge John Lewis Smith had a criminal case that the judge was trying, with a .45 pistol in evidence and the police officer was on the stand testifying. The U.S. Attorney asked to approach the bench and gave the gun to the police officer, and before he could present a question to the police officer, Judge Smith asked, “Is that gun clear?” I’m on the other side of the courtroom, the jury is in the box, the officer brings the gun back, looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger and said, “It’s clear.” When the hammer went forward and hit that metal, that was the loudest sound I’ve ever heard in my life. Judge Smith almost fell off the bench. He says, “Marshal, recess the court.” I recessed the court, took the gun from the officer, and went back into the jury room where the judge was literally shaking and asked me, “Why did that man do that?” I couldn’t answer. And from that day on, the Marshals Office requires that all guns brought into the courthouse would be brought to the Marshals Office and it would be cleared and a restraining device put in to make them inoperable. So when you see the plastic handcuffs in the chamber or weapon that is in this courtroom, that’s the history behind it. You can start asking questions. Mr. Klein: I was just going to ask because I know the Marshals Office do clear them all, but before the officers were responsible for doing it themselves? Mr. Bowden: And the reason for it is we tried to stay as far away from the evidence in a case as possible because we didn’t want to get into the chain of custody process, so guns and drugs and money, we tried to make certain that they stay within the parameters of the persons who are responsible for them. Because of safety and security, we decided to step in and do that. And we admonish the prosecutor and defense counsel that they ought to agree that the gun is functional. The Police 126 Department will have to come with a certificate to show that it’s functional. Whatever we had to do, we were not taking the restraining device off the weapon to show that it’s operating. Mr. Klein: Would they do that before to show that it was operating? Mr. Bowden: When a gun came into the building, the officers were instructed to bring it straight to the Marshals Office. And if there was a challenge by defense counsel, then the marshal would, out of the presence of the jury, take the restraining device off, show that it was, and put it right back on. But I don’t recall, or I haven’t heard of, any defense counsel question whether it was operable or not because by that time, the process was once it’s seized, the Police Department would take it straight to their file person and would test it so they would have a certificate to show that at the time of seizure, immediately after seizure, it worked. Moving on to Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, the first female African-American appointed to this court. A former schoolteacher here in the District of Columbia, and in her heart, she remained, even though she was on the bench, a schoolteacher. She kept that schoolteacher aura about her. In the District of Columbia school system, they used to teach civics and government classes, and we invited the Superintendent of Schools at the time to bring students down who were taking government and civics so they could see the judiciary in action, and we did that twice a day with high school students. At some point, we started bringing down elementary students, and in order for the elementary students to appreciate the judiciary system. I went to Judge Johnson, because I knew she was interested, and told her what I wanted to do, and she wanted to know what kind of plan I had. I told her, “Well, let’s take a fairytale that all the kids know, Goldilocks and the Big Bad Wolf, and I’ll just have a demonstration in the 127 courtroom and let them do role-playing.” She said, “No, you can’t do that, that’s not organized; we have to be structured.” “Well if you want to use that format, Goldilocks and the Three Bears or Big Bad Wolf, let’s develop something and give more realism.” So with that, she and her staff developed a trial built around that theme. It had opening statements, questions of the claimant, which would be the Big Bad Wolf, the Three Pigs, Goldilocks, the Three Bears, and made a trial out of it, and we still use that format today. Mr. Klein: I was going to say, I know judges participate in that every year. Mr. Bowden: Also, Judge Tatel of the Circuit and more recently Judge Kotelly. It gives the students an appreciation for what the court proceedings are all about. Judge Thomas Jackson had the Microsoft case, the part of it that I sat in. It was a long trial, very technical. If you were not a person who was very learned in the Internet or the language, it was not as exciting. I learned a lot about the computer business by listening. I had the opportunity to meet, to develop a relationship with one of the attorneys in the case, David Boies, and during the course of our conversation, he admitted to me that he was getting $800 an hour, and he said, “No attorney is worth $800 an hour.” This case went on about two months, so you do the math. 128 ORAL HISTORY OF RICHARD KIRKLAND BOWDEN Seventh Interview June 23, 2011 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 Richard Kirkland Bowden, and the interviewer is Stephen J. Pollak. The interview took place in Stephen Pollak’s office at Goodwin Procter LLP on June 23, 2011. This is the seventh interview. Mr. Pollak: Kirk, you’ve had six interviews conducted by Joshua Klein, and you have reviewed the transcripts of those interviews, as I understand it, and concluded that you wanted to come back on the record and do some amplifying of what you’ve said before, both clarifying some of the statements that you’ve made, some of the recollections that you had, and also addressing one or more additional