James Davey Complete Oral History

JAMES F. DAVEY 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 JAMES F. DAVEY Interviews conducted by: Steven P. Hollman, Esquire May 13, May 29, June 10, June 19, September 2, September 9, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ……………………………………………………………. i Oral History Agreements James F. Davey, Esquire. ………………………………………… iii Stephen P. Hollman, Esquire. ……………………………………….. v Oral History Transcript of Interviews: Interview No. 1, May 13, 2008. ……………………………………… 1 Interview No. 2, May 29, 2008. …………………………………….. 23 Interview No. 3, June 10, 2008. …………………………………….. 58 Interview No. 4, June 19, 2008. …………………………………….. 87 Interview No. 5, September 2, 2008. ………………………………… 110 Interview No. 6, September 9, 2008. ………………………………… 135 Index. ………………………………………………………….. A-1 Table of Cases. …………………………………………………….. B-1 Biographical Sketches James F. Davey, Esquire. ………………………………………… C-1 Stephen P. Hollman, Esquire. …………………………………….. C-3 Appendices (Tab Nos.1-19) NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and edited by the interviewee. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. © 2009 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges who sat on 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. Interviews are conducted by volunteers, trained by the Society, who are members of the Bar of the District of Columbia. Indexed transcripts of these interviews 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 Library of Congress, and the library of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia. With the permission of the person being interviewed, oral histories are also available on the internet through the Society’s web site, www.dcchs.org. Such original audio tapes of the interviews as exist, as well as the original diskettes of the transcripts (in WordPerfect format) are in the custody of the Society. i Photographs of James Davey are attached at Tab 1. 1 1 ORAL HISTORY OF JAMES F. DAVEY 1 Session #1 – May 13, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. The interview was conducted by telephone on May 13, 2008, commencing at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Hollman: I thought I’d start by just going over what I understand to be the basic chronology and asking you to fill in significant events that I’ve missed. Mr. Davey: Okay. Mr. Hollman: Alright, so we’re going to start in 1935, and I have as your birth date September 19th? Mr. Davey: Right. Mr. Hollman: And where were you born? Mr. Davey: Parris Island, South Carolina, the marine base. My father was a naval officer, and he was stationed there at the time. Mr. Hollman: What was your father’s rank at the time? Mr. Davey: Well, let’s see in ’35 — he was a 1927 graduate of the Naval Academy — he’s probably a lieutenant jg. I’m not sure of that. Mr. Hollman: Did he serve then in World War II? Mr. Davey: He did. Mr. Hollman: And where did he serve? Was he on a boat? Mr. Davey: He actually had the smallest aircraft in the fleet. The service started, well — he got out of the academy in ’27, and in ‘41 when I was six, we were stationed at Ford Island in Pearl Harbor. And on December 7th, ’41, we heard some noises and went outside, my older brother and I, and it turned out it was Japanese planes. 2 Mr. Hollman: Your were at Pearl Harbor when the Harbor was bombed? Mr. Davey: Yeah, the Arizona, my older brother and I went back 50 years later in ’91, and our house was still there. And the Arizona was two battleship-lengths away from our house. If you ever look at the picture of Pearl Harbor, Ford Island is a small island that the battleships were docked at, and my father was entitled to officers’ quarters. Well, we went out to that field behind our house, and we saw these Japanese planes that had come in low to drop their torpedoes just going over the top of the house looking down at us through their open cockpits. And then, ah, well we could talk about Pearl Harbor for a while, but you’re talking to a guy that was wounded in the first hour of World War II. Mr. Hollman: What was the wound? Mr. Davey: Well, when the Arizona blew up, my hearing, it was a tremendous explosion, and I never had good hearing. I can’t prove that, but it’s a good story. But well, I remember particular events there; my older brother who was nine has a better recollection. But I remember our father putting us under the mattresses once he got us back inside the house. And the attack was in two waves, and in the lull between the first and second wave, my father got us into the car and took us to the Admiral’s house at the end of the island. It had a big dungeon underneath it. And they set up a first aid operation and a shelter operation there. And I can remember them bringing the men in that had swam through the burning oil. And it was a tough thing for kids to see, and then we didn’t know whether we were going to be attacked. It was really chaotic there for a while. 3 Mr. Hollman: Well, I was going to ask you about the most significant event of your childhood, and I think you’ve eclipsed anything that my wildest imagination probably could have come up with. Mr. Davey: Yeah, well, that was quite a day, and we have a little sake around here every December 7 . th Mr. Hollman: Tell me the names of your parents. Mr. Davey: My mother was Catherine, the baby, and my father was Thomas, Thomas Leo Davey. Mr. Hollman: And where were they from? Mr. Davey: Catherine was from New York, and my father was from Beverly Farms, Massachusetts. They met while he was getting a master’s degree at RPI in New York, and she was going to Russell Sage. And they met and got married, and they had four children: my older brother, Tom, born in Pennsylvania in ’33; my sister, Catherine, who was born in Newport, Rhode Island in ’34. I was born in South Carolina, Parris Island, in ’35. In ’36, my sister died on her way to San Diego of convulsions. I think she was overcome by the heat in the car in Texas. She died in El Paso. And then my younger brother was born in San Diego in 1937, and the one with the three boys survived, and we’re all still around today. Mr. Hollman: What’s the name of the younger brother? Mr. Davey: John. Mr. Hollman: What a trauma that must have been to suffer the loss of your younger sister. Mr. Davey: Yeah, my mother said that my father never really got over that. That would be a terrible — I don’t even like to think of losing one of my children. The Seabees are the Construction Battalions (CBs) of the United States Navy. The Seabees 2 have a history of building bases, bulldozing and paving thousands of miles of roadway and airstrips, and accomplishing myriad other construction projects in a wide variety of military theatres dating back to World War II. Landing Ship, Tank (LST) was the military designation for naval vessels created during 3 World War II to support amphibious operations by carrying significant quantities of vehicles, cargo, and landing troops directly onto an unimproved shore. 4 Mr. Hollman: Tell me what it was like growing up in a house with a Navy man as a father and with two other brothers. Mr. Davey: Well, the years that I remember growing up mostly were in Rhode Island. After Pearl Harbor and once they got control of the seas, they got us dependents home to the mainland. I still have my lifeboat pass and my seat number and lifeboat number. My father was stationed in Rhode Island, and he was part of the founding of the Seabees during War World II. He was a civil engineer. So, we 2 grew up in Rhode Island. My father went off to the campaigns, and he supported the invasion of North Africa. And then he was involved in the invasion in Italy and getting my — I’d have to double check — Salerno — and I remember him writing a note that indicated that he had the smallest aircraft in the fleet because he had outfitted an LST to have three spotter planes for Patton’s army on the top, 3 and he had mules down below where the men would normally be located. He was quite proud of the fact that he had rigged this LST to be an aircraft carrier. But he ended up seeing quite a bit of action. And unfortunately, we never saw much of him growing up. My mother had to raise the three of us with my maternal grandmother, who was an invalid. I saw my father only maybe once or twice between the age of 7 and 35. So — but that being said, growing up in Rhode Major General John M. Davey was born in San Diego in 1937 and graduated from La Salle 4 Academy High School, Providence, R.I. He received a bachelor’s degree in military science from the first graduating class of the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1959 and a master of science degree in business through the Air Force Institute of Technology program from the University of Rochester in 1970. The general was a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College in 1979. He retired September 1, 1993. http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5164 5 Island in the ‘40s and ‘50s in our small, little world, I remember having just a normal childhood and having a good time. We were spaced — the boys were spaced a couple of years apart so we had different groups that we were involved in. My older brother and I were more athletically inclined, and my younger brother — we worried about him — he sang in the choir and played the violin. He ended up being in the first graduating class of the Air Force Academy, flew fighter jets off carriers in Vietnam and ended up being a two-star general. So, he worked out pretty good. But we had 4 just a — I have fond memories of growing up and playing war and having dogs and, you know, just nothing spectacular. I think the most important person influencing me was my maternal grandmother. Loved opera and loved the Red Sox and loved working on the New York Times crossword puzzle. She was somebody that I could go to for advice. Mr. Hollman: You said Beverly Farms, Massachusetts. I’m trying to place that in — Mr. Davey: Beverly is on the North Shore. My paternal grandparents were — my grandmother was a cook for a well-to-do family, and my grandfather was a landscaper for them. Beverly Farms is a small town near Beverly. Mr. Hollman: Let me take you back to Pearl Harbor, if I could, and have you describe in more detail what it was like to experience the Japanese attack and how that affected your outlook on things, if it did. 6 Mr. Davey: Well, I called them Japs for many years. Being six I can’t say that I have a full recollection, but I remember going out and seeing the planes. I remember the ships blowing up. I remember being scared, being under the mattresses. I remember seeing those men who had swam through the burning oil. And then I remember they shipped us to a different island. But in terms of the impact on me as a kid growing up, really not much. It’s—then in the later years where we’ve enjoyed telling the story. In fact, one of the stories is that when we got to Rhode Island and my father was shipped overseas, that we no longer were entitled to officers’ quarters, so we ended up in a duplex, which was small compared to what we had in Hawaii and on the base in Rhode Island. So we had wooden crates that never really got unpacked. And as we grew up we began to wonder what was in these wooden crates down in the basement. One day my mother and my older brother and I were down there going through them, and we came across this waffle iron, big, heavy iron waffle iron, and it was stuck closed. So my brother got a screwdriver and opened it up, and there was a perfectly preserved waffle that had – that my mother was cooking that morning on December 7 , ’41, and this — oh, I guess — 15 years later. And my th older brother still has that, and he has a little show — you know, he goes around to the high schools. And the waffle has deteriorated through the years because of exposure to the air but it is still there, and I’m the executor to his estate, and if he predeceases me, the only thing that I want is the waffle iron. Actually, it should go somewhere in the Smithsonian or whatever. 7 But in growing up, you know, it was interesting telling stories, but it’s been more from telling about it as you get older. But it didn’t really have a big impact. I think frankly the biggest impact came later when I began to wonder what happened to the old man. But this came in my high school years and in college. I got out of high school — actually I joined the Marines but I couldn’t — I was only 17 at the time. This was ’53, and it was — September 19 was my th birthday, and I needed both parents to sign for me. And my father was no place around. In any event, I ended up going back and landing on Parris Island on my 18 birthday. But then I failed the medical. I had had asthma — I told the th recruiter I had asthma. He said, no problem, but once I got down there they said it is a problem. So I was honorably discharged for medical reasons. And I decided to go down to Florida seeking fame and fortune and went broke and had to come back to Rhode Island. I worked construction. Finally, I decided maybe I better go to college. So I became a commuter to the University of Rhode Island. Worked a couple of jobs going through there. I enjoyed the college years but not in a typical sense — you know, no fraternity and all that. Then, in fact, at our 50 high school reunion, they presented me with th a letter that I had written a high school buddy that had gone out to Iowa after high school, and this was May of ’58 when I was getting out of college. And I wrote him, I said, Hey, Larry, I’m getting out of college next month, and I’m not sure what I’m going to do. But maybe I’ll get a car and drive out to California, and if I do, I’ll stop by, and we can get together, have a good time like we did in the old days. I’m really not worried about getting a job because I may have told you 8 about this girl in an earlier letter. I think we’re probably going to get married. And she’s got a job making $4,000 a year, and that ought to be enough. Highly motivated a month after getting out of college. Mr. Hollman: Was the woman, Carmelita Triga, your wife? Mr. Davey: Yeah, it was. Mr. Hollman: Well, you had very good judgment, at least, back then. Mr. Davey: Yes. But I’m wandering. Mr. Hollman: Well, tell me first how you met your wife, because I can’t resist asking you that, and then I’m going to take you back again. Mr. Davey: Okay. You know there’s a dispute between us as to how I met her, but I think it was at a bar where she was hanging out with some Navy guys from — my older brother had gone into the Navy as a seaman, and he was stationed at Quonset Point Naval Air Station. And there was a bunch of guys in the squadron, and they used to go to a place, and Connie – in fact, my older brother dated my wife’s older sister. And he told me one time, he says, you ought to check out Rosita’s younger sister, which I did. My recollection is that we met in this bar — not that we were drunk or anything, but that, you know, you just go and have drinks. And when I first saw her, she looked like somebody special, and that was in ’56, my sophomore year in college, and she was going to a different school. But we started dating, and then we got married in 1960. Mr. Hollman: Where were you married? Mr. Davey: Married in Rhode Island at her church where she got her first communion — her baptism, first communion, confirmation, and she was married there, Sacred Heart in Westfall, Rhode Island. 9 Mr. Hollman: Did you all have a religious tradition in the Davey family? Mr. Davey: We did. Very religious. I can remember kneeling — as I say, my maternal grandmother, she had heart problems, and back then they didn’t do much exercise. And she died in ’56. So we got there in ’42, and in 14 years she may have come downstairs a half a dozen times. So you know, you look at that and say, jeez, what a terrible burden to have somebody like that, but she was just the opposite. In fact, almost every night I’d sit in her rocking chair and I’d read. And it’s a good way of remembering “Giema.” And she was, as I say, an extremely positive force. We would kneel down and say the prayers, the nightly prayers, and sometimes we’d say the rosary. And I remember my first exposure to death was Giema. She had gotten an infection and somehow we knew she was close to death. And she died in that room up there with a priest. And I remember that being so peaceful. So, this was ’56, so I guess I was 21 years old. My first encounter with death was not tragic at all. It was, you know, very peaceful. So we — I was an altar boy and my brothers were altar boys. And my mother retained her Catholic faith and never divorced my father. So the religion was strong. Mr. Hollman: Tell me the full name of your maternal grandmother. Mr. Davey: Mary Elizabeth Timpane. Mr. Hollman: And tell me what sort of life philosophy she imparted to you. Mr. Davey: A variety of things. I think the most important thing — I’m not so sure it was life philosophy as it was somebody that I could talk to and give me guidance. My mother was so, you know — she had all this — you know, when you look back at it, here was a woman who was married to an officer going up the ranks, and she 10 was born in 1904. So, in ’42 she was 38 years old, and she was married to a naval officer. They had already lost their only daughter. And I think what did it was he came home from leave, and he had picked up a venereal disease. And I can remember them arguing and that was, that did it for my mom. My mom was — you know, so she ended up having to raise three boys and take care of her mother, and that was quite a life change from what her expectations were. I didn’t fully appreciate that at the time, you know? But she was a positive influence, although I had problems with her from time to time. But my maternal grandmother was just somebody wise that had a sense of humor, that taught me how to play cards, was interested in baseball, and, you know, still on the intellectual side. She just seemed like a good person to emulate that had a wide variety of interests and always seemed pleasant. You’d never know anything was wrong with her. Mr. Hollman: That’s quite something for someone who was sort of confined to an upstairs room for most of her life. Mr. Davey: Yeah. She’s amazing. She came from good stock, I have to tell you. Her sister ended up being a Mother Superior, with Sisters of Mercy, and in her later years, we would visit her in Hartford. And she got to be, I think, 92. And when she was 90, she had a heart attack, and they did CPR on her and brought her back. And when we went to visit her, she was very frail in a wheelchair. One of the things that I remember too about her — now this was my maternal grandmother’s sister — was we visited her, and she was always happy and pleasant, but strong. You’ve got to be strong to be a Mother Superior. But what struck me was when we went to her room, all of her possessions — she had one chest of drawers, she had a small radio, a cross, and that was her total worldly possessions, and yet she 11 seemed to get along okay. But in any event, when she was in the wheelchair after the heart attack, I visited her. She got real close to me. She said, “Jimmy, all my life I’ve been preparing to be with God, and I was with him, and these turkeys brought me back.” But then she was gone in six months. But between the two of them, they didn’t have much, but, boy, they just didn’t need much, and they gave a lot. They were very positive. Mr. Hollman: That’s sort of a nice life statement that they didn’t have much and didn’t need much but gave a lot. Mr. Davey: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Hollman: Who was the male influence for you growing up? Mr. Davey: Um, that was one of my problems. I didn’t have any that I respected. [Laughter] I would always get in fights with my older brother, and my dad wasn’t there. I did have, it wasn’t that I was — when I was in high school, I got hired by a guy that ran a small grocery store, and he was a positive influence. He gave me — I ended up being able to — they were able to take their first vacation, he and his wife, who ran the store, after I had worked there a couple of years. They had enough trust in me to run the place while they were gone. And it was a good influence. My high school principal, I didn’t have any real respect for, um, twofaced. So, I don’t know if you’d say I had issues with males, but I didn’t have a strong male influence growing up. Mr. Hollman: Tell me what it was like being the middle child in a family of three boys. Mr. Davey: I never thought of myself as a middle child. I just remember that I had my own circle of friends. And I did think, maybe sometimes I felt left out that Tom was, by virtue of his being the oldest, getting his share and then my mother did have a 12 special affinity with my younger brother. In, fact she took him out of public school so he wouldn’t end up like his two older brothers and put him in LaSalle. And the teachers at the public school were happy that they didn’t have to deal with another Davey. We had our — I wasn’t a felon, but I did have my share of run-ins with authority, let’s put it that way. Mr. Hollman: Probably comes with the territory for young boys at that age. Mr. Davey: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Hollman: You said you were athletic; what were your sports? Mr. Davey: Baseball and basketball. I liked football but that, I had asthma and my asthma would really be an issue in the fall when the ragweed season, between the ragweed and the house dust I was wheezing most of September and October. But I played high school JV and varsity basketball and baseball for a Class C team, small school and I was good. I think the highest I ever made was, maybe second, second string, all Class C in baseball and honorable mention in basketball. But it was — I enjoyed it, and it’s something that I’ve continued to do. In fact, I played softball last night. Mr. Hollman: No kidding. Mr. Davey: Yeah, I can’t play basketball anymore. I’ve got arthritis in my knee. But, yeah, in fact, I brought out my new bat that I just spent $200 bucks for and my first at bat popped out. With runners at second and third, and my buddy that I ride with, he had a bad night, too. He had been hitting about 800, and he was 0 for 3. And we were kinda moaning and groaning at the night, and we got beat by a team that doesn’t win a lot. [END TAPE 1, Side A] 13 With him going 0 for 3 and me going 1 for 3, you know, put it in perspective. Mr. Hollman: Well, if you grew up as a Red Sox fan then you’re no stranger to adversity. Mr. Davey: Oh, you’re damn right. I went out to Fenway Park for seven decades. I’ve been going out there for seven decades, would you believe that? I started going out in the ‘40s. My buddy, Al Drexel, and I would hitchhike up and we’d have maybe a couple of bucks and, you know, sit in the bleachers for fifty cents and get a couple of hot dogs. In fact, as we speak, I’m looking at a metal soldier that Al Drexel gave me last year. Al was my buddy, ’42 to ‘46 in the projects. It was Yorktown Manor and in, before December ‘41, it was after Thanksgiving, his mother for Christmas got him a bunch of metal soldiers. And then when the war came, you couldn’t use metal anymore so these were the last of the metal soldiers. They turned them into clay after that. And I’ve got one, I’ve got a nice box and a frame and stuff. And that brings back a fond memory. In any event — Mr. Hollman: And what happened to Al Drexel? Is he still around? Mr. Davey: He’s still, he still, uh, he’s still around. In fact I’m the executor of his estate, and I’m going to get a couple of more soldiers. I’m going to end up with a waffle iron from my brother and a couple of metal soldiers from Al, if I survive them. Mr. Hollman: That’s the benefit of having good longevity genes. Mr. Davey: There you go, there you go. But we were talking about sports and sports have always been big with me. I can’t play basketball anymore or play touch football. I used to run, and I’ve run the Boston Marathon and New York Marathon. I don’t run anymore but I walk and still like to ski and being physically active has been a big part of my life. 14 Mr. Hollman: I think that’s a wonderful thing and a wonderful thing to carry with you throughout your life. Mr. Davey: Yes, yeah you’ve only got one body and got to take care of it. Mr. Hollman: Did you follow professional teams as a youngster? Mr. Davey: Followed the Red Sox and the Celtics. In fact, during World War II, the service teams were better than the major league teams. I remember the Boston Braves when they used to, before they became the Milwaukee Braves and the Atlanta Braves, they would come to Quonset, and my older brother and I were bat boys. And I remember Mort and Walker Cooper, you probably don’t remember them. Mort Cooper was a pitcher and Walker, his brother, was a catcher, and they played for the Braves. And the Flyers would beat them more often than not. ‘Cause the Quonset team, the Boston Flyers had a lot of — I can’t remember any of their names, but they had a lot of good guys like that Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio, ended up in the service and they didn’t all, they suited up now and then. One of my most prized possessions is, let’s see what this says: “Jim Davey Cy Young Award, 50 and over, Red Sox Fantasy Camp, February 1996.” How about that? When I was 60, my wife gave me a present to the Red Sox Fantasy Camp, and I had a wonderful time there. I’ll tell you two stories. One, I suited up next to Bobby Doerr every day. He’s a Hall of Famer, and he didn’t play but he suited up. And, in fact, I wore my Red Sox pants all last night. It was kind of chilly down here. They end up, they let you have the uniform. But two things. One, or the other thing, the pitcher in 19 — I tell you let’s go back, in ‘86, what was it ‘86 against the Mets, right? That was the ‘70s? I’m getting a little bit confused. We 15 lost to St. Louis in ’46. We lost to them again in ’67. In ’76, I think it was the Reds, or was it ’86, um, I’d have to check. In any event, when the ball went through Buckner’s leg? Well the pitcher at the time was Bob Stanley. He was a relief pitcher, and he ended up at my Red Sox Fantasy Camp being our pitcher one day. And I was playing first base, and a guy hits a ground ball to me, and I get it and Stanley covers and we get them out and as Stanley’s going back to the mound I said: “Hey, don’t you wish Billy had done that?” [Laughter] And, well, we had a great, it was a great week. And in 2004 when they won that was, I didn’t care if they ever won again. Been a long wait. Mr. Hollman: All three of you and your two brothers ended up entering the service. And I wondered if you could just talk about that and what influences caused the three of you to go in that direction? Mr. Davey: Well my older brother, we really didn’t have any money and we couldn’t afford college, so my older brother decided to go into the service and then, you know, he came out, and under the GI Bill, went to college. It wasn’t any great sense of patriotism, although it just seemed, you know you did things back then without really thinking through. I ended up, I joined the Navy Reserves when I was a senior in high school, and then when I, my intent was to do what my brother was doing, serve my time in the service and then go to college under the GI bill. But when I graduated, the Navy wanted four years out of you and the Marines only wanted three, so this was during the Korean War. And I didn’t sign up because I wanted to go be a Marine and fight. It had a three-year term, so that was about it, you know. 16 But for my younger brother, he always wanted to be a pilot, and he had to join the Civil Air Patrol, and he took the test for the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy. And he was actually accepted at the Naval Academy. But then he was 12th or 13th on the list of those that were, what list this was, I’m not sure whether it was because my father was a military guy or one of the state reps that recommended him. I forget. In any event, at the last minute he ended up going into the Air Force Academy instead of the Naval Academy, and he ended up being in the first graduating class in the Air Force Academy. So the motivation for Jack was that he wanted, he always wanted to be a pilot. He turned out to be a damn good one. Mr. Hollman: And what was the length of your service in the Marine Corps? Mr. Davey: About 18 days. Mr. Hollman: Eighteen days? Mr. Davey: Eight of that waiting for a discharge. But I have, what really ticked my brothers off, I look at my wall, I’ve got an Honorable Discharge from the — Private James Francis Davey, October 6. Now September 19 to October 6, you can figure it out. And then I also have a Honorable Discharge from the United States Navy, September 17th, 1953. I guess when I joined the Marines I was honorably discharged from the Navy so even though I never wore a Navy uniform, I got a Navy discharge, and my brother served four years of active duty and only got a separation. [Laughter] Life isn’t fair. I don’t have those discharges prominently displayed but I, they’re kind of fun. Mr. Hollman: Did you actually go through any basic training before — 17 Mr. Davey: Oh, yeah, yeah, in fact I took the OCS exam. I remember the drill instructor calling my name out and saying: “Damn, you know, you scored the highest on the exam for OCS, and you failed the medical so, that was kind of a waste.” But you never, you know, that was disappointing, have to, you know, have to go home prematurely, and whatever. Nineteen fifty-three was a kind of tough year ‘cause I failed in the Marines and I failed in Florida. Had to fall back and regroup. Mr. Hollman: Tell me what you were doing in Florida when you went down there to sort of make your way. Mr. Davey: I was going to be a busboy and that’s what I had been in one of my jobs in high school. And, but I ended up working in an orange packing plant, and I hurt my back, and I couldn’t work. And then my asthma started to kick up because it was the fall. I ended up hitchhiking back home and I ran out of money in Durham, North Carolina. Actually, I had a quarter left and I had my, I was hitchhiking with my high school letter jacket, you know, so people would pick me up. And I couldn’t decide with the quarter whether to get some cigarettes or a hamburger, but I ended up getting cigarettes. But it was a fall afternoon, and I remembered that one of my high school classmates, a gal, had enrolled in Duke Nursing. And there was a football game on that Saturday afternoon. I convinced the bus driver to let me get on the bus without paying fare, and I got over to the University and it’s a long story about me trying to find her. And eventually found where she was, but she wasn’t there, so I had to wait. And finally she showed up with a couple of girlfriends and very surprised to see me. And I let her know why I was there, and I think between the 18 three of them they came up with about ten bucks, and I finally made it back to Rhode Island. And so that was, then I started doing odd jobs, construction jobs. I finally decided that maybe I’d better go to college. But the funny thing, this is — I took the exams for college, and I went back to my principal who I didn’t have a lot of respect for. He says, “Oh, I’ll help you out and do what I can.” But everybody heard about their acceptance in June or whatever, and in July I still hadn’t heard and I called up the college. And to make a long story short, they said, Well you have to come down and be interviewed by the Dean of Men, not the Dean of Admissions but the Dean of Men. So I went down, and I walked in and the guy said, he’s got this file in front of me, he says, “Hey, you know, you had good marks, you’re on the Rhode Island Honor Society, not the National Honor Society but the Rhode Island, and you did well on the exams, but why does your principal think you’re a bad risk for college?” Oh man, it hit me. So I didn’t know what the principal had told him so I told him everything I could remember, and he says: “Well I’ll tell you what, we’re going to let you in, but you’re on probation. You know if you mess up, you’re out.” And I never messed up. But I never forgave my principal for being what I’d always thought he was. [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: Did you ever get a chance to ask him why he, why he did that to you? Mr. Davey: No I didn’t, but I was going to get an extra copy of my diploma and stick it up his a__. [Laughter] I never got that opportunity either. No, we didn’t have any further dealings. In fact, I think he died before I got out of college. I don’t remember, but — Mr. Hollman: What a thing to do. 19 Mr. Davey: I know it, I know it. But it was just, it was typical of him. And you know, it validated my dislike of him and others in positions of authority. Mr. Hollman: So, did you have any particular academic interests going into college? Mr. Davey: No, I had none. And the way I became an accounting major, I commuted, and the guy that was driving was a year ahead of me and he was an accounting major and he said he’d let me have his books. So I became an accounting major. And in the course of my college career I had a course in business law and I had a prof, Sarkesian. I really aced that course, and he said, told me one day, he said, Hey, you know, you need to go to law school and you’d do great. And he says, I can, I’ve got some contacts or made it appear that, you know, if I wanted to, I could get into BU. And I told him, I said, Hey, I’ve got no money. And I didn’t. We never considered ourselves poor, although I do remember one time that the Lions Club came by to deliver Thanksgiving baskets to the Davey family, and my mother was too proud to accept it. And I told her, I said you know, we could have at least taken the pie. But we never, you know, nobody had a lot of money in the projects. And it was the Yorktown Manor — Yorktown Manor duplexes. But I don’t recall being deprived, you know what I mean? We didn’t wait in food lines and all that kind of stuff so that wasn’t, that wasn’t any big deal, it just seemed like everybody was like we were. Mr. Hollman: Well said. Did Professor Sarkesian sort of plant the seed that remained with you for the next 10 years after you graduated from college? Mr. Davey: He planted the seed, yeah. And then, but then I went, well let’s see, that would have been ’56, and then I got out in ’58 and got married in ’60, and my wife was 20 the one that kind of said, you know, you ought to follow through and go to law school. And I was working down in D.C. for the Department of Agriculture and I applied, you know. To show you how ignorant I was, I took the test, but I took the wrong damn test. I took the graduate record exam. To make a long story short, I finally ended up doing the LSAT, and I got accepted by GW and American, and I was going to go to GW, and my wife said you ought to wait for Georgetown and I said, you know, I didn’t have that sort of grades in college. And, but I did well on the LSAT, I think I was in the 96th percentile, and I think that’s what did it. And the fact that I was married and was going to go to night school. So Georgetown finally accepted me, and I went there. Glad I did. Mr. Hollman: So tell me how you ended up in D.C. after you graduated from the University of Rhode Island. Mr. Davey: I was going to take a job as, I only had two job offers when I got out, one was in insurance as an internal auditor for insurance in Hartford, Connecticut. And that would have been right nice. I could, you know, stay in New England, but then when they found I had, I didn’t pass their medical, the asthma reared its ugly head again, and they withdrew the job offer when they found out I had asthma. And so that left me with the only other job offer which was a job with the U.S. Department of Agriculture as an internal auditor, traveling around auditing all the different agricultural programs. And after I finished my training period, they gave me New England as my territory, which was great. But then came 1960, and I wanted to get married. And my supervisor came up to visit me one 21 time and I told him, I said, Hey Charlie, I really like this work, but I’d like to get off the road so that I could get married. And he arranged for me to come to D.C. and take a job as a reviewer of the audit reports prepared by others and doing some auditing in D.C., and that’s how I came. Connie and I got married in July of ’60 and moved down to D.C. Then she got a job teaching down there in Fairfax County, and I continued to work at the Department of Agriculture while I was going through law school. And then when I got out of law school, I never had any real desire to be a lawyer, but I liked the law and I was really challenged at Georgetown. But by the time I got out of, when I started law school, I had no children and I was a GS-9, I think. And when I got out of law school I had two children and I was a grade 13. And I didn’t, I looked around but I didn’t get any job offers. I think I was something like 150 in my class when we started. I think it was 150 out of 300, very close to the middle. And then when we graduated four years later I was 75 out of 150. I had found my niche. So, but that was ’65, and then in ’65 I got the opportunity to work in the overseas audit part of the — we had become a larger agency and we were part of the first Office of the Inspector General in the federal government. USDA had the first one. And so in ’66 I started my overseas travel and got to spend six weeks in Rio de Janeiro and Copacabana beach. And then a year later I was promoted to be in charge of it, and I ended up going to Africa and Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan, India and Iran, you know. I can tell you all kinds of war stories about that period, but the problem there was I had two kids, small kids at home, and I was gone for six weeks at a time. 22 So that didn’t work out too well, and so, just by chance I picked up the Washington Post one morning, and I saw that they were making a, calling for a study of the D.C. court system ‘cause it was a real mess. And instead of hiring a management consulting firm, they were going to hire a director that in turn would hire his own staff, so I thought that this would be a good combination of my auditing experience and my law education. So I applied and became one of the, there was about five of us that were in the core group that worked on that study. I left Agriculture. I got a leave of absence but my boss who let me go said, “We’re not going to see you again. I’ll keep the position open for a year but — ” In any event, the study lasted a year, June ’68 to something ’69, and I ended up, you know, it was the whole court system in the District. The local and the federal. It was a mess, and we divided up the responsibility, and I ended up being in charge of studying the administration of the U.S. District Court and the civil, managing the civil calendar of the U.S. District Court and the Marshal’s office, and I forget what else I did. But that was, it was right up my alley. As an auditor, you learn how to find out where the weak spots are, and they weren’t hard to find. Mr. Hollman: Jim, I think that’s probably a good place to start out next time because that’s a fruitful area for many stories. [This concludes TAPE #1 on May 13th at 11:08] 23 Interview of James F. Davey Session #2 – May 29, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. This interview was conducted by telephone on May 29, 2008, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hollman: Greetings. Mr. Davey: Hi, Steve, good to talk to you again. Mr. Hollman: It’s nice to speak to you. I have regards for you from the current clerk, Nancy Mayer-Whittington, with whom I met this morning. Mr. Davey: Oh, is that the first time you met her? Mr. Hollman: I think I had met her before, but the first time I actually sat down and had a conversation with her. Mr. Davey: Oh, great! She’s a wonderful lady. Mr. Hollman: She is terrific, and she was extremely helpful. And I actual went away with what’s marked a “History File” on Watergate, which is fascinating reading. Mr. Davey: Oh, well you know, after I talked to you last time, you thought that Nancy might have some stuff, and I said I didn’t think so, but I guess we did leave her some stuff. Mr. Hollman: A lot of it is correspondence with National Archives about material that was sent over to the Archives, but it includes, for example, the Exhibit List from the trial which itself is fascinating reading. Mr. Davey: Yeah — you