topics. So rather than try to bring Mr. Klein back in, who’s actively involved as an Assistant United States Attorney, you and I agreed I’d step in and hold the interview we’re doing today. So here we are. I know you’ve brought a pad of paper that you’ve listed the topics on, so why don’t you address the first topic you’d like to speak to and go ahead with your remarks on it. Mr. Bowden: Thank you. In 1962, when I first joined the United States Marshals Service, the courtrooms in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse were the same as they are today, but I want to talk about the personnel that I witnessed inside the courtroom. The court reporters have always been there, but I remember very distinctly there were two court reporters who reported by using Gregg shorthand. Today, court reporters use a stenotype machine and give real time reporting and that transition I witnessed from the Gregg shorthand to the electronic recording in those years. 129 Mr. Pollak: What was the transition like? Did it speed up proceedings in the courtroom or change the way the proceedings unfolded? Mr. Bowden: No. These were very talented people and they recorded the court proceedings as it actually happened, and they did not have the benefit of a PA system, so attorneys had to speak up loudly so that they could be heard by the Judge and jury. So most attorneys would stand back inside the well of the court near the entrance of the courtroom where the small gates are and project their voice in that fashion in order for the jury, the court, and the reporter to hear. But the rhythm of the court did not change. Cross-examinations were vigorous, and sometimes emotions got into it. Very rarely did the reporter have to ask to slow down. I thought they were very talented. I can’t recall their names, but there are two I remember seeing. It was interesting for that transition to take place. And speaking of the courtroom, there were no black courtroom deputy clerks at that time. Mr. Pollak: At that time being? Mr. Bowden: 1962 until probably 1964 or 1965, before the first African-American courtroom deputy clerk. It was a male. His name was Hugh Harvey, who had a law degree from Terrell Law School. Terrell Law School was a black law school here in Washington, D.C. and it was not in competition with Howard University because Terrell was open to students who worked during the day. It was more of a night law school, and African-Americans who were working and wanted to get a law degree couldn’t go at night to Georgetown, Catholic, American and Howard. They did not have a night law school. Terrell Law School is no longer in existence because there came a time when blacks could go to night school, to law schools here in the city, and Terrell became defunct. 130 Mr. Pollak: When you say they couldn’t go to George Washington or Catholic University, what do you mean “they couldn’t?” They weren’t admitted because they were black? Mr. Bowden: Right. They weren’t admitted because they were black. Mr. Harvey had a degree from Terrell as a lawyer and he was relegated to the Clerk’s Office and there were some deputy clerks in the courtroom who were just high school graduates, and he had a law degree and couldn’t get the position. But there came a time that they dropped the barrier and allowed him to work in the courtroom as a deputy clerk. Mr. Pollak: Let me ask, when you say “they dropped the barrier,” who’s the “they?” Mr. Bowden: I would imagine it was the court administrators. I suspect the chief judge and the court administrators decided it was the right thing to do. I was not privy to the decision making of course. I just remember that all of a sudden he got the job. He applied, applied, applied, denied, and then I looked up and there he was. There was a big celebration in the black community in the courthouse to see him in the courtroom conducting business, and not because of lack of talent or lack of knowledge, I venture to say that he was more knowledgeable than many. Of course, he had a law degree and the language they were using; you have to understand that the lawyers who participate in proceedings in those days were more prone to use official terms and some Latin expressions that you don’t hear now in the courtroom. It was interesting that it took them that long to make that decision. I talked earlier about my involvement with the Watergate trial and the sequestration of the jury, but I failed to say how I got involved initially. When a subpoena was issued by Judge Sirica to serve on the President of the United States, President Nixon, George K. McKinney was the U.S. Marshal at that time 131 who had been appointed by President Nixon and it was his duty and responsibility to serve the subpoena because the United States Marshal is the only person authorized to serve a subpoena on a President. I had the occasion to drive him to the White House. The security then was not near as it is now, so we just drove up on the property, parked the vehicle, got out and showed our credentials to the agent and explained who we were and why we were there. The White House had been notified that we were coming, so it was not a surreptitiously showing up, they knew we were coming, they expected us. But he, the Marshal, had to physically give it to the President. He could not give it to an aide or someone. So that was my beginning involvement. Mr. Pollak: Did you go with Marshal McKinney to deliver the subpoena to Nixon? Mr. Bowden: I was in the car. I went into the White House; I didn’t go into the Oval Office. Mr. Pollak: Did Marshal McKinney make any statement to you after he came back from serving the subpoena? Mr. Bowden: Yes he did. He was concerned as how he was going to be received, or how he was received by the President who had appointed him as U.S. Marshal, but he resolved it by saying, “Well this is my duty and responsibility,” and he felt the President would think no less of him. That was his job, to do the service of the subpoena. There was some discussion earlier as to whether or not someone else could serve it, that is, an FBI agent or someone from the Department of Justice. There was a big hullabaloo about it. As a result, they said the U.S. Marshal had to do it. The return had to be made on the subpoena. It had to be certified as to who served it, and it had to be his signature in order for him to attest that the subpoena had been served on the President. He would have to do it himself. 