can get — not bogged down, but it’s some pretty interesting stuff went on those days. Well I’m glad you met her. Of all the things I achieved in 20 years as the Clerk of that Court, I consider my greatest achievement getting the 24 court to promote somebody from the Clerk staff rather than going outside like they had to do for me, and — I shouldn’t say it was an achievement, but it was a goal that I had for a number of years. And for them to pick a female non-lawyer represented a complete change in the thinking that had been prevalent ‘til I got there. You had to be a white male lawyer to be clerk of a district court. That’s no longer true, and it’s to the court’s benefit. I don’t know if anybody’s done a history for her, but she has achieved wonders there. She started as a Grade 4 or 5 Deputy Jury Clerk. Mr. Hollman: She said it was Grade 4, and she asked me to remind you that Greg Hughes was hired at the same time, and that she was hired as a Grade 4 but he came in as a Grade 5, and she had to take the typing test and he didn’t. Mr. Davey: [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: So she wondered whether the fact that he played softball with you had anything to do with that. Mr. Davey: I tell you what, if he didn’t play softball he wouldn’t be there. Funny story about Greg is that he and I played softball on a team, and he was looking for work, and I found him a temporary job. My recollection is he started as a temp in the data processing, and as soon as he got the job he quit the team. And I said, “Greg, what’s going on?” And he said, “Well, I don’t like to have to do too much. Before, I had to play softball. Now I have to work.” [Laughter] He’s a different sort, Greg Hughes. Mr. Hollman Nancy, you know, I asked her about women in the Clerk’s office, and she said, actually, the office itself was predominately women largely because a lot of the 25 work was clerical work, and so it required people who could type, and you would never ask a man if he could type. Mr. Davey: That’s right. Well you know, while we’re thinking about it, the court was built in the early ‘50s — wasn’t Truman president? I think that was the case. In any event, the men’s room for the Clerk’s office was much larger than the ladies’ room, much larger. And some years later, we hired a gal, we then had progressed from just Deputy Clerks to different kinds of jobs, and she was an administrative assistant. And after she got feeling comfortable she says, “Why is the men’s room larger than the ladies’ room when you got many more female employees?” So I said, “Well, how do you know that’s true?” [Laughter] And in any event, we ended up switching them, with a few minor modifications. I said yeah, it makes sense. Yes, those jobs historically went to females, and the days when they wore white gloves preceded my tenure, but at one point they did, to accept papers. By the way, you had asked if there was anybody that you could contact, and I didn’t have anybody other than Nancy. I don’t know if she mentioned Bob Lowney. You might just jot his name down. He’s the head of the Clerks Division in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now. And he worked for us at one point. And the one time Nancy and I didn’t agree on a personnel matter when we were filling the job of the head of the computer section, she wanted Bob Lowney, and I went with somebody in the Jury office that had more years of service. So Bob was disappointed, and he ended up going to work in another court, but then he ended up going up the ladder there and is now the head of the Clerks Division there. I remember that one of our innovations was to have a 26 management retreat away from the courthouse, and I had a beach house down in North Carolina and arranged to have my senior management staff go down, but we didn’t have any males, so I brought Bob along to clean our act up a bit, and you might think of talking to Bob. He might have some perspectives on this. Mr. Hollman: She also suggested Judge Tom Jackson. Mr. Davey: Who? Mr. Hollman: Judge Jackson, who I think spoke at your retirement party. Mr. Davey: Oh yes he did. He was the judge that controlled our use, we had a fund that we got from charging admission to the bar and the use of the funds had to be for the benefit of the bench and the bar. And gradually, thanks to Judge Jackson, we got to do some good things with that money. You know, TVs for the jury lounge, and I think we ended up even using it to give awards to employees. I’m not sure of that, but yeah, he was a pleasure to work with and we made sure that we used the money, but never so it could, to the detriment of the court, you know, liquor and the like. Yeah, he’d be good. Mr. Hollman: Well she said he was one the most approachable of the Federal District Court Judges. Mr. Davey: He was, no question about it. Mr. Hollman: And she also credited you with professionalizing the Clerk’s office. Mr. Davey: And rightly so. [Laughter] No, that’s true. If you saw the study, I’m sure you did, what we were looking at when we were making the study back in the late ‘60s is a far cry from what you’d see there today. And it took a while to get there. Mr. Hollman: I asked what the major changes were, and she said when she arrived, you were still using typewriters, so the computerization of the courthouse, and she said you 27 started with the mainframe system and also housed the computer system for the entire country. Mr. Davey: Yes, yes, she remembers well. We had a small — that was one of my first steps, to set up a small data processing outfit, and they would keypunch data into cards about cases. This is once we went to the individual calendar system. And we had a private firm pick those keypunch cards up at night and run ‘em for us. Yes, in fact we were one of the first courts – this is now two or three or four years after we started, maybe even longer — to convert. We could spend a whole session on the implementing data processing in the court because it made some major changes. Today, for example, Nancy’s achieved, since I’ve been gone, electronic filing of documents. You know, they don’t need to file a piece of paper. Can you believe that? Mr. Hollman: Yes, she said no need for the white gloves any more, because no one even comes to the Clerk’s office anymore. Mr. Davey: Yes, yes. It’s just amazing. But if you think about it, the courts are just processing information, and the goal was to get as much information to as many people as possible with as little effort as possible, rather than relying strictly on paper. Yes, it was a natural place to have data processing, and it just, we had a hard time just getting rid of the typewriters, getting rid of the manual typewriters. The first step was to get electric typewriters, and I was told that that was going to be a big mistake because what are we going to do when the power goes out? That’s why we’re saving some of these manual typewriters. We never did have a power outage. 28 Mr. Hollman: She described docket sheets that were kept in tubs by year. And she said very often we would come to inspect a docket sheet for a case and find that it had gone missing and assumed that was because one of the judges’ law clerks had come down to borrow it at night. Mr. Davey: Well, the tubs were a great innovation, because prior to the tubs, here’s what happened: an attorney would file a document, say an answer to a complaint. A counter clerk sitting at the counter would take that document and write on a piece of paper “Answer filed in case number such and such,” and she’d just sit at the counter all day and take these documents in and then the sheets that she prepared summarizing the information on the document that she had handled would be given to another deputy who would then go over to the shelf where all the docket sheets were in post binders. And I always said that even though we always had female docket clerks, you didn’t want to mess with them because after lifting those docket books all day, they were strong. But they would have to take the docket book apart, find the right sheet, type the entry, put the sheet back in, close up the binder, put it back on the shelf. And I came in with the idea of taking them out of the binders, putting them in tubs and dividing the work up by last digits. That way you could equalize the workload over time. You know, if Mary had digits one and two, and Sue had digits three and four, over time those cases would even out in workload. Of course, when you’d have a big one, we had to get into a different system when we had class action cases. In any event, Bob Stearns, who was the Clerk — I was appointed — I got to back up a bit. I worked on the study, and then after the study finished in ’69, we were all looking for work. And low and behold, the District Court called me 29 up and asked if I would be interested in an interviewing for the job of Chief Deputy, and I was very surprised because I had been very critical of the court. I don’t know if you read the, you probably read some of those reports. And it would mean I would be going to work for the Clerk who I had indicated, really, even though he was a professional in the old sense of the word — high integrity, hard worker and all — he was not a manager. And consequently, the court’s business wasn’t getting managed well. I would be reporting to him. So they worked out a special arrangement so I could report directly to the Chief Judge in case I had problems with the Clerk. And I didn’t have to use that route too often, but in any event, he warned me, the old Clerk warned me that the worst thing that could happen is if you lose a docket sheet. That’s the only record we have of the case. And you put them in these tubs, and, you know, they’re going to get lost. But for the sake of efficiency we put them in the tubs, and I also pointed out, I don’t have the statute at hand, that it wouldn’t mean the end of the world if we lost one of those sheets because there’s a provision for recreating it, you know, with the attorneys’ help, it’s in the statutes. So we went on, and you could move those tubs around, roll them around if Mary didn’t show up, push them over to Sue’s desk. But I’ll never forget the lady that was head of dockets. The old-timers were really conflicted because they had loyalty to Bob Stearns, for the most part, the old timer. And this new kid — I was only in my mid-thirties coming in — trying to get them to make all these major changes, caused some problems. And when I divided the work up by digits and put the dockets in tubs, Miriam Jenkins — Miriam Jenkins was her name — when she retired she raised horses, and she 30 named a horse after me — the whole horse not just the rear of the horse. [Laughter] She invited me up to West Virginia, you know Charleston, for Jim Davey’s maiden race. Fact I’ve got it up here. The son of a gun won! [Laughter] That was something. Then another thing, the last time I told you I was at Pearl Harbor December 7th, Jim Davey won a race on December 7 . Unbelievable! th But we’ve digressed. In any event, Miriam had some doubts about this tub business. And there was one male deputy out of the five docket clerks, four females and one male. And she’d come into me, and she says, “you know Reuben” — his name was Reuben, I forget his last name — “he’s not getting a fair share of the work. I don’t know what about — there’s something about his cases; he just gets easy cases all the time.” Well it turned out that Reuben was more efficient, and he didn’t talk as much as the females. But I couldn’t convince Miriam of this. But I had an opportunity when one of the females retired or got another job or whatever. I thought, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’ll just switch Rueben to her digits and wait for Miriam. And sure enough, a few months go by. Miriam comes in and says, “Jim you’re not going to believe this. You know, Reuben’s getting the easy cases again.” [Laughter] Whatever. Mr. Hollman: Now was Reuben involved in the pinochle games that I heard about down in the basement? Mr. Davey: Oh, Reuben was not, no Reuben wasn’t, but the file clerks surely were. That’s where we kept old cases. And man, when somebody came in looking for an old 31 case, that was prime time for the file people: “I’ll go get it.” [Laugher] Oh, yeah, that’s the old days. Mr. Hollman: I heard that you engendered some dissatisfaction when you terminated the pinochle game. Mr. Davey: I engendered dissatisfaction with a number of things, Steve, and I’ll give you one example. The people in the Clerk’s office worked from 8:00 to 4:30 with an hour for lunch, and they got paid for eight hours. And I said, “That’s not right. That you’re working seven and one-half hours.” They said you just can’t eat lunch in half an hour. So I was, we were, I should say we because I didn’t do anything on my own. I mean, I would get the ideas and, you know, you need people to implement them. We were one of the first to implement a flextime system. And under this system that I proposed, was that you could come in within certain hours, you didn’t have to be there from 8:00 to 4:30. You could come in at 7:30 one day; you could come in at quarter of eight the next, whatever, but during peak staffing periods, it was up to the supervisor to be sure that there were “X” amount of bodies when you had the most work. And then as long as that core period was covered by the minimum needed, then you had a lot of flexibility. But when you went to lunch you signed out, the clock stopped, you were on your own. And when you finished lunch, you came back and you signed in. And I personally followed the same thing: sign in, sign out. Well lo and behold, once they were lunching on their own time, most of them did it in half an hour. But I submitted that proposal for the flextime to different divisions, the Courtroom Division, the Dockets Division, the Jury Division and the Data Processing Division, and told them if you want to, vote on 32 it. And everybody voted it down because it was a proposal coming from management, except data processing. And data processing took it up and loved it. I mean, you know, if you had a doctor’s appointment, you didn’t have to take sick leave, you know, just as long as you made your 80 hours in a two-week period. We were very flexible, although as years went on, Nancy got me even more flexible. Nine-day work week, working at home, we were one of the first to experiment with that. Family leave — if the kids were sick, you could take sick leave. In any event, after a few months of the data processing, the grumbling started, these people are being selected for special treatment. I said, “Wait a minute; we had a vote.” [Laughter] So eventually the whole office went to it, and I think Nancy still has some of that. But well, we digressed, I thought we were going to talk about the study. Mr. Hollman: I have one more question before we get there, and that is, was there any sort of dress code at the Clerk’s office when you arrived? Mr. Davey: Yes, Bob Stearns got very upset with me. He wore a jacket and a tie every day, and I wore a jacket and tie every day. But I took my jacket off when I was at my desk. And he came in one day and let me know that that wasn’t right. I had to wear my jacket all the time. And I said, “Bob I appreciate it when I’m out mingling with the troops, but I work best with my jacket off.” And the way we compromised, I closed my door. Yes, guys had to have ties, and then we, if I remember, the files division complaining because of the heat and whatever, that they didn’t want to wear ties. And I was pretty strict on that. 33 And they said, well over at the Court of General Sections, they don’t have to wear ties. And somehow, I think Judge Hart was the Chief Judge, and one of them went around my back to Judge Hart. And Judge Hart said, “Well, Neil,” or whatever the guy’s name was, “if you don’t want to wear a tie, you can go to work in the Court of General Sessions.” And that was the end of that. That was in the early ‘70s, and then I recall we just had to have a good dress shirt and pants. And I forget the code for women, but yes, there was a dress code, and it came under fire from time to time. Mr. Hollman: Nancy told me that you very politely and yet very firmly made it known to Bob Stearns that you would not be wearing your jacket at your desk. Mr. Davey: She told you that? Mr. Hollman: Yes, she did. Mr. Davey: She remembered that, then. He was a gentleman. But he was just symptomatic — his attitude towards his work was totally professional, you know, you serve the judges. Whatever the judges want, they get. And I remember asking him during the study, how many civil cases do you get in a year, Bob? And what kind are they, and how many do you terminate? I was coming in from the outside, just trying to figure out what their workload was. He says, “What difference does it make how many cases we have or what kind they are? We’re here five days a week, eight hours a day, and there’s more work than we can handle. That’s all you need to know.” And he was very sincere about that. And that explains how I got into the court system with that study of the, you know, in the late ‘60s, the backlogs that all of the courts were experiencing. It was not so much a function The Committee on the Administration of Justice of the Judicial Council of the District of 5 Columbia Circuit, created by the Judicial Council on March 15, 1966, and consisting of lawyers in active practice in the District of Columbia, undertook in 1968 to assemble a staff consisting of eight men and women to make a thorough, impartial and objective study of the management of the five courts of the District of Columbia and related agencies, with a view to developing recommendations for the improvement of the administration of justice. The Committee was chaired by Newell W. Ellison and included Stephen Ailes, Edmund D. Campbell, Frederick H. Evans, Thomas A. Flannery, Alexander B. Hawes, Barrington D. Parker, John H. Pickering, James Francis Reilly, Daniel A. Rezneck, Samuel Spencer and John J. Wilson. The May 1970 Report of the Committee on Administration of Justice was published as part of the “Court Management Study,” a Report of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, 91 Cong., st 2d Sess., Part 1, May 1970. The project staff that undertook the Court Management Study included James F. Davey, whose responsibilities focused on the U. S. District Court civil case flow and administrative management and the U.S. Attorney’s office. A summary of the staff report is included at pp. 41-54 of Part 2 of the Senate Committee Report. The portion of the detailed reports covering the United States District Court is included at pp. 1-103 of Part 2 of the Senate Committee Report. 34 of workload. It was a function of how you dealt with that workload, either as a judge and/or as a non-judicial person. And you just needed systems in place and people with proper training. And you saw what happened. The courts thought they needed more judges and more supporting personnel. And it turned out they didn’t need more of either, and they ended up getting rid of their backlogs once they changed their systems. Mr. Hollman: Let’s talk about the recommendations that arose from the Court Management Study and D.C. court reform as a result of that study. First, tell me again how 5 you were selected to participate in the Court Management Study. Mr. Davey: Okay. You know, there was this effort to reform the D.C. court system, which had a significant case backlog — [End of TAPE 1, Side A; begin TAPE 1, Side B] — and they weren’t making much progress, so they concluded that they needed an outside management look at the D.C. court system. That includes the U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court, Court of General Sessions, the local Court of Appeals, the Family Court and so on. 35 So they got money from — I think Ford Foundation was the biggest one. But ironically Russell Sage Foundation put up $30,000, and my mother had gone to Russell Sage. And they set up a committee of lawyers, Committee on the Administration of Justice — Newell Ellison from Covington & Burling happened to chair it during our period, and it was through that committee that they worked to get a management group. And the management group would be reporting to this group of high-priced attorneys — Newell Ellison, John Pickering — a lot of the lawyers on the committee ended up being federal court judges — Judge Gesell, Judge Flannery, Judge Pratt — all of them — Judge June Green, I think — came out of that committee. Well, what they did, then, is they advertised, and they got a director for the study. Dave Saari, he was a court administrator out in Portland, Maine — not Portland, Oregon. And then it was his job to, in turn, hire staff. And so there was an ad in the paper one day in the Washington Post, or a story about it. And I thought that, well, you know, with my ten years of internal auditing experience with Agriculture where I was working, plus the fact that I had gotten a law degree at night, that would be a good use of both, you know, my work experience and my education. So I applied to be one of the staff members, and Dave interviewed me, and I got hired along with several other people. They’re listed in that book. But the key people were Harvey Solomon and Maureen McPeak, myself and Dave, and then we had some others that did little bits and pieces, but at the risk of forgetting somebody, it was the four of us. And eventually it turned out — so then this was this inter-disciplinary group that was going to study this court system. None of us had ever worked 36 together. We came from different disciplines. It was interesting getting this ball rolling, to say the least. You can appreciate that. Different personalities and whatever. I felt — I was one of the most comfortable because there was, you know, I had just spent ten years going into organizations, looking at how they were operating and trying to come up with better ways of doing things. So I had a pretty easy transition. Harvey and Maureen had no real problems either. She had been a court analyst before, and Harvey — I know he was Kennedy School of Government, a bright guy. So we all hit it off, and most of the staff got along well. And the only real problems that developed ultimately was Dave Saari, the director, just couldn’t put all of the pieces together when we came to write the final report, and he also had come in and — he had prior court experience, and he tried to impose what he did in Oregon into D.C. And some of it worked, and some of it didn’t. But he didn’t take the time to analyze what was really going on in the court in an objective way. And I’m being a little bit critical of him. I’ll say this, he was excellent at selecting people. He had good people. And I will also say this, and I wrote down, Harvey, one of the best things that came out of the study was Harvey Solomon and Maureen McPeak got married. Harvey and Maureen really did most of the work on a final report, and Dave just wasn’t up to the task. But I’ve got Harvey’s and Maureen’s phone number, Steve, if you wanted to follow through and get their perspective on the study. Mr. Hollman: Sure. Mr. Davey: They live out in Colorado. They both went on to outstanding careers in court administration, Maureen as an individual consultant and Harvey headed up the 37 Institute for Court Management. So in any event, we did the study, and as you can see from the two reports, even before the study, the Committee for the Administration of Justice had already concluded the two major, well, two of the major things that were — maybe they hit on all of them. One was that the courts had master calendar systems where the Bar controlled the calendar rather than the court, and the other thing was that they had leased the — I guess both courts — I stayed with the District Court — but both courts, there was a need for a court executive that would look over the non-judicial operations of the courts and bring in professional management, develop training programs, bring in data processing, and consolidate some functions. In the District Court they had the office of Pretrial Examiner, they had the Assignment Commissioner’s office, they had the Clerk’s office — all of them playing some role at some time in the processing of cases but none of them talking to one another for the most part. It was just paper swirling around, and the Bar determined it. It was up to the attorneys to decide when they were ready to go to trial, rather than the court. And as you might imagine, attorneys don’t always want to go down and get that thing done — let’s put it off until next week. It was just chaotic. I mean it was just huge files where you had case continued, case continued, motion heard, motion denied, set up pretrial, reschedule. You know, it was unbelievable. But it wasn’t atypical. That was the way most courts operated, but some federal courts — I forget which ones, one or two — had started — I want to thank Judge Murrah, who was head of the Federal Judicial Center that was created in ’68 for bringing the idea of the individual calendar. And then there was a judge out of Chicago. I’m sorry. If I had documents to refresh my recollection, you know, I could be more specific, 38 but I do know that at the time we were making our study, other federal courts, a couple of them, had gone to the individual calendar, and it seemed to be exactly what the District Court needed. And there had not been any district court executives established in the federal system, but some of the big state courts had gone that way. So the Committee on Administration of Justice had preconceived ideas that these things would help, and they were right. And then our study flushed out the details and then found a number of other things. Oh, there are so many things. The lawyers would manipulate who they got before. I’ll just give you an example. Judge Bryant, God rest his soul, he was one of the best human beings I ever had the pleasure to know. But he was a lenient sentencer. And when he rotated into — you know, he didn’t have cases assigned to him. They just had different compartments. You’d be the sentencing judge for two or three months or you’d be the long motions judge for two or three months in civil and a short motions judge and then the trial judge. And then you’d rotate the assignments. But the cases wouldn’t rotate. So the criminal defense attorneys would love it when Judge Bryant was the sentencing judge because they had a better chance of getting an easier sentence. And then he wouldn’t be the only judge that they’d try to get. I didn’t start the criminal calendar. It was Dave Saari who did that. You’d go in there on sentencing day and there would be three or four deputy clerks processing files. I mean it was just chaos in the courtroom. Well, this — and they would — Friday was sentencing day. And I mean the place would just be flooded with prisoners, and it was chaotic. And I remember the marshals 39 saying, we need more buses, we don’t have enough buses to bring all of these guys and gals down here, mostly guys. And I said, well, I wonder if the court would just, you know, not hold all of the sentences on one day. Maybe if you had some on Tuesday and some on Thursday you wouldn’t need more buses. Eventually, with the individual calendar, that’s what happened. But it was just totally inefficient, and I — my side of the study was the civil calendar of the District Court and the administration of the District Court. And I remember they had an office of Pretrial Examiner that pretried all of the cases. And I found that this was the backlog. And I also found that Judge McGuire who, when I got there, was a senior judge, but he had set up the office of Pretrial Examiner with help of Congress. He testified before Congress to get authority to have this thing back in the late ‘50s. And then I proved that after they put that thing in, even though cases declined, the workload declined, their backlogs increased after putting the Pretrial Examiner’s office in. So Judge McGuire and I did not get off on the right foot. In fact, I remember I had a couple of tough moments with him. He was only a senior judge but he still — he was a specialist in patent law, and he really didn’t like me for suggesting that they abolish this program that he gotten authorized. But he was a good Irishman. But one of our problems was that we didn’t have enough court reporters for the senior judges, and they couldn’t always get them on the bench when they wanted to go on the bench. So he had this patent case one day, and he had a roomful of attorneys in his chambers. And he called me up, and these attorneys had come in from New York, and he says something like this: Gentlemen, this is our Clerk, Mr. Davey, and he’s the one 40 responsible for us not being able to be out in the courtroom right now because he’s unable to get us a court reporter. About that time, Judge Hart, he was my third chief — my first was Curran, my second was Sirica, my third was Judge Hart. Judge Hart called — I loved that man dearly. I would see him four or five times a day for a total of four or five minutes. Whenever something came across his desk, he dealt with it. And I’d get a call, get up here. But I loved working for him because he was so doggoned decisive, you know? In any event, I’m in Judge McGuire’s chambers with all of these attorneys, and the call comes through, Judge Hart wants to see me. I said, “You’re supposed to be on the bench. You had a criminal trial; I brought some jurors in for you.” Remind me to tell you about jurors, Steve. I said well — he said, “I got a guilty plea.” And I said, “Well, then you don’t need your reporter.” And he said, “Of course not.” And I said, “Can I let Judge McGuire have him?” “Of course.” So I hung up the phone, and I said, “Gentlemen, we’ll be ready to go in about five minutes.” But eventually — I’ll never forget, Judge McGuire, a few years down the road, we had gotten through some tough times, he said, “You know, Jim, we started down opposite sides of the road, but we ended up walking down the road together.” And that meant a lot to me. But in any event, the study showed massive delays and lack of management, and recommended that the court adopt an individual calendar 41 system for civil and criminal cases and get a court executive. The court at that time was split, and one of the things that I learned early in the process, and this I learned from Judge Gesell — he was on the personnel committee that interviewed me. And Judge AubreyRobinson chaired it, and Judge Gesell was on it, and Judge Jones, another one of my favorites, was on it. And they interviewed me and some other candidates. Bob Stearns — let’s see, I came in October of ’69, and Bob Stearns retired the following year. And so I think I was appointed in either November or December of 1970. But during the interview, Judge Gesell said, “Mr. Davey, if you are appointed Clerk, you are inheriting a racist organization, and we’re going to want you to do something about it, and we don’t want quality to suffer.” And I began to understand the difference between a judge and a clerk. And the funny thing about the racist organization — the judges were authorized when I got there — Mr. Hollman: To have bailiffs? Mr. Davey: They had bailiffs, right. Mr. Hollman: And they desperately needed the bailiffs, I’m guessing? Mr. Davey: What was that, Steve? Mr. Hollman: They desperately needed those bailiffs? Mr. Davey: Yes. I mean we had — Mr. Hollman: Until they found out that they could have law clerks, additional law clerks instead, and then they didn’t need the bailiffs quite so much I understand? 42 Mr. Davey: There you go. But being very thoughtful people and not wanting to turn the bailiffs out onto the street, they called the Clerk’s office up and said, “Mr. Stearns, find a job for my bailiff.” So most of the lower-level employees in the Clerk’s office were in the file slots, and they were former bailiffs. And I’ll never forget one time — I got two stories about this. The first story is that Judge Jones, wonderful judge and one that would really — he had a reputation, you know, for being the best prepared judge of all — and he’d go through these thick files, and man, we had a lot of misfilings. No doubt about it. He called me up one day and he showed me this file, and he says, “Jim, you’ve got to do something about this. You know, we just can’t go on this way.” And I said, “Yeah, if I could find somebody other than former bailiffs like yours — ” [Laughter] And he looked at me, and he says, “Oh, you got me.” [Laughter] Another story about Judge Jones, it was in his era — let’s see, he came after Hart. Let’s see. It was Chief Judge Curran, Chief Judge Sirica, Chief Judge Hart, Chief Judge Jones, Chief Judge Bryant, Chief Judge Smith, who would have liked to have me fired, and then Chief Judge Robinson. So this was in the late ‘70s when we finally got some computer printouts of cases. And I made sure that the data was correct, and I had his cases listed by case number order. I had them by date filed. Any way you wanted to look at them. And I brought these computer printouts up to him, and I was showing him, and he says, “Jim, let me tell you something.” He says, “I practiced law for X number of years and I’ve been a judge for X number of years and I’ve never read a computer printout and I 43 ain’t gonna start now.” So much for showing my chief. He said, “That’s good stuff for Clerk’s office, though.” I’ll never forget — well, to back up a bit. So, the thrust of the study, the two main thrusts, are go into an individual calendar, court take control, get it away from the bar, and also get some modern management in there. But the judges have to make the decision. The Chief Judge has no more power than any other judge when it comes to voting on something, so when they voted for the individual calendar in ’69 the vote was 8-7, which meant there were a lot of the judges hoping this thing would fail. It’s like anything else, Steve. You just don’t go in and waive a wand and everybody says, oh my God, why didn’t I see this? This is so clear; this is what we have to do. Mr. Hollman: Well, did case assignments change with court reform and the manner in which cases were assigned to particular judges? Mr. Davey: That was part of the court reform, yes. Mr. Hollman: And so what was the old system, and how did it change? Mr. Davey: Where was the old system? Mr. Hollman: Yes, how were cases assigned before the reform? Mr. Davey: They weren’t assigned. For example, in the civil, a civil case would be filed, and no judge would be assigned until a motion was filed, and then they’d go to the — if it was a long motion, you know, long in the sense that it would take more than 45 minutes to hear it, it went on the long motions calendar, and whatever judge was sitting on long motions that month would hear that. Okay? And then we go back in the file room where the bailiffs would misfile and/or play pinochle — I mean, that’s an exaggeration, but I mean it’s not too far. So then there’d be a 44 short motion, and then the judge on the short motion calendar would hear it. And then there’d be a certificate of readiness would be filed, and they’d call the ready calendar. But there could be eight or nine different judges on one case, and finally when it was set for — they’d have either a jury trial or a non-jury trial. And if it was set for a jury trial and Judges Jones and Hart and Bryant were in there, one of those three would get the non-jury trial, and if it was a jury trial, whoever was sitting — they’d rotate their assignments, the judges, every three to six months. So a judge was never associated with a case, you know, until it was terminated. But on the individual calendar system, as soon as that case was filed, well, for example, that’s Judge Gesell’s, and it’s his baby, and we’d notify him, Hey, Judge Gesell, you’ve got a case and this is it. And then he would take control of it, and he was the best. Did I answer your question about the master system? Mr. Hollman: Yes. So didn’t the judges feel like they were getting more control over their dockets when you went to an individual case calendar? Mr. Davey: Oh, yes. But the concept — the mindset was it’s not the court’s duty to move cases along. We’re here to serve the Bar. All right? And when the Bar is ready, we’re here. But that had to change to, okay, it’s the Bar’s business until the case is filed. And when the case is filed, it becomes the court’s business. And once it’s the court’s business, the judge is going to tell you how long you have to file your motions, how long for discovery, when we’re going to set a pretrial date and so on. So they did the criminal calendar in ’69, and that went fairly easy. I’d have to refresh my recollection again but I think the U.S. Attorney assigns a 45 couple of attorneys to each judge. But in the civil side — one of my first jobs was to develop a plan for converting because after they did the criminal calendar, the judges said, okay — I think it was an 8-7 vote again — let’s do civil, and we’re going to do that in May of 1970. We had about 4,000 pending civil cases, and we got 15 active judges that we were going to randomly assign these to, and we don’t have a real good information system. We did have something that we got from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. What I tried to do was phase it in, but they said we’re all going on May 15 , 1970, and I gave all of the th judges, on May 1 or whenever it was, all of the judges these computer printouts of what I thought were their pending cases. And they all wanted all of their files all at the same time. It was chaos! Actually, it wasn’t that bad but it was bad. The courtroom deputies, I had reorganized so that we had consolidated the Assignment Commissioner’s office — it used to be a separate office — and we made people calendar clerks that would help the courtroom deputies, and we’d have a courtroom deputy and a calendar clerk for each judge. Actually, we’d have one calendar clerk for two judges. And between the two of them, the courtroom deputy and the calendar clerk, they’d try to find the files. That got things going. So that was very trying days for the courtroom deputies who didn’t really want the individual assignment system. It put more responsibility on them, but I also got them some pay raises for — that they now were going to manage, help their judge manage their calendar. So Judge Gesell was the only one that kept his bailiff and only had one law clerk. And throughout his tenure he had the most current calendar of any of 46 the judges using one law clerk rather than two and using his very basic principles of calendar control, you know, get the attorneys in quick, try to resolve, identify what the real issues are, see what can be settled, what can’t be, and then the complicated ones, you set different times. Every time you set a hearing, you keep it. You don’t continue it. And you set a firm trial date early, and you hold it. And ninety percent of the — no matter what you do with civil cases, ninety percent of them settle before trial. I don’t know if that’s still true, but the idea was setting a firm trial date and sticking to it. [End TAPE 1; Begin TAPE 2, Side A] Mr. Hollman: This is tape 2 from session number 2 on May 29 shortly after 5:00. Go right th ahead. Mr. Davey: So different judges worked at different cases and I think Judge Penn as I recall was — the lawyers finally went to the Court of Appeals to take cases away from him or whatever. I don’t know how that ever came out, but lawyers were reluctant to do something with the judge even though, you know, that judge was denying them justice by denying them speedy trial. So that was one of the flaws in the individual calendar system, but overall, it worked much better for litigants and the Bar and it’s fully adopted, it eventually was adopted by all the Federal Courts. Mr. Hollman: Talk if you will about the transfer of jurisdictions from the Federal District Court to the Court of General Sessions. Mr. Davey: Oh there was, let’s see, the big thing was that the U.S. District Court on the civil side would have matters normally heard in a state court if the amount involved was alleged to be $10,000 or more, and attorneys who wanted to come to the 47 District Court just alleged $10,000, whether it was true or not, and part of the shifting of the jurisdiction was to get rid of all the cases that would be local in nature on the civil side; and on the criminal side, shift the state felonies that the District Court was handling to the Court of General Sessions so it would be like a pure state-federal system in any other state. But up until that court reorganization, there wasn’t enough trust in the local court to let them have felony jurisdiction or big civil cases. And part of the reorganization was to create more judges in the Court of General Sessions, I believe, and pay them more so that they could attract higher quality people. And that was phased, that jurisdiction issue was phased in over a period of years, and we also had mental health jurisdiction that we shifted over to the Court of General Sessions and register of wills. But the big thing, and I would have to go back and see what the timeline was for shifting the jurisdiction, but I think by the mid ‘70s we were no longer a mixed jurisdiction. We were purely a federal court except for anything that was pending at the time. Does that answer your question? Mr. Hollman: Yes. I noticed in the report that the proposal was for a more limited transfer of jurisdiction. Was there any controversy over that point? Mr. Davey: I know that what prevailed was the point of getting rid of all what would be purely state matter, getting rid of it, and we did get rid of all that. We didn’t keep anything that was strictly local. I don’t recall the issue. Maybe they didn’t want to give them too much at one time. Mr. Hollman: I think that’s the sense I got from reading the report, and I wondered whether Home Rule issues played into that debate? 