132 Mr. Pollak: Did the Marshal who served the subpoena make any comment to you on what the President said to him, or what transpired when he delivered it? Mr. Bowden: No, not anything of significance. We may have talked about it. That’s the reason I didn’t discuss it earlier, until after I read over the interview. The question may come how I got there. Then after the grand jury, the indictment, and it got to trial time, then Marshal McKinney said, “Bowden, since you were with me when this thing started, you stick with it.” I was a supervisor at that time, so that’s how I got involved in the Watergate trial. I had some history if you will. And I served some subpoenas on some of the defendants who had been arrested at the Watergate office. They were arrested, brought to – then it was General Sessions Court – for presentation and Justice had issued some subpoenas to testify before the grand jury in U.S. District Court. Those subpoenas were hand-carried from U.S. District Court to Court of General Sessions where I was assigned as a supervisor. They were given to me to serve on them – them meaning the defendants who had been released on personal recognizance. I don’t recall the names. I do remember Haldeman was one. I just remember that name. There were five or six who were arraigned at that time, and I had subpoenas for them. There were some questions about when do you serve the subpoena. We couldn’t serve it in the courtroom itself so I waited until they came out to the hallway. They had attorneys with them, and I introduced myself to the attorneys and told them who I was and why I was there. They knew who I was and why I was there but I had to do it. I did not want down the road someone to say that the subpoenas were not lawfully served, so I identified myself by showing my credentials, and asked for their name, and they gave me their name even though I recognize who they were. I had been in the courtroom when they entered their 133 plea before the court and later gave them subpoenas to appear in U.S. District Court before the grand jury and then you know the process. Mr. Pollak: Judge Sirica was conducting? Mr. Bowden: Yes. And then there came a time when there was a trial and, as I said, the Marshal said that since I was already in it, I should stay with it. So that’s how I got involved in the Watergate trial. Mr. Pollak: Is there anything else you want to recount about the Watergate matters that you hadn’t covered before? Mr. Bowden: No. I think I covered everything about the Watergate trial. Occasionally today – this is 2011 – I see people in the hallway and I stop and talk with folk who served on that jury. Mr. Pollak: Really? Mr. Bowden: And they say, “Are you still here?” We chat a little bit. So they get rotated back into the jury system. I’ve served under 13 Chief Judges, 13 U.S. Marshals, and 14 Directors of the United States Marshals Office. Mr. Pollak: Are there any of those chief judges that you have any comments to make about that you haven’t already made? Mr. Bowden: Judge Norma Johnson, who became Chief Judge at some point, when she came to the court, to the U.S. District Court. I had known her before she was appointed to the Court of General Sessions as a school teacher, so our relationship, if you will, was different. And in 1964, we in the Marshals Office, developed a program in conjunction with the D.C. school system, the Superintendent of the D.C. School system, to invite juniors and seniors in high school in the District to come to the court to see how the court worked, see their government at work because in those 134 days they were teaching government classes and civics classes, which I understand they no longer teach in the District. So in order for them to have an appreciation for the judiciary and how it works, we developed a program where we invited the classes down. I solicited members of Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Attorneys Office, and the Junior Bar Association to give me one person each, for each one of those sessions, and each one of those persons represented would talk to the class about their role in this judiciary system. And given time, we would do a mock trial with the students so that they could have a little play, if you will, to appreciate and understand the roles that were played. That’s how Judge Johnson became involved because I would, on occasion, ask a judge who was free to come in their courtroom. I would ask permission to use their courtroom and see if they had a few minutes to talk to the class, and none rejected. If they did, it’s because they didn’t have time. But Judge Johnson got to the point that she anticipated, and looked forward, to doing it, having been a former school teacher. So she suggested to me that we should write up a program, write up something to give to the students, so when they come to us, we would have something formal to present, so we took a very simple position. We took Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the story, every kid knows Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and we concluded some crime committed in that place, in that story, unlawful entry, destroying private property, breaking a stool, a bed. Mr. Pollak: Stealing the porridge. Mr. Bowden: Yes. So we wrote that into a play, and we would ask the students to identify the