48 Mr. Davey: Harvey, give Harvey a call. Mr. Hollman: What about the proposal for a judicial nominating commission and the statement that politics frequently was playing too great a part in the selection of judges? Mr. Davey: I didn’t get involved in that much, Steve, and that wasn’t my angle of the study. And I don’t have a specific recollection of that. Mr. Hollman: Okay, well let me ask this then because this sort of segues into what I had to spend a good deal of the next session talking about, which is Watergate, and that’s politics at the courthouse. Mr. Davey: Politics in the courthouse. What I learned very early is that there isn’t one center of power in the courthouse. It’s every judge is a center of power, and then you have their secretaries who are also centers of power. Doris Brown for Judge Gesell was a good example of that. So you’d best be aware that in a court of fifteen judges there’s about thirty different people — fifteen judges and fifteen secretaries — that all think they’re number one. And I don’t necessarily mean that in a negative way; it’s just the reality. You know, if I’m a secretary to a federal judge who is appointed for life, I start to take on some of that, and these judges can get very independent. I’ll give you one example. Chief Judge Bazelon, who was the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, very highly respected, calls me one day and he says: “Mr. Davey, we have a case up here in the Court of Appeals that is already to go, but we can’t hear it because we don’t have the trial transcript, and we need that. It’s one of Judge Gasch’s cases.” And I said, “Well let me see what I can do.” 49 Judge Gasch was the judge of all the judges that thought his job was to be on the bench. Other judges would handle many of their matters off the bench, you know, settle and the like, but Judge Gasch said, “I’m a trial judge and that’s what I’m gonna do is I’m going to try cases.” Unfortunately, that created a heavy workload for his court reporters, and prior to my coming there, court reporters were assigned to individual judges rather than put into a pool and rotated to keep their workloads relatively easy, not easy, but equal and alike. So Dwayne Dushane was Judge Gasch’s court reporter, and he couldn’t get out of court to do his transcripts. And many of these reporters didn’t have a typist. They would not only take, the reporter would not only take the — record the official preceding in court, they’d transcribe it, because their notes were not readable by anybody else. And Dwayne was one of those guys, and so I — he had a tremendous backlog — so I went up to Judge Gasch, and Judge Gasch and I got along okay but there wasn’t any real warmth there, or kidding or whatever. It was just kind of businesslike with Judge Gasch. But I never had any real problems with him. So I said, “Judge Gasch, Judge Bazelon told me about this case that they gotta hear but they can’t hear because they can’t get the trial transcript. And I tell you, I know Dwayne is — you know, you’re in the middle of a trial, but I have a competent court reporter that I can put in your courtroom and let Dwayne out so he can type this transcript up. And Judge Gasch looks at me, and he says “Mr. Davey, you go tell Judge Bazelon that I have a lifetime appointment, and he can go to hell.” I tell you, it was just as clear as that. 50 And I thought a minute, and I said, “Judge Gasch, since you have a lifetime appointment, and Judge Bazelon has a lifetime appointment, and I don’t, would you mind communicating with Judge Bazelon?” He kind of laughed at that. And you know, I don’t really remember how we resolved it. I think we finally — I don’t think Gasch ever accepted another reporter, but I think Dwayne eventually got the transcript out. But that is just one example of how independent these people were. Another good example was when on the Watergate case — at some point we need to talk about jury utilization, too. We did an awful lot in there. Nancy was a big part of that. Saved millions of dollars throughout the judiciary with the help of Judge Hart on the civil side and Judge Robinson on the criminal side. Just wasting jury money. But I asked Judge Sirica in the pretrial phases of Watergate, “Is there any other day than Monday that we can start this case, because all the judges like to try to start the jury cases on Monday and it just, it’s a load on Monday without Watergate. And then with Watergate, it’s really, it’s not impossible, but boy, it really would be nice if we set that for some other day.” He says, “I always go to trial on Monday.” So we set out, he asked the attorneys, this is in the pretrial stages, whether they would object to a juror questionnaire going out in advance to screen out potential jurors and get background on jurors, and he got the agreement of all the lawyers except John Wilson, that cagey old guy. He was representing Haldeman. And he says, “I reserve the right to object later.” And so that we went forward, and we went through all the screening process, and then two weeks before the 51 trial is scheduled to start, John Wilson objects to the array of jurors, call it pretrial publicity or whatever. So he thinks he’s got himself two or three more months, so Judge Sirica looks at me, and he says, “Mr. Davey, how long will it take you to get a new jury?” I said, “Well, if we don’t send a questionnaire out, I can have them here in two weeks. And Wilson looks at me, and he said, “What do you mean you can have them here in two weeks? You can’t do that.” And I said, “Yeah; that’s one of the first things we automated.” And before, the Clerk had to sign every, the law said you had to sign every summons that went out, and I said well, that’s just not, we can’t do that. And so we got it out. But I thought, there’s my chance to get the case started on other than Monday. And I made another pitch to Judge Sirica. I say, “Okay, now, can we start this on Tuesday or Wednesday?” “But Mr. Davey, I told you, we always go on Monday.” So they did the paper that it was gonna be scheduled on Monday, and I got a call from Judge Gesell, and he said, “Davey, don’t forget. You work for 15 judges, not just one. And I’ve got a case scheduled for that day, and I want my jurors.” Judge Gesell got his jurors, and Judge Gasch got his jurors, and Judge Sirica got his jurors, and we went — Mr. Hollman: And Judge Bazelon got his transcript, so everyone ended happy. 52 Mr. Davey: Yes but we’re talking about the centers of power, and there were times when — you know, I served at the pleasure of the court, and so my objective was to keep at least eight of them happy at all times, and if I had more than eight unhappy, that I’d try to keep them out of the same room. And I did come close to getting fired over — I’ll tell you this final story for today, okay? Judge Pratt made an inappropriate comment at the conclusion of some criminal case that his reporter, one of my best, duly recorded because it was part of the record. That’s his job. Judge Pratt calls the reporter in and asked him to change the transcript. The reporter doesn’t do it. Can’t do it. Judge Pratt calls me up and says he wants me to fire the reporter. Now I don’t know any of this background, and I said, “Judge Pratt, he’s one of our better reporters, and I haven’t had any complaints.” He said he’s spending too much time out of court. The reporters can make more money taking depositions than they could taking trial testimony, so by this time, we had evolved that — had a situation where we had no time standards for the reporters. But they had to, if they were not going to be in court, they had to provide a competent substitute. And that’s what Dwayne had been doing. And so there was no problem, and so there wasn’t any real basis for firing him, and I told Judge Pratt that. And I said, “Judge, I can’t fire him on that basis.” So then it turns out that Judge Smith, who really didn’t care too much for me because he and Harold Greene are former Chief Judges of the local court and they come over and they’re just judges, and I didn’t get Judge Smith’s courtroom deputy a parking spot because we had a system based on user service and grade 53 and he didn’t qualify. And Judge Smith thought that since he was a former Chief Judge of the local court, he was entitled to some — his courtroom deputy was entitled to some special whatever, and I said, “I’m sorry, Judge, but that’s not the system we have.” And he said, “You know, Davey, if you were over in the local court, you’d be fired.” So I said, “Well, I’m sorry. I don’t mean any disrespect.” But Judge Bryant was the Chief Judge at the time, and while I’m there, Judge Smith calls. He said, “Hey Bill, I got a problem here. Can Davey and I come over?” And, sure, so Davey and Judge Smith go over to Bryant’s chambers and Smith lays it all out, his side, that he’s the only judge whose courtroom deputy doesn’t have a parking spot, and Davey’s being insubordinate, whatever, and then he leaves without ever hearing from my side, and he assumes that Bill Bryant’s gonna rule in his favor. And I told Judge Bryant, and he said, “You know, what you’re doing makes sense, but you need to tweak it a bit. But you’re not gonna have to give Judge Smith’s courtroom deputy one.” And I’ve respected him so much for that. Not too many judges when they’re in a pissing match between the clerk and the judge is gonna rule in the clerk’s favor. But, so this is bothering Smith, and Pratt is a buddy of Smith, and I’d never had any problem with Pratt. Pratt was a wonderful judge, and we had a good relationship. This thing twisted everything. So, Chief Judge Bryant goes out west to a Judicial Conference Committee. Judge Smith is the Acting Chief. He calls a special meeting of the all the judges, sits me 54 down next to Judge Pratt, and his purpose is to get me to fire this reporter. And before Judge Bryant left, I had clued him in. I said, “Hey, I got an issue going here with Judge Pratt and I’m just telling you.” I wasn’t asking him to make any decision. I said this is where we are. So Judge Smith laid it out and has me explain, Judge Pratt explain, and I said, “Hey, look, I’ve already talked with Judge Bryant about this, he’s on the coast, he’s informed.” And Aubrey saved me. What I didn’t know was that Judge Pratt had called the reporter in a second time, and the second time the reporter went in, he was wired. And I didn’t know this at this time, but Aubrey apparently — I don’t know whether they knew this. I guess they did and whatever. But Aubrey came to my rescue and said, Hey, this is going nowhere. Let’s wait for Judge Bryant. But then when I fully found out the full extent of the problem — and in the interim I had been able to get some senior judges to take Judge Pratt’s reporter, you know, so he would have work — but then, when I learned and they learned that the reporter had — Denny Bossert was the guy’s name — had wired himself when he went into Judge Pratt’s chambers, the senior judges said you can’t send him to my court anymore, and so none of the judges would take him. So I called Denny in, and I said, “Hey, Denny, I don’t know what your legal rights are, but the fact of the matter is, even though you are an outstanding reporter, I can’t use you. No judge will take you, and I’m between a rock and a hard place. So I’m gonna give you two weeks to resign or I’m gonna have to fire you. Boy, those were two long weeks and the last day or the day before the last day, Denny comes in and offers his resignation. Boy did I breath a sigh of relief. 55 But that was probably the most uncomfortable I ever felt with my judges and just was an unfortunate event. And I give Judge Gesell credit. He called me up, he said, Jim, or Davey, or whatever he used to call me. He called me a lot. He was so ticked at me one day, he says, “You know, Davey, you’re lower than an appellate court judge. You gave my jury to a junior judge.” He was ticked! But he gave me advice. He said make sure you make detailed notes. This thing won’t go away. So I appreciated that. I was relieved the day that I retired, I could throw that file away. I’ll tell you one more. I’ll be late for poker here but whatever. There was a time Judge Hart was Chief Judge, he calls me up — so this had to be before, I think he left in ’75, or stepped down in ’75 — “Hey, they’re talking in the courtroom about you, got all these homosexuals working for you. You gotta do something about it.” And I’m thinking to myself, okay, one of the homosexuals I have working for me is Judge Hart’s courtroom deputy, and if I listen to him, Hart would have, whatever. So we weren’t that far along in our treatment of human beings humanely, but I knew enough to know that it didn’t matter to me whether they were homosexual or not as long as they were doing their job that’s all, that was my only business unless there was some allegation of inappropriate behavior on the job. And so, I told Judge Hart that, I said, you know, Judge, just as I explained to you. He said, “I’ll get you some allegations.” I went down to my office. An hour later he had me back up and I could see, no that was a different situation, I’m getting that confused. 56 In any event, Joe and Jim were seen in a darkened courtroom, this was the specific allegation. And I had hired both Joe and Jim. So I said to Judge Hart, you know, if I investigated and found nothing, you know, they’re going to say that’s a whitewash. You need to find somebody else to conduct any investigation. And he understood that. And on my way out I said, you know, I know how things go around here. I sure hope they don’t think I’m homosexual. And he says, “Well, now that you mention it — ” And Steve, my heart dropped. I, this is ’75; I had been working my tail off there for five, six years, and whatever. I said “What?!” I was dumbfounded. He says, “Yeah, they’ve been talking about you going skiing with guys.” I said, “Judge Hart, my wife and my two children and I went skiing a couple years ago out in Pennsylvania. We had a terrible experience. It was icy, and they had rope tows, and it was a lousy day, and they decided they never cared if they never skied again. But I kept it up. And I could either go skiing by myself, or I could find some girls, or I could go with some guys. And who does Judge Corcoran golf with on Saturdays?” Mr. Hollman: Did he at least laugh? Mr. Davey: Yes. I don’t remember. But I got out of it, and they never did find anybody to investigate. Those were my two, probably had some others, but I loved Judge Hart. In fact, I’m looking at a picture of him here on my wall. It says: “To Jim Davey — Working with you as Chief Judge was a ball. We can both be proud of the accomplishments. Chief Judge Hart.” That was — he’s smoking his pipe with his arthritic hand. He was great! Mr. Hollman: Well, he’s certainly right about there being a lot to be proud of. 57 Mr. Hollman: This is May 29, 2008 at 5:27, and this ends tape # 3, and thank you very much again for so many enlightening and entertaining stories. Mr. Davey: Well thank you, Steve, I appreciate you’re doing it. It’s kind of interesting to look back, and I kept some stuff, but I threw away most of my inflammatory stuff, memos that I got from various judges that were irritating. And just as well that I got rid of them. [Laughter] [End of TAPE 2 for May 29 session] th The check for the meal at which the break-in was planned, from Trial Exhibits 148 and 149, 6 is attached at Tab 2. 58 Interview of James F. Mr. Davey Session #3 – June 10, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. This interview was conducted by telephone on June 10, 2008, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hollman: Good afternoon, Jim. Mr. Davey: Good to hear from you again, Steve. Sounds like we have an interesting topic for this afternoon. Mr. Hollman: I think we do, yes. So I’ve asked that we try to address the entirety of the Watergate incident in this afternoon’s session. So that takes us back all the way to 1971, just after you became Clerk of the Court. Mr. Davey: Does it take us back that far? Mr. Hollman: I think so, at least, you know, the first — Mr. Davey: The break-in was June of ‘72. 6 Mr. Hollman: Right. And actually, I guess in the minds of some, the break-in was precipitated by the Pentagon Papers leaks which caused the White House to create its Plumber’s Unit. Mr. Davey: You’re right. Mr. Hollman: And that apparently lead to the bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in ‘72 and then the burglary in June of ‘72. Mr. Davey: Yes, you’re right. 59 Mr. Hollman: So my first question is, you must have received news reports or read news reports of the burglary, and what was your reaction? Mr. Davey: Well this was real soon after I took over. I can’t give you a reaction at the time. I just don’t remember. I was so darn busy in those days with the administrative mess that we were tying to straightly out. I told you in the last interview that administratively in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the court was a mess and there was no modern management techniques, there was nobody looking at the whole picture. And our court study had identified a number of areas where efficiencies could be made, and I was working hard as a young man trying to straighten that out. And I hadn’t made a lot of friends during the study working in the court. And, you know, when you’re consolidating offices and eliminating offices, that’s kind of tough business. So I was really focused more on the administration aspects of my job than individual cases. And we had gone to an individual assignment system in ‘69 for criminal cases, and so I didn’t have an immediate reaction, other than it will be a case coming to us. And at that point it was just a break-in. Certainly it wasn’t anything like, you know, when Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Mitchell got involved later on as a result of that. So no big reaction. Mr. Hollman: Can you recall when Watergate sort of entered your consciousness as anything more than a garden variety break-in? Mr. Davey: It was during the course of the trial, and it was not so much from what was happening in the court, because you know they were arraigned and all, and there was not much going on. But Woodward and Bernstein were certainly active, and it was through those reports that we knew that we had more than the garden 60 variety of case. In fact, I remember talking to a Judicial Conference, I believe it was in May of ’73, and I was giving some statistical summary of the cases, and I said, you know, statistics can be very misleading. For example, we only had one burglary last year; it happened to be Watergate. [Laughter] And so, you know, as it continued and then when the trial started and there was, obviously, by then people knew there were more than just these burglars involved, and the question was how to find out the full story. And so as it went along, as Woodward and Bernstein — it was every day in the paper, and, you know, you had the Leslie Stahls and the Connie Chungs in their younger days, and I think even Charlie Gibson, but I can’t remember for sure about him. And they were nosing around, and they knew when they got to my office that they weren’t going to get anything, that wasn’t, you know, there was no background information and there was no scoops. So I can remember telling Leslie one day, it must be a slow day for you, your down my way, ‘cause you know you’re not going to get anything. But when they started snooping around — not snooping around, doing their job, although Woodward and Bernstein, Bernstein went beyond, he conned my courtroom deputy into releasing jurors’ names, and that didn’t set well. The courtroom deputy couldn’t give him a copy of anything with the jurors’ name but he, I don’t know how he got the rationale, he was an excellent courtroom deputy, and he served Judge Sirica very well, and we gave him a reprimand, but that was about it. It was Bernstein who conned him into letting him look at the card. But I’m deviating. So, you know, it just kind of grew, and then when the trial ended, there was no, none of them would talk, implicate higher-ups. My recollection is that Christine Habeeb of Hogan & Hartson did background research on Watergate and participated 7 in the interview. A copy of the March 19, 1973, letter from James W. McCord, Jr., to Judge Sirica is attached 8 at Tab 3. 61 Judge Sirica purposely put off the sentencing as long as possible and, you know, hung over the largest possible sentences. And my recollection is — and one of the things, Steve, that I’m hampered with in all of this is that we’re talking about 30 years ago, and without having any documents, my recollection isn’t as good as it otherwise might be. I’m mentally still as sharp, and I went two-for-three last night, so I can still hit the ball, but time takes it’s toll. But my recollection is that the original trial — and Chris , maybe, or Steve, you can help me — of the 7 burglars ended in ’72. Do either one of you know for sure? Mr. Hollman The trial started in January of ’73 for the Watergate Seven, which is the five burglars along with Hunt and Liddy, and then Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez and Sturgis pleaded guilty on January 15 and Liddy and McCord were convicted on th, January 30 of ’73. th Mr. Davey: All right. So I do recall, and you can correct me on this one, that they were all pending sentencing, and still nobody would implicate anybody. And finally McCord wrote a letter to Sirica in March of ’73 saying there were some people up on top, or to that I mean that was the link that eventually led to Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell, as I recall it. Mr. Hollman: Your memory actually is terrific; that’s exactly right. I actually have a copy of the McCord letter in front of me which has a file stamp on top of it. It’s stamped as filed March 23, 1973, James F. Davey, Clerk. 8 Mr. Davey: Uh huh. 62 Mr. Hollman: And so one of the questions I have for you — I understood that the letter came to the court under seal and that Judge Sirica opened it before FBI agents, among others, and I wondered whether you know — I wondered how it got stamped? Mr. Davey: It would only have been, well, Cappy could do that. He had my stamp. And it would have been Cappy, the courtroom deputy, if it didn’t come, you know, through the normal over-the-counter. He would file it. And did he keep it under seal? Mr. Hollman: That I’m not sure of. I think there was tremendous precaution surrounding the opening of the letter. Mr. Davey: Yes, that sounds like Judge Sirica. But I don’t remember — so they gave it a file stamp, but you know, once they give it a file stamp it’s supposed to appear in the docket. So I’m not sure just when the public became aware of it. Mr. Hollman: It’s also, it’s stamped as a true copy by Hugh E. Kline, Clerk. Mr. Davey: That would have been the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Mr. Hollman: Oh yes; it says that. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Davey: He didn’t do anything. The Clerk of the District Court did all the work. [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: Do you recall the reaction within the courthouse when the letter was opened, or were you made aware of its contents? Mr. Davey: I remember that there was just general excitement. I mean, I remember where I was when Kennedy was shot, but I don’t remember where I was when this letter was opened. You know what I mean? Mr. Hollman: Any discussion between your office and Judge Sirica’s chambers regarding the content of the letter? 63 Mr. Davey: No. Judge Sirica wouldn’t communicate with the Clerk’s office other than through Cappy, his courtroom deputy, and there wouldn’t have been any — I just don’t remember the specifics on this one. I do remember the day John Dean came down my hallway. This was later after he started singing and was concerned about his wellbeing and wanted to lodge a copy of all his documents with the prosecutor and with the court that would support the testimony he would be giving. Mr. Hollman: So did you actually handle John Dean’s documents? Mr. Davey: I did. And my recollection is that he tendered them to — tried to tender them to Judge Sirica, and yeah, this would have been the batch, because he had already been to the prosecutor and lodged them with him, and then he went to Sirica. And Sirica says no, that’s why we have clerks of court. He came down and — Sirica came down, and they were only gonna have Judge Sirica have the combination to a safe in my personal office. I remember Judge Sirica couldn’t figure out — it’s a three to the right, two to the left, one to the right, and they tried it a number of times. And I remember the FBI agent saying the prosecutor didn’t have a problem with this. [Laughter] I said to myself, that’s not the right thing to tell the judge. [Laughter] So Sirica ended up getting frustrated and said leave them with Davey and let him have the combo, and let my law clerk — his name’s escaping me right now — Christofferson, Todd Christofferson, let him have the combination, too. So it was Todd that would come down and open the safe when the judge needed to see that stuff. Mr. Hollman: Did you get to index or categorize the documents? A copy of the subpoena issued by Archibald Cox to the president on July 23, 1973, and filed 9 with the Clerk the following day is attached at Tab 4. 64 Mr. Davey: I never saw them. They came to me under seal, and early in my career I got so much sealed stuff in so many different cases, CIA and FBI and — in fact, a short story: before I got there when they had a sealed document they put a red seal and wax on it, you know, and the judge would sign it and whatever. And they had this big stamp, the Clerk’s office stamp, like a big anvil. And the Clerk would carry this big anvil up to the judge with the wax and the seals, and man, they’d make that damn thing official. And some of them had ribbons. And I made the conversion from that to hand stamps, which the Clerk told me was a terrible thing because they could get lost, and I began using scotch tape instead of wax — I remember Judge Corcoran saying, “Hey, Davey, are these things really sealed with all that other stuff not being there?” [Laughter] But my point was, I made a point very early in my career that I would never ever look at anything that was lodged with me under seal because I wanted to be able to go up and testify that I had never seen it and it’d been in my possession. So I have no knowledge of anything that was — all I know is what the envelopes looked like and that some were bulkier than others. So I don’t know what John Dean had. Mr. Hollman: Well, the McCord letter, I guess, got to Sirica, and then sometime after that, some months after that, we have in our file here a copy of a subpoena issued by your office to the President of the United States. 9 Mr. Davey: Yep. Is that the one that led to the Saturday Night Massacre? Mr. Hollman: The July 24th, 1973, subpoena signed by Archibald Cox. Mr. Davey: Okay. There was a July 23 one. You said July 24 ? rd th 65 Mr. Hollman: Yes. Actually, it’s signed July 23 by Cox and stamped as filed on July 24 by rd th your office. Mr. Davey: Okay. So that’s the one. Mr. Hollman: So were you actually involved in the issuance of that subpoena? Mr. Davey: No. Who was the — I was not. I don’t have that subpoena in front of me. Who’s the deputy that signed it? Mr. Hollman: It looks like Robert Line. Mr. Davey: Robert Line! Yea. You know, I might have been. In fact, yeah, because normally Bob wouldn’t do that because he was my secretary. I never pronounced that word right; I’m glad they changed it to administrative assistant. Secretary, I always say secretary. Robert Line was my administrative assistant, and I remember that this may sound self-serving, but it’s my recollection for what it’s worth — I knew that this was going to be significant, and it’s normally signed by a deputy clerk, and I thought I’d give Robert Line a chance to sign that. I think it’s the one and only subpoena he ever signed. So I do vaguely recall them coming to my office rather than through the courtroom deputy. Mr. Hollman: And it’s signed in the Marshal’s return section as having been received by J. Fred — I can’t make out the last name — as Special Counsel to the president on behalf of the president on July 23 and then must have come back to the court for filing. rd, And any reactions at the time to a pretty significant document being issued out of your office? Mr. Davey: Not really. There may have been, but you know, I wish I could remember all of it, but no. I’m sure it was played up in the papers once it was filed, and we knew we were onto something big, but that whole — there were so many different A copy of the president’s July 25, 1973, letter to Judge Sirica declining to obey the command 10 of the Cox subpoena on separation of powers grounds is attached at Tab 5. President Nixon’s Executive Order abolishing the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution 11 Force is attached at Tab 6. 66 developments in all the cases. And I was, as Judge Gesell reminded me, Sirica’s only one judge, and Watergate’s only one case. You got other people to take care of. So can’t give you anything hot on that. Mr. Hollman: The next significant document that we have, which I think you provided, actually, is a copy of a letter that Richard Nixon sent to Judge Sirica on July 25 , the day th after the return of service on the subpoena was filed by the court. That one also 10 has your stamp and signature on it and is shown as having been filed with the court on July 26 in which he, in essence, says that based on separation of powers th concerns he won’t be complying with the subpoena. Mr. Davey: Right. Mr. Hollman: Any commentary at the courthouse regarding that letter? Mr. Davey: You know that was an interesting time because it was, you know, it was as the president said in his letter, we’d never had to do this before, and we’re not gonna do it now. And I’m sure the court was buzzin’, buzzin’, buzzin’ over it. But 11 I’m sure judges were talking among themselves as to whether or not “Maximum John” had gone too far or whether he had — was well within his rights. I remember, you know, Judge Sirica wasn’t noted for his judicial intellect, as somebody like Judge Gesell. He was more of a — well they called him “Maximum John” for the tough sentences he handed out. But he wasn’t — he’d never be a court of appeals judge, let’s put it that way. And there were some that questioned his overall ability. I wasn’t one of them. I never — I didn’t get into 67 that kind of business. But I’m sure there was some doubts as to whether or not he had the authority to do this, and, in fact, I believe in his own book he, in reflecting upon this, wondered whether he could enforce that subpoena. And he was questioning, jeez, if I’m just one federal judge and if other federal judges feel that they can compel the executive branch to turn over documents, you know, this could open the floodgates, and he really worried about that. But I think he finally concluded that if he had the authority to issue the subpoena, which we did, then he had the authority to enforce it. And the rest is history, as they say. Mr. Hollman: Was your office interfacing at all with Archibald Cox around that time? Mr. Davey: Only to the extent that we would — the prosecutors, you know, we’re really ministerial, you know, the Clerk’s office. Not active, wouldn’t be actively involved in anything, other than we developed a system, because of Watergate, that was mutually beneficial for the prosecutor, whoever they might be, to clue us in before they filed something that was going to be on the public record so that they would provide multiple copies, and so that the press — just thinking about the logistics, if only one member of the press gets to see and they get a scoop, you know, they’re way ahead of everybody. We tried to work out a system that any significant document that was going to be filed, we’d have extra copies made and available as soon as it was filed. So to the extent we had those administrative conversations, we had a number of those, and we had numbers of conversations over space, and then we had to provide space for the special prosecutor and the defendants and all that administrative stuff, but nothing dealing with the merits of the litigation. 68 Mr. Hollman: How did you deal with press inquiries, and with the concern about each member of the press wanting to scoop everybody else, and about making sure that all facets of the press were treated fairly? Mr. Davey: Well, the first thing we did, we set up a — we created a position within our office. Clara Harris was the Watergate press liaison. And there was a pressroom set up in the courthouse. And this system evolved over time and my recollections are that we did have organization meetings with the press, especially not only over access to documents, but also once we got into the trials, how many seats allocated to the press and who within the press would get those, and we had an advisory committee from the press representing the print media, the TV and whatever, and we let — I remember letting them — I’d say Judge Sirica let them have half the courtroom. I forget what that was, sixty seats or so, there’s something in one of my other documents, and they could let them allocate it among themselves and come up with a formula, and that worked to everyone’s advantage. The other thing about the papers is that until we got everybody on board, the prosecutors and all, that they would provide extra copies from the file we had a member of the press designated as a rep that would get whatever was filed and it was up to that person to take care of the distribution to the rest of the press, and if he didn’t do his job then it was him, not us. So we worked it out that I don’t think we had many, if any, complaints that we were — I know that we were never intentionally giving out scoops. Although, as I indicated before, we were giving out a scoop letting Bernstein look at jurors’ names. But, so we had a pressroom The trial referred to is United States v. Mitchell, Criminal No. 74-110. A transcript of the 12 indictment is attached at Tab 7. 69 in the courthouse, and they had their own copy and copier, and they had a designated person. So it worked out pretty good. Mr. Hollman: Can you talk about how you were able to empanel a jury for the major coverup trial? 1 2 Mr. Davey: Well I didn’t have much to do with it. It was Sirica and, well, the logistics, you know, were — jeez I wish I’d kept my notes. I don’t know how many we summoned, but we always summoned more than we needed. And I think I told you before that we had, for the cover up trial — Judge Sirica wanted to send a questionnaire out in advance to the jurors and worked it up, Todd and the lawyers, so that they could prescreen jurors. It’s a common technique now. I’m not so sure it wasn’t the first time it had been used, but I do remember them finally getting something they wanted to send out, and the judge asking the lawyers if they were all set with it, and I think I may have mentioned earlier a conversation that John Wilson, who was Haldeman’s attorney, said that he would reserve the right to object at some future time, but we sent all that out and got all these back, and two weeks before the trial was going to start, Wilson challenged the process saying it tainted the potential jurors, so we had to send a whole bunch of other summons out just cold. So we ended up with a big pile of people, and we brought them, not all of them, but as many as could fit into the ceremonial courtroom as we could. And Judge Sirica — right behind the ceremonial courtroom is the Judge’s Executive Session Room, a big long table that 25 people or more could sit around, and Judge Sirica sat at the end of that table, and seated next to him was 70 the court reporter, and then there was a blank seat available for prospective jurors. And around the table sat the defendants, Haldeman, Mitchell, Ehrlichman, Parkinson and Mardian and their attorneys and then we would bring in individual jurors who were sitting out in the big courtroom, and Judge Sirica would question them. And I can’t recall now whether, well the transcripts would reveal this, but I can’t recall now whether Judge Sirica would then let the attorneys ask additional questions. In any event, once he had completed the round of questioning, then the juror would be excused and the judge would ask the lawyers if they, what they thought, you know, they had so many challenges for cause, and he’d ask them what do you think, and they’d either say bring this person, bring this person for questioning. [End of TAPE 1, side A; begin TAPE 1, side B] John Wilson who was 70 years old at the time, maybe 80, he seemed like 80 but that was before I was 70. [Laughter] He said this guy’s a deadbeat, the juror we’re talking about. He retired at the age of 50, he doesn’t have a job now, he doesn’t have any hobbies, he sits around and watches TV all day. We don’t need a deadbeat on the jury. So Judge Sirica called him back and started asking him about this: “You’re 50 — you retired at 50; how come?” He said, “Well I was a cop and I hadn’t stopped a bullet by then and I was eligible for retirement and I didn’t want to extend my chances.” So he had a good reason to retire at 50, and he didn’t have any hobbies because he was taking care of his wife who had a disabling disease, and she had just passed away three or four months ago. And you get an altogether different picture of the guy. So this was the benefit of 71 questioning and then letting them go and then bringing them back in. It turned out he ended up being the foreman of the jury. But I have a lot of funny stories about jurors coming in — one with six kids; and Sirica said, “You wouldn’t want to serve.” But she said, “Oh, I’d love to be away from them for three or four months.” But the funniest one in my notes is this one gal just couldn’t get calmed down, and she said, “I’m just a normal person, and here are all of these, you know, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and these people around the room, all of these people that run Washington.” And Bill Hundley, who was Mitchell’s attorney, reached in his pocket, and he pulled out a whole bunch of pills, and he says, “Which color pill would you like? You think you’re the only one that’s nervous around here?” [Laughter] I don’t know if she was ever accepted. But that’s how the process went, and it was conducted in secret, and the transcripts weren’t made available. And the press got a little bit antsy about what was going on behind closed doors. But they eventually got a large enough panel so that they can — and I forget how many days this took, but I do remember getting in trouble with Judge Sirica. It was clear to me that with the pace of the questioning — and this backs up — when the courthouse was built, the top two floors were devoted to bedrooms and waiting areas and bathrooms for jurors so when they were sequestered — you know, they couldn’t go home — they would be sequestered in the courthouse. And for the first time since they knew in this case that this was going to be a long, drawnout one, we arranged for a hotel, which is much more expensive but much more friendly to the jurors. And I remember cancelling — Mr. Davey’s “Watergate Funnies” document is attached at Tab 8. 