crime as we went along, as a teaching tool, and we still use that today. It’s been modified, rewritten, and we went from Goldilocks and the Three Bears to the Big Bad Wolf huffing and puffing and blowing the building down. Judge Tatel, that’s 135 his love today, but it started with the D.C. school system and introduced those students as to what happens in the courtroom so they know what a defendant is, the prosecutor and the roles. Mr. Pollak: Very interesting. Mr. Bowden: Oftentimes members of the bar come to me now and say, “I was in one of your classes and that got me interested in the law and I decided to go to law school.” There are two or three who are now judges who came through that process. Mr. Pollak: Anyone ever ask you who are your favorite chief judges? Mr. Bowden: All of them are my favorite chief judges. Mr. Pollak: [laughter] Well said. Mr. Bowden: There are some who I knew better than others because of contact, that kind of thing. I have had a wonderful relationship with every member of this judiciary, present and past, and I’m proud of the relationship I’ve had with the court. That’s one of the reasons I’m still here, is that I enjoy the relationship. I try not to abuse that relationship, and I hope I have not offended anyone. I’m sure they would tell me if I had. I’ve enjoyed the relationship with the court. Mr. Pollak: I’m sure your history probably records this, but have you served as a marshal for particular judges in their courtroom? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Mr. Pollak: What judges were those? Mr. Bowden: Judge Bryant, of course. I talked about that earlier. And while we’re talking about Judge Bryant, I remember he sentenced a young man. Judge Bryant, I guess you would classify him as a lenient sentencer. He didn’t like to give harsh time for offenses that were not too offensive, if you will, against the community, but if there was a situation that required a long sentence, he would do it. This is 136 before mandatory sentences. And I remember he had a young man who had been a repeat offender and he was just a bad guy, and the Judge gave him 15 years or so. The fellow was in his late 40s, early 50s, and while I was escorting him out of the courtroom, back into the cellblock, he mumbled something, and Judge Bryant asked him, “What did you say?” He says, “I can’t do all of that time.” And Judge Bryant looked at him and said, “Just do the best you can.” You were asking a question? Mr. Pollak: What judges did you serve as a courtroom marshal for, and you mentioned Judge Bryant. Mr. Bowden: Judge Bryant, and then I went into the field. I was not assigned to a particular judge. Then I came back out of the field, and I worked with Judge Lamberth for a long time, several major cases. Joyce and June Green, John Penn, Charles Richey, John Smith, Emmet Sullivan, Penfield Jackson. I did Microsoft with him, both versions of Microsoft. They were long. But I worked at various times with everyone who has sat on that bench. And up until a couple weeks ago, I had the privilege and the pleasure of opening court for the investiture of every judge since 1964 up until today. Judge Amy Jackson, who was recently sworn in, had investiture services, chose to deviate, and she wanted her courtroom deputy clerk to announce the opening of the court. Up until then, I had opened the court for every judge and magistrate judge who had investiture services in the United States District Court. And I was very proud to have the honor to do that. I started to say about a trial that I attended, and I can’t recall who the judge was, but it was a narcotic case where the government, it was a slam-dunk case, what we refer to as a “slow plea.” The government had a tremendous amount of evidence, and the defense didn’t offer anything substantial for a defense. The 137 presiding judge had gone through great pain in instructing the jury to choose among themselves a foreperson and to deliberate and listen to your colleagues, instructions about sharing your thoughts, the standard instructions. So when he submitted the case to the jury, I escorted the jury back to the jury room to deliberate, and I gave them, the jury, my instructions as to what was expected of them, what’s expected of me during the deliberation, that is don’t ask me anything about the case, you can’t just get up and walk out of the jury room, those kinds of things, and before I could close the door, one of the young men on the panel announced to his colleagues, “When you get around to discussion, guilty, wake me up, I’m taking a nap.” And of course I closed the door. And of course the jury came back with a guilty verdict. I thought his expression was interesting. He didn’t want to discuss it; he had made up his mind based on the evidence. That’s about all I have. Mr. Pollak: You’ve witnessed a lot of juries. Why don’t you lay down a couple remarks about your observations, how the juries work, your observations of juries, seeing them do their job, and how you feel that it serves the cause of justice. Mr. Bowden: Jurors, as far as my observation, are very sincere about their job, but they’re human beings and there are a lot of individual observations on their own part. I’ve heard them through the door during deliberation say, “I feel sorry for the defendant because he could not afford his own attorney” – he had a courtappointed attorney. “How do you know he’s a court-appointed attorney?” someone says. “Well,” the response, “he’s worn the same suit three days in a row so he’s not making much money so he must be court-appointed.” I don’t how the case came out, guilty or not guilty, but that’s something that they bring to the 138 room. Now whether or not they feel the court-appointed attorney is not as qualified as a retained attorney, that was not said. But I just remember they observed how the attorney was dressed. I’ve heard them say, “something’s