13 72 seeing how the questioning was going and cancelling the reservation that we had for this weekend because we weren’t going to get around to it. And Sirica found that out and just blasted the hell out of me. That would be a leak showing that we’re not making progress, whatever. Judges didn’t always think of financial implications. [Laughter] Remind me to mention that when we get to Harold Greene and AT&T. Mr. Hollman: He was concerned that someone would find out that the rooms set aside for jurors had been canceled? Mr. Davey: Yes. He also — in the first couple of days, I would be the reporters’ lone link to what was going on, and at the end of the day I would meet with them out in the corridor outside the pressroom, and I would tell them how many jurors were questioned and how many were accepted. And after two days of that and the Washington Post saying that the juror process looked like it was bogged down, Judge Sirica got mad again and said don’t talk to the press anymore. So the day I appeared and told them I didn’t have any statistics, they tried to make a story out of that: “Why not? You’ve been giving them to us before. What’s going on?” [Laughter] He was very — he didn’t want anything indicating that anything might be going wrong or having difficulty. Mr. Hollman: You provided among the materials that you sent a document that’s labeled Watergate Funnies and it wasn’t clear — some of those related to personal 13 experiences you seemed to have had and others refer to you in the third person, so I wasn’t sure whether that was something you had created or something someone else created. 73 Mr. Davey: I created it. Like which one is in the third person? Mr. Hollman: It says [Dec. 4] “Ehrlichman to Davey ‘Never believed in Letters to the Editor before (re seats for those waiting in line).’” Mr. Davey: Ah yeah. I guess I got used to the judges calling me Davey. Yeah, somebody had written a letter to the editor. We didn’t have a very good system. People had to wait in line outside the courthouse for the spaces that were available for individual members of the public, and somebody wrote a letter to the editor and said, you know, if you just handed out, if you only got 20 and you handed out pieces of paper 1 through 20, they could get them and then they could go home or the rest of the people could go away. You follow me? I said, well wish I’d thought of that. [Laughter] So that’s what he was referring to, and we went ahead and implemented the suggested system. Mr. Hollman: You have a note about a comment that Mitchell’s attorney Hundley made just about three days before jury selection started [Oct. 16]. Can you tell me what you recall about that? Mr. Davey: Yeah, that was the Friday before the jury selection was to begin and the judge — after we had been working on this for a long time nobody had thought about the actual day of the trial, and who was gonna sit where in the courtroom. So Judge Sirica asked me to get the attorneys in and work out a seating arrangement and get the attorneys to agree on it. So at that point we only had five left. I think we started with a seven. I know we had Gordon Strachan who was indicted along with these other guys, but he went off separate. In any event, that day we were down to five. And they were, I called them, I said we had three big fish and two little fish. The big fish were Mitchell, Haldeman and Ehrlichman, and the little 74 fish were Parkinson and the guy from Arizona, Mardian. So Bob Line and I set the thing up so there was a big fish and then a little fish and a big fish at their own tables, and it turned out that everybody liked it. But then Hundley, just before we were breaking, my recollection is he also had indicated that — well it was a little bit different than this but I do remember him cracking a joke saying, Hey, you know, I don’t have much time left; I’d better come up with a defense. And he was the guy throughout the trial when things would get tense, you could count on him to come up with something. Wilson would be fun, too, but you had to break the tension, and Hundley was a good one to do that. Mr. Hollman: You mentioned in connection with jury selection that one of the juror’s only news outlet was watching Warner Wolf. Mr. Davey: [Laughter] You remember Warner don’t you? He ended up in New York, didn’t he? Mr. Hollman: Yes he did. Mr. Davey: That whole thing — too bad we couldn’t tape that juror process. People were trying to be honest for the most part. I think there’s also, in juries, there’s always the tendency to try to get on. Some people, you just think they want to be on this case. But I didn’t sit in on it all because I had Judge Gesell and other judges to serve. I was just going in and out from time to time. I’m sure there were a lot of other interesting exchanges. Mr. Hollman: So was that guy impaneled? The Warner Wolf guy? Mr. Davey: I doubt it. [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: You have a note here about John Mitchell’s chauffer parking where he ought not to have. 75 Mr. Davey: Oh yeah, yeah. He came down; he parked in Judge Bazelon’s — Chief Judge Bazelon — Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Bazelon. [Laughter] And he wasn’t even supposed to be down there, I don’t think. And I remember, it was funny because that even made the newspaper. Mr. Hollman: I can imagine. Any reaction from Judge Bazelon’s chambers? Mr. Davey: [Laughter] There might have been to Hugh Kline, but I think the only time I talked to Judge Bazelon was that story I gave you about him and Judge Gasch. Mr. Hollman: Tell me, were you present when the first tape was played? Mr. Davey: Let’s see. Yes. I wanted to say yes because any time there’s a first, there’s a chance for a problem, and I wanted to be there. And we did have a problem. Sirica, I mean you know we had tested it all out. We — that was the special prosecutor’s responsibility. He brought in all that stuff. That wasn’t court stuff, and I was relieved that we didn’t have to mess with that. But I was there when they tested it out before we tried it, and everything was working. And I forget who we had sitting up in Sirica’s spot, but it was working up there. But then when the time came, Judge Sirica couldn’t get the safe open, and they couldn’t get the earphones to work. He was mechanically challenged. [Laughter] In any event, we did get things finally working. Mr. Hollman: And what was the reaction in the courtroom when that — Mr. Davey: Oh, there was some laughter. I remember some snickering laughter that — whatever. But that also reminds me that before they played the tape, we had those tapes, and the tape machines — they had been subpoenaed and turned over, and we had them in the vault up on the third floor. And prior to any of the people coming in, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and anybody else that was testifying, The letters are attached at Tab 9. 14 76 they’d go up into that vault, and we had it set up so that they could refresh their recollection looking at or listening to what they had said before. So, in fact we had a phone up there, and I remember being up there one day with Judge Sirica and one of those guys and Cappy and the phone rang, and I answered it, and somebody was looking for the Department of Interior. I said, “No this isn’t the Department of Interior, but would you like to talk to Judge Sirica who’s handling the Watergate case.” [Laughter] And they didn’t talk. Mr. Hollman: Tell me about Johnny Cash and his wife visiting? Mr. Davey: Oh, that was funny. He was — Sirica, I don’t know how that worked because I had — Judge Sirica gave me two passes inside the well of the court that I could give to anybody I wanted. And so, but Johnny didn’t get them through me. I guess he got them through the judge’s staff. And I forget who told me, I think it was Cappy, because the judge’s immediate staff, Todd, his law clerk and his second law clerk who I can’t recall, and his secretary were very protective of the judge. So you’d never find out anything from them. But I guess it was Cappy mentioned that he was ticked that Cash didn’t come by. And it just happened to be coincidental it was the tape that led to Nixon’s resignation. Mr. Hollman: You included in the materials you sent down, Jim, copies of letters that your daughter Lynn wrote to some of the Watergate defendants? 1 4 Mr. Davey: Yeah, wasn’t that something? Mr. Hollman: Yeah, what prompted her to do that? Did she actually attend the trial? Mr. Davey: Yeah, that was funny. They came in — Lynn was born in ’64, February of ’64, and Scott was born in December of ’62, so this would have been, Scott would 77 have been 12, and she would have been 10. And I let them sit in my seats, and I told them, I said when you get bored, come on down. They were down in about 15 minutes. But Lynn, she just on her own said I’m gonna write these people and wish them Merry Christmas and see if I get a note back. And she’d always been a little aggressive. And that’s the story behind that. And I thought Ehrlichman was wonderful: “Sorry for being late but I was tied up.” [Laughter] So Lynn has the originals. Mr. Hollman: I thought it was sort of a nice reflection that the humanity of these criminal defendants, that even while all of this was swirling along around them, they were able to stop and send Christmas greetings to you and your family. Mr. Davey: Wasn’t that neat? Mr. Hollman: Were you in the court when the sentencing occurred? Mr. Davey: I was. I had some — I thought I sent you a copy of that, but I was in the courthouse that day. And it reminds me of another story just quick. We were — when Aubrey was Chief Judge — maybe, if I told you this stop me — and we knew there was a big snowstorm coming. And whether to close the courthouse was always a close call or no call. So I said, “Hey, Chief.” It was his call, but he had to have somebody relay it. I said, “I’ll go into the courthouse tonight. And when you make your decision in the morning just give me a call.” [Laughter] I was in my office, and I slept right through his call. He had to get somebody else to make the calls to everybody. I tried to tell him I was there, and he said, “Yeah, Davey, come on!” In any event, I was in there in the jury room Davey’s notes from the date of the verdict are attached at Tab 10. 15 78 watching the football game when Cappy announced they have a verdict. In fact I’m reading from my notes. Did I send you those notes? 1 5 Mr. Hollman: I think you did because I remember seeing them although I’m not sure — Mr. Davey: Okay. I was there, and it was quite an emotional moment. Unlike a lot, well I won’t say unlike a lot. Judge Sirica got the verdict forms, and then he let Cappy read the verdict. This compared with, say, Judge Parker in the Hinckley case. He would read the verdict. In any event, they announced they had a verdict, and I made it a point just to observe both the defendants and their families because it was quite a historic moment, and I had a perfect position to do so because I was right inside the well of the court and standing next to the defendants, and whatever. But as my notes indicate, Jimmy Breslin was there. But it was very quiet and hushed, and then Cappy started reading the verdict. There were multiple counts and it just kept coming down. Guilty, guilty, guilty. It got to Parkinson who I still to this day think was guilty but he had such a small part — his attorney was Jake Stein — and they had a very little case against Parkinson. In fact, his testimony took less than a day. He was accused of — I forget what it was but it was copying something, whatever, he was an attorney. And not guilty. And as my notes indicated, I looked at Parkinson and his attorneys, his wife, and I felt back then happy and warm for him even though I thought he was guilty and getting off. And importantly, Mrs. Haldeman and the others I think congratulated Parkinson’s wife. That shows you some of the humanity that was present. And none of the defendants indicated any — one way 79 or the other except Mitchell who as I indicated flushed and sagged a bit. The only one that cracked was Mrs. Mardian. Mrs. Haldeman and Mrs. Ehrlichman held up. She cracked at the end sticking her tongue out at the jury and approaching Ben-Veniste and Neal when it was over, and saying we’re gonna get you. And that overlooks the one thing that I think was interesting — is during the closing arguments, I always try to get to the closing arguments of big cases. What the hell, if I’m the Clerk I might as well get the prime time, you know. James Neal for the prosecution was in the midst of closing, and it got awful hot in the courtroom. You know, it was packed, and I don’t know whether we had let additional people in. But I’m sitting in one of the two seats, and Sirica looks at me, and you know, I gotta get GSA — the General Services Administration — to cool the courtroom down. So I leave the courtroom and make the call to GSA, and I say, Hey, you know, no ifs ands or buts — it’s gotta get cooler in Judge Sirica’s courtroom. I don’t know what it takes, but you’ve gotta do it. So I go back in the courtroom, and Neal resumes his — maybe he never interrupted it — well anyway, he was still in his closing argument, and then you hear this terrible banging and you could hardly hear. It was the damn GSA up above the courtroom trying to get some vents open. [Laughter] And Neal says, “ … and to this day, the cover-up is continuing.” It was a classic case of an attorney thinking on his feet. But that was my recollection of that. Mr. Hollman: You mentioned also that Hundley had a comment when the Post misidentified Strickler as Parkinson. Do you remember that? Mr. Davey: I do. Mr. Hollman: You said in your notes that he commented — 80 Mr. Davey: They don’t know — Stein “has done the best job of all defendants’ counsel — They (the press) don’t even know who his client is.” And I’m sorry but you’ve got to put up with some of this deviation. When I decided to run for political office after I retired, I sent a funding request to some of these defense attorneys and other attorneys I had run into. And I got a note back from Jake Stein saying: “Good luck. A gypsy tells me you’re gonna win.” But no money. And I felt like sending him a note back saying thanks for the note, Jake, but seems to me the gypsies stole the money. [Laughter] I didn’t — turns out I didn’t need his money. So, sorry about that. Mr. Hollman: But that was good. I think we’re coming to the end of our tape so I’m trying to rush through the rest. Did you get to speak with the jury after they handed down the verdict? Mr. Davey: I would not have been the one to do that. Again, you gotta remember, strictly ministerial. Not involved in any substantive aspects of the case. I do remember there had been a good editorial about them during the course of their service, and they were sequestered and they wouldn’t have seen that. So I sent them a note to their home addresses after, I think it was right after the verdict, and sent along a copy of that complimentary editorial, you know, and telling them their checks would be in the mail soon. But no, I did not. I never would talk to a juror under any circumstances. Mr. Hollman: Tell me about your office’s involvement after the trial and sort of the tension between confidentiality of the witness testimony and the evidence, and the demand of the public and the press for access to that information. 81 Mr. Davey: Not our call. We would — and the lawyers knew and the press knew it wasn’t the Clerk’s office making any decisions. That’s the judge’s call. So we wouldn’t have been getting any heat down in the Clerk’s office. Mr. Hollman: How about your role in sort of implementing the decisions once they were made by the court? Mr. Davey: Well, they knew I’m strictly ministerial, and it wasn’t anything that I could change. So the knowledgeable ones wouldn’t waste their time, you know, talking to me about anything like that. And the un- is that a word? — unknowledgeable? The unknowledgeable wouldn’t know enough. [Laughter]. So yeah, whenever it’s something sealed, there’s always discussion and whatever, but it wasn’t a big factor with the Clerk’s office. Other than we have one hell of a lot of stuff under seal, not only in the Watergate but many other cases. I sometimes thought they went too far with that stuff. Mr. Hollman: It did look, though, from the files we reviewed that Nancy had given us that the judge sometimes made you responsible, for example I think it was Gesell made you responsible for what got turned over to the Senate Committee? Mr. Davey: Steve, I can just say this. I can’t conceive of Judge Gesell giving me any discretion. [Laughter] You’d have to really refresh my recollection on that. My recollection — you’re talking about the Oliver North case, right? Mr. Hollman: No, I think this was earlier. It might relate to the Watergate case. Mr. Davey: Hhhm. Davey has discretion in what’s turned over to the Senate Select Committee? Mr. Hollman: I think the comment was, I’m gonna leave this to you, you can turn them over just so long, if you feel comfortable, just so long as you know that you’re responsible. 82 It’s a note on the bottom of a letter from May 16, ‘73. The memo is from Chief Judge Bazelon and Chief Judge Sirica giving authorization for transmittal of exhibits to the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, and below is a handwritten note which you signed. It says, “Judge Sirica orally authorized me to turn these exhibits over to the custody of Mr. Hamilton, a member of our Bar.” [End TAPE 1, Side B; begin TAPE 2, Side A only] Mr. Davey: You know it’s, if there’s any problems, it falls on you. Yep, now that rings bells. Now I’m back in the arena of the ballgame that I’m familiar with, Gesell. You had me, you threw me a curve there, young man. Mr. Hollman: Didn’t mean to confuse you. Mr. Davey: That reminds me of another story which is relevant. Some of them aren’t. One night I picked up — Mr. Hollman: They’re all entertaining by the way, whether relevant or not, so go ahead. Mr. Davey: I came back from a — one night I picked up a lawyer. I can’t think of his name now, but he was from Florida. And he was waiting for a cab, and I offered to give him a ride. God, I can’t think of his name. But he had appeared before Judge Sirica and Judge Gesell. And being curious and knowing he was an out-oftown attorney, I thought I might get some kind of response. So I threw out the question. I says, “Hey, what’s the biggest difference between appearing before Judge Gesell and Judge Sirica?” And, without any hesitation he said, “In Judge Gesell’s courtroom, there’s only one lawyer. His name is Judge Gesell. In Judge Sirica’s courtroom, he let’s you be a lawyer.” Interesting. Can’t think of the guys name, but — so he let me turn stuff over to Hamilton in my judgment, but if 83 there’s any hell to pay, it comes back to me. I don’t recall having any problems with that. Mr. Hollman: Do you remember an incident involving a camera which was an exhibit going missing? Mr. Davey: Ooh — Mr. Hollman: — and resulting in the transfer of the exhibits to a different vault? Mr. Davey: Jeez, I vaguely remember that, Steve, but there was a camera that was missing, and it was probably missing from the big vault and transferred down to the vault in my office, but I’d have to get more recollection on that. Mr. Hollman: It’s referring to a memo to the file that appears in the materials that Nancy gave us. It’s handwritten on yellow paper. It says: “Began inventory of 1827-72 exhibits on 6/13/79. I had moved these exhibits from the second floor vault to the financial vault several weeks ago for two reasons. One, the impending move of second floor vault to first floor, and two, I noticed one of the Minolta cameras — Exhibit 24(b), a government exhibit, 24(b), was apparently missing when I was in vault a month or so ago. It had been in a gym bag on top of the file cabinet. I can’t be positive, but I’m almost certain that it would have to have been taken in the last few months. I have been up to the vault on a number of occasions and recalled seeing the two Minoltas within the last few months.” Mr. Davey: Hmm. I’ll be damned. That was me, right? Mr. Hollman: It looks like your handwriting, but I’m not a hundred percent. Mr. Davey: Yes, that would have been, which reminds me of another time we had a fire in the vault and it wasn’t that vault, and all the inventory, every copy of the inventory was in the vault. So we adopted a new procedure, that one copy of the inventory went outside of the vault, too. Mr. Hollman: That probably was sensible. 