going on over at the table, the defense, because the attorney doesn’t look at his client, doesn’t talk to his client.” I’ve heard them say that the defendant didn’t seem to be interested in what’s going on; he’s busy looking out at the audience, at people, and not listening to the witness testifying on the stand. What they do with that information, I don’t know. Does it factor into their conclusion as to guilty or innocent, I don’t know. Mr. Pollak: Were you ever called to serve as a juror? Mr. Bowden: Yes. Mr. Pollak: Did you serve? Mr. Bowden: No. I served on a civil case, but not in a criminal case. Mr. Pollak: How did that go? Mr. Bowden: It went well. Mr. Pollak: In Superior Court or District Court? Mr. Bowden: Prince George’s County. The judge appointed me as the foreperson. Mr. Pollak: Were you impressed with how the other jurors served? Mr. Bowden: Oh yes. I’m a big proponent of the jury system. Rarely have I seen the jury miss the mark. Mr. Pollak: How many trials do you think you’ve observed? Mr. Bowden: Oh, don’t do that to me. I would say 96%, 98% of the time, they hit it. Just from my observation and what I’ve observed and based on my experience and what is presented to them in the courtroom, notwithstanding what I hear at the motions, what I hear at bench conferences. I’m able to take that out of – I try to look at it 139 with their eyes and their ears. The jurors, they rarely miss it. I’ve seen some hung juries because of a dislike by one or two of the members of the jury panel as to some of the participants. I’ve seen some cases where it appeared that the government was coming down on someone and unnecessarily so, and the panel says he may be guilty, but I’m not going to find him guilty because they shouldn’t have brought him here, that kind of thing, but not the facts. They weren’t ruling on the facts. They were ruling on emotions. Mr. Pollak: They should have been struck. Mr. Bowden: I know that. But during the voir dire they should have when they got back in the jury room. Narcotic cases in voir dire, the litany of questions that are asked are supposed to purify the panel. I’ve heard them go back there and they’re experts on drugs and say, Those are not his drugs because if they were he could put them in the stash. What do you know about stash? That’s my question. Or, That’s not the way drug dealers operate. Those kinds of things that only a person who has had exposure to the drug culture would know. Mr. Pollak: Kirk, how do you come by the knowledge or recollection that a juror would make a statement like that? Did you hear it after the trial was over? Mr. Bowden: Sometimes you can hear through the door. The marshal is duty-bound to stay outside the door to keep them pure. They get rambunctious with the conversation and you can hear. I’ve had to go in and break up fights. Mr. Pollak: I suppose you’ve looked at the movie, “Twelve Angry Men.” Mr. Bowden: Yes. Years ago. That has some realism. Mr. Pollak: So you’ve had to go in the jury room and break up a fight? 140 Mr. Bowden: Yes. You can hear the pounding on the desks. I said I better get in there before someone gets hurt. Of course I let the court know what’s going on and the judge deals with it. That doesn’t happen often. Mr. Pollak: You mentioned when we were talking about having this further interview that there was at least one recollection you had about now-Chief Judge Lamberth that you thought you had covered it but couldn’t find it. Do you recall what that was, and do you want to put it on the record now? Mr. Bowden: It was a civil lawsuit that was filed by some inmates at Lorton against the Department of Corrections, alleging that they had been brutalized by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections decided that they were going to eliminate this element at Lorton that was creating a lot of problems, which the Department of Corrections had complained about. A quasi-riot took place out there. So members of the Department of Corrections decided they were going to weed these people out, separate them, and ship them off to other institutions to get them out of Lorton, and they had them in one section of the jail and they decided that they – the Department of Corrections – early in the morning they would go in there and separate these people out. And in preparation for that, they took the name tags off of the uniforms and they went in, tried to take people out, and people resisted. There was a big physical to-do, the inmates claimed they were brutalized. So the captain was on the stand testifying, the commander of this group that went in to take the folk out. The question was put to him what happened. Mr. Pollak: This is an ongoing trial before a jury and Chief Judge Lamberth? Mr. Bowden: We’re in trial now. He’s a witness in trial before the jury. Judge Lamberth was not chief at this time presiding. Question to the witness, “What happened?” The 141 captain says, “I had three choices. I could coax them out of the cellblock, I could gas them, or I could beat the hell out of them.” And that’s a quote. That was his testimony. Judge Lamberth looked at me, I looked at him, and he recessed the court. Did you hear what he was saying? That’s the reason we’re here. Because you beat him. Needless to say, the jury came back with a verdict on behalf of the inmates. I just thought that was horrible for him to say that. Mr. Pollak: That’s quite a story. Well you could say it was horrible for him to do it but it was not horrible of him to say it because he was actually telling the truth. But it is amazing how rarely a witness who had been engaged in something like that would do that. Mr. Bowden: He would defend it. I wonder what happened with the Corporation Counsel’s Office on whether they should go to trial or not. Mr. Pollak: Anything else? Mr. Bowden: I think I’ve about covered it. Mr. Pollak: Are there any institutions that used to be at the court that are gone now that you think were good, that shouldn’t be gone? Any practices or doings? Mr. Bowden: Good question. I can’t think of anything. A lot of the things done in the Marshals Office are no longer done. At one time, I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of lawsuits had to be served by the United States Marshals, civil and criminal lawsuits. They’re mailed out now. There’s no more knocking on the door and giving the lawsuit. Mr. Pollak: Are procedures or proceedings in the court rooms more or less formal than they used to be? Mr. Bowden: Much less. Mr. Pollak: What was some of the formality that’s now gone? 142 Mr. Bowden: The chairs were inside the well. Upright chairs, with four legs, no rollers. You sat at the counsel table with both feet on the floor. You didn’t dare cross your legs in the courtroom. If you had an objection, you stood up, recognized by the court, and make your objection. You didn’t make your objection from a seated position. The dress was dark clothing, dark suits. Women wore dresses and skirts, no pants. Nothing was on the table except law books or whatever was necessary during the course of the trial. Attaché cases, other personal items, were not on the counsel table. Counsel would not dare approach a witness with evidence or ask a question without first seeking permission of the court. Some judges required that there be a red zone between the counsel and the jury box, you just didn’t get in that buffer there. And there was a reason for that. Some attorneys had a way of saying something under their breath that only one or two members of the jury could hear, just enough so that person could take that information back to the jury room for deliberation. I’ve witnessed that. Mr. Pollak: Of course it wouldn’t be in the record, would it? Mr. Bowden: Of course not. Mr. Pollak: Have you observed any change in the courts with the emergence of many more women attorneys and women judges? Mr. Bowden: Oh yes. Mr. Pollak: How would you describe the change? Mr. Bowden: It was a gradual at first, then all of a sudden look up and both the U.S. Attorneys Office as well as the private bar had a lot of very talented female lawyers. Mr. Pollak: Has it changed the way the courts handle their responsibilities or changed the way the proceedings go? 143 Mr. Bowden: I don’t know whether they’ve changed. I think they’re a little more tolerant. Let me go back. Let me say this. I think the court itself has relaxed from a lot of formality. I went to headquarters in 1983 and I came back about three or four years later, and I didn’t recognize the court in terms of demeanor. I had never seen a judge on the bench with his robe open. You could see his shirt. I didn’t own a sport jacket and pants because we wore dark clothing, suits, in the courtroom, as marshals. The court room was much more formal until the mid1980s, early 1990s. Now I’m not a lawyer, but from my vantage point, I didn’t see any depreciation in the practice of law in terms of the legal minds in interpretation of the law, any depreciation there, it was just the way it was done. I think more litigation – there’s a shift in period before we get to trial where a lot of things are cleared up, a lot of motions, a lot of paper flow, those kinds of things, before you get to trial. It didn’t used to be. So when a case goes to trial now, it’s pretty well cut-and-dry, to a degree. Mr. Pollak: Just march through the evidence. Mr. Bowden: Right. Whereas earlier, you would get a witness on the stand, ask a question, and that answer is not something that anybody was prepared for. So then you have to deal with that. But now, I think you have to declare up to a point what your expert is going to talk about, what this witness is capable of testifying to. A lot of stuff is cleared up before you get to trial. Very few surprises, if you will. Mr. Pollak: I don’t only want to ask the question about the advent of women in the courts as lawyers, but I really need to ask the same question about the advent of AfricanAmericans in positions as judges, as lawyers, as courtroom personnel. You’ve seen that occur in your lifetime. Mr. Bowden: Absolutely. 144 Mr. Pollak: What commentary would you make about that? Mr. Bowden: It’s something I’m very proud of that did happen. I’m proud of the fact that I was witness to it. Because talent is talent. Intellect is intellect. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the color of a man’s skin determines his intellect or a person’s gender determines their ability to do certain things, particularly practice law or to administer justice. We all come to the forefront with something historically about us, how we were reared, what our indoctrinations are, but to administer justice, to practice law, you have your personal experiences that you can draw on, but to follow the law is everyone’s responsibility. Now, there are some folk who are more astute than others, but I don’t equate them out in terms of race. They’re human beings and there are some who are smarter than others, some grasp situations quicker than others. Practicing law as I observe it, administering justice, is not like playing basketball. It’s not like catching a pass. It’s not an athletic game. It’s not a dance, not on the dance floor. Some folk are more adept at dancing than others, some more adept at swimming, at catching the ball. But when we talk about the mind, and moral turpitude and intelligence, race has no bearing in it at all. Mr. Pollak: Is that all we can do today? Mr. Bowden: I suspect so. Mr. Pollak: It’s been a privilege to be part of your interview. I’m glad you did this oral history. Mr. Bowden: So am I. A-1 Oral History of Richard Kirkland Bowden INDEX African Americans, 143–44 courtroom deputy clerks, 129–30 female attorneys, 81, 85, 88–89 judges, 122, 126, 133, 135–36 medical care, 97 segregated facilities, 28–29, 99, 107–108 and U.S. Air Force, 2, 7 U.S. Marshals, 23, 24, 27, 30, 56 Alto, Vincent, 81, 85 Anthony, Susan Margaret, 97, 98 attorneys courtroom tactics, 81, 82–83, 93, 95–96, 142 defense, 86 “Fifth Streeters,” 86–88 women, 88–89, 90, 142 Banks, Ruth, 89 Blackwell, Joel, 85 Blue, Hezekiah, 12 Boies, David, 127 Bowden, John Horace, 97–99, 105–108, 111–12, 117 Bowden, Richard Kirkland – Personal adoption, 97–98 birth, 1, 97 boxing, 106, 111–12 Douglass community, 100–101, 115–16, 117–18 Douglass High School, 1, 28–29, 99–100 activities, 101–102, 104, 112–13 alumni association, 114–15 closure, 115 education expectations, 113–14 drama club activities, 112–13 drum major, 103 duck caretaker at Peabody Hotel, 108–109 father, adoptive, 97–99, 105–108, 111–12, 117 father, biological, 97, 98 friends, 9, 116 A-2 garden, 105–106 godfather, 117 influences on, 117 LeMoyne College, 1, 104, 116 lifeguard, 109–10 mother, adoptive, 98, 105–106, 117, 118 mother, biological, 97, 98 movie ticket taker, 108 paper deliverer, 108, 110–11 religious activities, 106 school activities, 102–103 scrap collection, 110 segregation experiences, 28 swimming, 104–105, 112 Technical Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, 1–2, 29, 104, 108 criminal investigations, 3–7 World War II memories, 110 Bowden, Richard Kirkland – Professional Contract employee, U. S. Marshals Service, 1, 84, 91 Deputy, U. S. Marshals Service, 1, 3, 21, 22–23, 133 confrontations, 37 on decorum in the courtroom, 89–93, 141–43 expert witness volunteer at Howard University Law School, 121–22 on James Meredith’s personal detail, 24–28, 29–32 and judge investiture services, 136 and judges, 119–21, 122, 125, 126–27, 133, 136 and juries, 136–40 on lawyers in the courtroom, 81–83, 85–88, 93, 94–96 and Microsoft trial, 80, 127, 136 and Morgan, 46, 74–75 precinct, 41–42 prisoner transport trips, 47 and student program on judiciary, 126–27, 133–35 transport of Valachi, 73–74 and Watergate jurors, 59–68, 133 and Watergate subpoenas, 130–33 See also United States Marshals Service in the District of Columbia Police officer, D. C. Metropolitan Police Department, 1, 2–3, 7–8 ABC law violators, 17 “Blue Miller Law,” 14–15 colleague under investigation, 19–21 on drug law changes, 16 A-3 and heroin dealers, 13–16 heroin legalization proposal, 11–13 Narcotics Division undercover operations, 8–10, 19 numbers violators, 16–17 Plain clothes operations, 10–11 prostitution, 17–18 undercover trainer, 18–19 warrants, 21–22 on race, 144 retirement, 84, 91, 92 Bowden, Vernetta Constance (nee Bradshaw), 98, 105–106, 117, 118 Branch, Ben, 112 Braxton, Cleveland, 27 Bryant, William B., 42, 81, 82–83, 85, 88, 121, 135–36 Burke, Joan, 89 Butler, Clarence, 27 Cacheris, Plato, 81 Delovicko, William, 68 District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, 33–34, 86, 87, 132 District of Columbia Department of Corrections (Jail), 43, 47–48, 49, 94, 140 District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 2, 18–19, 52 “Blue Miller Law,” 14–15 Morals Division, 3, 16 Gambling and Liquor Section, 3, 16–17 Narcotics Section, 3, 8, 11–12, 16 Prostitution Section, 3, 16 narcotics officer under investigation, 19–21 precincts, 41 District of Columbia Municipal Court, 33–34, 86, 87 District of Columbia Superior Court, 86, 87 Douglass, Frederick, 99, 101 Dugas, Julian R., 121 Dwyer, Jean, 85, 88 Dwyer, John, 85 “Fifth Streeters,” 86–88 Fuller, Vincent, 81 Garber, William, 71 Gardner, William C., 85, 88 Gorham, Frank, 70 A-4 Green, Joyce Hens, 136 Green, June L., 88, 136 Green brothers, 70, 75–77 Haldeman, H. R., 132 Hankins, Ruth, 88 Harvey, Hugh, 129–30 Hayes, Clarence, 116–17 Hayes, George E. C., 85, 88 Haywood, Margaret, 88 Helms, Samuel, 117 heroin addicts, 8–9, 11–13 Holtzoff, Alexander, 121, 122 Howard University, 9 School of Law, 121–22, 129 Jackson, Amy, 136 Jackson, Jesse, 112 Jackson, Thomas Penfield, 127, 136 Johnson, Norma Holloway, 126–27, 133–34 jurors, 137–40, 141 and lawyers in the courtroom, 81–83, 95, 142 oath of office, 122–23 questionnaires, 123–24 sequestered, 56–58, 68 See also Watergate jurors Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 127 Lamberth, Royce C., 66, 94, 136, 140–41 Lamondue, Frank, 27 Lawson, Belford, 81 Mack, Julia Cooper, 89 Mafia, 73 Matthews, Burnita, 89, 122 McGuire, Matthew F., 119–20 McKinney, George K., 130–32 McLaughlin, Arthur J., 81, 83, 94–96 McShane, James P., 23, 27 Memphis, Tennessee, 1, 28 Camp Daniels, 104 Cotton Carnival on Beale St., 103–104 A-5 Douglass community, 99–102, 104, 107, 113–14, 115–16, 117–18 Grand Central Station, 98 Jane Terrell Hospital, 97 Peabody Hotel, 108–109 schools for African Americans, 28, 99 segregation in, 99, 107–108 Meredith, James, 23–26, 29 Mississippi, 23–26, 29–31 Mitchell, Curtis, 81, 85 Moore, Luke C., 19–20, 23, 27, 56, 75, 83, 85, 120, 121 Morgan, Daniel Jackson Oliver Wendel Holmes, 46, 74–75, 85 Mundy, Kenneth, 81, 85 Neely, Joanne, 72 Nixon, Richard M., 130–31 Palmer, James Freeman, 27 Penn, John G., 136 Richey, Charles, 122–24, 136 Riley, Howard, 27 Robinson, Joseph, 27 Robinson, Spotswood W., 56, 122 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 100, 101 Roundtree, Dovey J., 81, 85, 88 Sharp, James, 85 Shorter, John, 81 Shreeves, Bruce H., 70 Sirica, John J., 59, 68, 130, 133 Sitnick, Joseph, 85 Sherriff, Norman E., 70, 76–77, 78–79 Smith, John Lewis, 125, 136 Spearman, Oscar, 27 Spiller, Herbert, 119–20 Stein, Jacob A. (“Jake”), 81, 85 Strickland, Willie, 70 Sullivan, Brendan, 81 Sullivan, Emmet G., 136 Tatel, David S., 127, 134 Terrell, Jane, 97 Terrell (Robert H.) Law School, 129–30 A-6 United States Air Force and African Americans, 2, 7 Criminal Investigation Unit, 2, 3–6 United States Commissioner, 21–22 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 22, 33–34, 54–55, 132, 133 cellblock takeover, 70–73, 77–78 court reporters, 128–29 decorum in, 89–93, 141–42, 143 imposter lawyer, 46, 74 judges, 55, 68, 119–21, 122, 125, 126–27, 133, 136 and sequestered juries, 57–58, 68 United States Marshals Service in the District of Columbia, 33–34 Administrative Services desk, 36 African American U.S. Marshals, 23, 24, 27, 30, 56 camaraderie, 78 court orders, 34–36, 38, 39, 141 courtroom judge assignment, 55, 68–69, 119, 136 deaths in line of duty, 76–77, 79 dress code, 119–20 evictions, 39, 40–41, 51–52 female deputy marshals, 43, 57, 63, 70, 71, 72 guns in the courthouse, 125–26 hostages, 70–73 landlord/tenant complaints, 40–41 marshal workloads, 41–42 Meredith protection, 24–27, 29–32 negotiators, 71–72, 77–78 personally owned vehicles (POVs), 44, 74 prisoner escape attempts, 49–51 prisoner handling, 46–47 prisoner jail/courthouse transport, 47–48, 51, 54–56 prisoner movements, 43–45 prisoner separation, 48–49, 50 property seizing, 34–36, 37–39 and sequestered juries, 57–58, 68 service of process, 34, 39–40 student program on judiciary, 126–27, 133–35 vessel seizing, 36–37 and Watergate jurors, 59–68, 133 Witness Security Program, 73–74 University of Mississippi, 23, 31 Valachi, Joseph, 73–74 A-7 Vandergriff, Frank, 27 Wagner, Annice M., 88 Washington, Joe, 105 Watergate jurors, 133 accommodations, 59–60 alternates, 66–67 clothing, 61–62 entertainment, 61 family visits, 62–63 media censoring, 63–64 rapport with deputy marshals, 63, 67 religious services, 60–61 telephone monitoring, 62, 64, 65–66 Watergate subpoenas, 130–33 Watergate trial, 59, 66 Williams, Edward Bennett, 81, 82–83, 85 Windsor, George, 121 women deputy marshals, 43, 57, 63, 70, 71, 72 inmates, 44 judges, 122, 126, 133 lawyers, 81, 85, 88–89, 90, 142 B-1 Oral History of Richard Kirkland Bowden Cases Cited In re Subpoena to Nixon, 360 F. Supp. 1 (D. D. C. 1973), 59, 66, 130–33 Miller v. U. S., 357 U.S. 301 (78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed.2d 1332), 14–15 Morgan v. U. S., 309 F.2d 234 (C. A. D. C. 1962), 46, 74–75, 85 U. S. v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. D. C. 1999), 80, 127, 136 C-3 Joshua Klein graduated from Amherst College in 1996, and graduated from Stanford Law School in 2002. In 2002-2003, he served as Law Clerk to Judge Merrick B. Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and in 2004-2005, he served as Law Clerk to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. After several years in private practice in Washington, D.C., he became an Assisant United States Attorney in 2008. He served for three years as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, before transferring to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California in 2011. C-5 STEPHEN J. POLLAK Senior Counsel 202.346.4178 Areas of Practice Stephen Pollak’s practice consists of representing clients in trial and appellate litigation of complex civil cases at all levels of the federal courts and before federal departments and agencies. His fields of concentration include antitrust, constitutional, and labor law, civil rights, ERISA and legal ethics. He also represents individuals under investigation for possible violation of federal criminal laws, as well as lawyers and law firms against whom complaints have been lodged with Bar Counsel. Mr. Pollak served as Special Master for the Vitamins Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Professional Activities Mr. Pollak also serves as a mediator and arbitrator. Since 1989, he has been a member of the Panels of Mediators appointed, respectively, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Pollak is a member of the American Arbitration Association Panel of Mediators and a member of the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution’s Washington, D.C., Panel of Distinguished Neutrals. He has served as a training consultant in mediation for the Office of Dispute Resolution of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Pollak served as President of the District of Columbia Bar (1980-81) and was a member of the Board of Governors of the Bar for four years. He served as Chair of the Bar’s Public Service Activities Committee (1989-95) and was the leader in reorganization of the Bar’s pro bono activities. Mr. Pollak served as President of the District of Columbia Bar Foundation (2008-09) and as a member of its Board of Directors (2003-09). He currently serves as a member of the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission. Mr. Pollak 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 of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit and Director of its Oral History Program. C-6 Professional Experience Mr. Pollak was a partner at Shea & Gardner prior to its combination with Goodwin Procter in 2004, and served as chair of its Executive Committee from 1993-1996. Prior to joining Shea & Gardner, Mr. Pollak served in the U.S. 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). Bar and Court Admissions Mr. Pollak is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia. Recognition Mr. Pollak is the recipient of the following awards: the Justice Potter Stewart Award from the Council for Court Excellence of Washington, D.C. (2006); the Daniel Webster Distinguished Service Award from the Dartmouth Club of Washington, D.C. (2005); the Thurgood Marshall Award for Service in the Public Interest from the District of Columbia Bar (2001); and the Servant of Justice Award from the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia (1994). He has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America. While attending law school Mr. Pollak was Managing Editor of the Yale Law Journal and received the Jewell Prize for highest second-year grades, and Second Prize for Best Student Contribution to Yale Law Journal (1955-56), titled the “Expatriation Act of 1954.” Education LL.B., Yale, 1956 (Order of the Coif) B.A., Dartmouth College, 1950 (Phi Beta Kappa; cum laude)