84 Mr. Davey: I do remember a case where we had some missing cocaine — or a drug of the sort, and we never were able to pin that down. I think it was one of my courtroom deputies that I inherited. Whatever. Mr. Hollman: Well look, I think that’s a convenient place for us to stop this afternoon. Mr. Davey: Very good. Mr. Hollman: So I’ll be back to you in the next couple days to set up our next session. Mr. Davey: Okay, Steve. Mr. Hollman: Jim, I neglected to mention that I definitely want to include a little postscript from your post retirement activities, including your run for office and your service in the Rhode Island state legislature. Mr. Davey: Oh yeah, I’ll be happy to tell you the one thing that I got accomplished. Mr. Hollman: I think it’s more than one from the news articles I reviewed. Mr. Davey: Yeah, I was a pain in the butt. I got the Chief Justice of Rhode Island to take down a personal Web site. The Chief Justice — how about that? He was advertising, he’s a Lincoln scholar, and for a fee, he’d appear and give you some talks. But my biggest claim to fame was, they now actually have to be there to vote. Before, you could have somebody push your buttons for you. And I didn’t think that was right. Mr. Hollman: Well, I’m with you. Mr. Davey: And I didn’t even get any support from my Republicans on that one. They said they wouldn’t stand in my way, but they wouldn’t line up behind me either. Mr. Hollman: That would seem like a politically dangerous one to vote against. Mr. Davey: You’d think so. You’d think so, but you don’t know Rhode Island. I gotta tell you one story. One of Connie’s aunts came down to Virginia one time and she “Nattering nabobs of negativism” is one of the most popular turns of phrase associated with 16 U.S. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who served under Richard Nixon until resigning in October 1974, after pleading no contest to charges of tax fraud. Agnew, who had a particularly acrimonious relationship with the press, used this term to refer to the members of the media, whom he also deemed “an effete corps of impudent snobs.” According to the Congressional Record, this term was first used during Agnew’s address to the California Republican state convention in San Diego on September 11, 1970. In context, it was used together with another well-known Agnew alliteration: “In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club — the ‘hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.’” Additional materials pertaining to the Watergate cases are attached as indicated below: 17 85 had a new boyfriend. She was a widow, and over a couple glasses of wine, he learned I was in the federal court system and he says — the new boyfriend, he says, “Jimmie, the law is the law, but in Rhode Island, you gotta pay the judge,” and I thought he was kidding. Okay. Mr. Hollman: I’m going to let that pass without comment except to say that we’re fortunate to have a long history of public integrity in the State of Maryland. Mr. Davey: You do? Mr. Hollman: Well, sort of. Mr. Davey: I remember a guy who’s name began with A and ended up with almost the last letter in the alphabet, but not quite. Mr. Hollman: Careful, Jim, because that might make you a “nattering nabob of negativism.” 1 6 Mr. Davey: Good quote. Okay. Mr. Hollman: Well, thank you for this afternoon. Mr. Davey: Okay. Mr. Hollman: We’ll look forward to talking to you again next week. 1 7 Subpoena dated April 16, 1974, in United States v. Mitchell, Criminal No. 74-110, directed to Richard M. Nixon for White House Tapes 11 Memorandum dated August 27, 1974, from James F., Clerk, RE: Historic Subpoenas Issued to President Nixon Directing Him to Give Testimony and Produce Documents and Other Records (Including Tapes) for Use in a Criminal Prosecution 12 List of Exhibits in Criminal No. 1827-72 13 Memorandum dated December 18, 1974, from James F. Davey, Clerk, RE: Miscellaneous 74-128 concerning disposition of tapes 14 Memorandum to the Watergate Trial Jurors dated January 2, 1975, from James F. Davey, Clerk, attaching October 13, 1974, Washington Post editorial 15 86 87 [End Tape 2 for 6/10 session] Interview of James F. Davey Session #4 – June 19, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. This interview was conducted by telephone on June 19, 2008, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hollman: I thought we’d start today, if it’s okay, talking a bit about the judges on the court and how the composition changed over time and what that did to affect the job of the Clerk. Mr. Davey: Okay. Mr. Hollman: So, tell me about the structure of the court in terms of who was Chief Judge when you started and his relationship with other active members of the court. Mr. Davey: Judge Curran was the Chief Judge at the time of the study that I participated in, and he was also my first Chief Judge. I think I told you earlier that when I was voted in as Clerk it was a 12-to-3 vote with the three voting against me being then Chief Judge Curran, Judge Sirica who would be the next Chief Judge, and Judge Hart, who would follow him, follow Sirica. And that pretty much indicates that the old-timers weren’t ready for a change, except Judge Hart. I still don’t know why he voted against me. But in any event, when Chief Judge Curran — back then, the rule was that you got to be Chief Judge based strictly on seniority. And as long as you were under 70 years of age, even if you only had three months to serve when the last 88 Chief Judge stepped down, you would become Chief Judge. The shortest tenure that I recall, I had seven Chief Judges during the period 1970-1990, and the shortest one I recall, I’d have to verify, would be Judge Smith, who served only a year. They have since changed that rule, and — because it was just a revolving door of old judges. [Laughter] And again, I’m not sure of this, but I think you have to be under 65 to be Chief Judge, and there’s a term limit on the number of years you can serve so that you don’t get into the reverse situation where a young guy inherits it at 45 and has it until he’s 70, for 25 years. I think its six or seven years now. But the changes are big improvements over what it was. The chiefs, back to Judge Curran, he wasn’t a very strong Chief. He had no real administrative inklings. And I remember that, as a result, or during the course of the study, they formed an executive committee headed by Judge Hart, and I forget who the other members were. Judge Gesell comes to mind. But I’m not sure; I don’t have my notes. But the executive committee, in effect, was the committee that we as study members contacted rather than the Chief Judge and our dealings were through them, so it wasn’t a very powerful post and with respect to the Chief Judge, when Judge Hart got to be Chief, by then we had overcome any differences he might have had with me. And, let’s see, when we got the — we no longer had the — when we got to Judge Hart we no longer had the executive committee. But there was the — oh — Judge Hart explained to me the power of a Chief Judge. We wanted to take the court reporters out from under the thumb of the individual judge and put them under the Clerk’s control. Now, frankly, I wasn’t literally, personally looking forward to that because court reporters are a unique breed. They’ve historically 89 been associated with the judges, and I wasn’t going to get any more pay taking over that headache. But, organizationally and administratively, it made sense to have them report to a non-judge rather than being on their own. And that nonjudge, in this case the Clerk, would be able to manage them more effectively. Some judges have had heavier caseloads than others. Some judges, I mean heavier times in court just by nature of the way they conducted their business. I think I mentioned Judge Gasch didn’t feel like he was doing his job unless he was in the courtroom, and if he’s in the courtroom, people are talking, and if people are talking, the court reporter has to take it all down. And in the early days, they didn’t have transcribers. Most of them didn’t have transcribers. So their court reporters were not only taking it, the stuff down, but in their free time, they were transcribing it. And you can see how cumbersome and tiring that would be although the court reporters were making more money than the judges. But back to Judge Hart, we came up with a proposal that made all kinds of management sense to reorganize the reporters under my control and he said, “Jim, I’m going to show you the power of the Chief Judge.” Back then I was not allowed to attend executive sessions except if I had a particular point to make to them. And that led to some miscommunications and all. You know I’m, in effect, operating as a CEO, and they are the board of governors, board of — chairmen of the board. And I’m never in the room when they’re making policy. And I would — I don’t know if I was even given copies of the minutes of their meetings initially. But eventually, I was able to get the minutes, and although other courts were more progressive and began to have their clerks sit in as the secretary of the meeting, in D.C. it was the junior judge who had that 90 responsibility, and they didn’t want non-judges around. I think because it would show — [Laughter] reveal too much of how they made policy. And it wasn’t until Aubrey, well, yeah, just before Aubrey Robinson came on, there was a new Administrative Assistant to the Chief Judge, and she began to go into the judges’ executive session. And she would become the secretary. And that wasn’t a tough thing for the judges to accept because she was not a manager, or whatever; she was just a member of the Chief Judge’s staff. And, I kept pushing for entry into these sessions on a regular basis. And Judge Robinson said, “Cool your heels; cool your heels. If we put it to a vote, you’re gonna lose.” And other courts had begun to do that, progressive courts. So finally, he said, “Jim, what I’m going to do is just have you come up one time and not even put it to a vote. And the Gesells and Harold Greenes and all — maybe we can slip one by them.” And that’s the way, that’s the way I eventually ended up being at all the meetings. It was never put to a vote. But that shows you some of the progression in the way of administering the court. Progress is slow and would have been — without Aubrey Robinson, it wouldn’t have happened. But, so back to your point about Judge Curran. He was, you know, a likable sort, but he didn’t really care for administration. And I didn’t have a lot of contacts with him. And then when Judge Sirica became Chief Judge, he too wasn’t inclined to get too much involved in administrative matters. And back then, we did not — the individual courts did not control their own budgets. That was all done by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. So, and now today, that’s altogether different. We pushed through the years to decentralize that 91 budget process, and just after I took over, I mean just after I left, full budget control for the courts was put down to the Clerk’s office. But that took a 20-year period and a progressive head of the AO, Ralph Mecham. So my point being there weren’t heavy-duty matters of arguing how much money the Probation office will get versus the Clerk’s office versus the judges, so there was little — there were still a lot of things to do on a day-to-day basis. You had to — working with GSA, you had to be sure there was enough air conditioning in the building and the security, although security wasn’t a big issue when we first came in. In any event, Judge Curran and Judge Sirica didn’t really like to get involved in administrative matters. I can remember when I had to, when I came in, all deputy clerk appointments had to be approved by the Chief Judge. And that wasn’t a very good idea. In some courts it was a lot worse than in our court. Out in Cleveland, for example, as a deputy clerk position became available they rotated the ability to appoint that deputy clerk among the judges. They had some major problems out there. But I would — I would have to go to the court for approval of any appointments. That changed, and I can’t remember just when it changed but I think it was under Judge Hart. I remember Judge Robinson when he became Chief reinforcing the point that I remember one of the judges was questioning how I was handling the financial department and the — Chief Judge Robinson, who was not Chief Judge at the time, mentioned to her that, “Hey, it’s not our job to tell Davey what to do with the finance department. That’s his job. And if we don’t like what Davey’s 92 doing, then we get rid of him, but we don’t interfere with how he’s running the shop.” In fact, he came out so strong I wanted to say, I’ll accept your suggestions, you know, and we can talk about it. But Judge Robinson cut if off at the pass. But I do remember having, when I came in — in an earlier talk I mentioned there was a major reorganization needed of the Assignment Commissioner’s office, pretrial examiners, Motion Commissioner’s office, the Clerk’s office. And when I presented my proposal to the court, I even went down by name and position who was being shifted, who would be shifted over to the Superior Court because of the cases were going over there, and I remember Chief Judge Sirica asking me, he said, “Mr. Davey, I don’t see that you’re doing anything for Marion Lewis, who’s been in the Clerk’s office for 20 years or more, why is that? And by the way, is Marion a man or a woman?” [Laughter] But the reason I relate it, it showed that the judges were involved in personnel decisions that they shouldn’t have been involved in, and they would go for the old-timers. And all that gradually shifted over time and to the benefit of the court. You know, just letting me make those decisions and holding me accountable. So, that pretty much went — under Judge Curran and Judge Sirica, I pretty much could do what I wanted to do without any real oversight. And then Judge Hart comes along, and he didn’t mess with me in the Clerk’s office, but he was very active and very supportive of making, trying to make changes where changes were needed. And one of my management philosophies that I developed — if you ever wanted to make — you can mess around in the Clerk’s office all you want over a period of years, okay, but if you want to make major change in 93 the court as an institution, you have to find a friendly judge. And I didn’t bat a thousand with Judge Hart, but we did do some major things under his leadership. And one of the things was improving jury utilization which had tremendous impact not only financially but on the court’s image. When I came in the philosophy was we never have a judge wait for a panel. Whenever the judge calls for a panel we should have enough jurors in the courthouse to send him or her one. And I mentioned previously that judges tended to want to start their trials on Monday, so on any given Monday, you’d have three, four hundred jurors coming in. And it was a truly wasteful, and a lot of them never, never got into the courtroom, because, you know, last minute pleas and settlements. Mr. Hollman: Sure. Mr. Davey: So what I started doing without any judicial control or without advising the judges, I just started cutting back, you know, 2%, 3%, 5%, 10%. Crossing my fingers, you know. And then one of the good things that the Administrative Office let me do, they let me hire, they knew I couldn’t do everything on my own, and I don’t, I should take that back. I never did everything on my own. My whole philosophy was to get a team that could work it, but, let’s put it this way, when I took over, it reminds me of my little-league team, you know, the shortstop picking his nose, the second baseman throwing rocks. [Laughter] You know, not really paying too much attention to the goal, and everybody doing their own thing, and you know, happy in what they’re doing. But the thing was to try and get them to pick their nose while they’re on the bench. [Laughter] and um, but the Administrative Office gave me a management assistant at a grade 13 level, 94 which was pretty high to help me and that was both good and bad. It was good that I had somebody that had some management experience that could, you know, help me with some of the details. It was bad that others in the Clerk’s office resented a newcomer coming in had that high a grade and when it turned out that the newcomer had some personal issues, that didn’t help matters. However, one of the things that the management assistant did do is we developed a formula based, analyzing jury usage over a period of years. One thing that the clerk’s office was very good at was keeping records. Nobody ever looked at them, but they had records of how many jurors came in and when they went into the courtroom. Not only how many went into the courtroom on a given day, you could figure out when they went in so you could get, oh you know, 10 o’clock, some of it is just intuitive. Ten o’clock is going to be your busy time, and so on, but it was very helpful to have that kind of data. So based on analyzing all that data over a long period of time and making allowances for criminal panels and civil panels, we developed a formula. If you had three criminal and two civil, you bring in X number. If you had six criminal and two civil you bring in Y number. And that was designed to make sure that 90% of the time, if a judge called, he’d get the jurors, the panel on time. And it worked. And so — but then, oh jeez, I don’t know whether it was Harold Greene or Judge Gesell, they had to wait. And they complained to me, and they complained to Judge Hart. And, you know: “Davey, you know, you’re counting pennies and you’re missing the big picture. They’re only so many judges in the court system. There’s a whole bunch of jurors. You know, bring in the jurors.” 95 And so I went to Judge Hart, and you know, I explained to him the formula and the whole bit. And you know, he says, “Well this makes sense, but we’ll make one exception. What we’ll do is we’ll follow this formula, but if a judge when he requests a panel” — you know, they have to request it a day in advance — “guarantees it, then you’ll use the formula for all the others but you’ll guarantee this judge they’ll have a panel.” So — well, you know what that led to with some judges — all the time, every one of their panels was guaranteed. And you know, they abused the system. But it was still, still better than, a lot better than what it used to be. But without Judge Hart helping me out with that — the formula and the “guaranteed” — we’d have reverted back to the old system of jurors don’t count, only judges do. So Judge Hart was a wonderful person to work for from an administrative standpoint. If I — he was always accessible, and he dealt with matters, and he dealt with them quickly and efficiently. Just a couple of quick stories about Judge Hart. It’s a small one but it’s funny. A guy came in and thought he could file a case with our court. And my new case desk said, Mr. Davey, we have someone here and he really — our court doesn’t have jurisdiction. And, you know, we’ve got to tell our deputies, you don’t — you’re not the lawyer, you know, don’t argue with him. But this one was so clear. So they brought him in to me, and I called up Judge Hart, and I said “Hey Judge, I’ve got an attorney here who thinks he’s got a case that was within our jurisdiction, and we don’t think it is.” “Bring him up.” 96 So I brought him up and sat outside, and about five minutes later the guy comes out. And Judge Hart has a, had a case dismissed stamp prepared because he handled pro se matters and most of those were as Chief Judge he took them, and he dismissed a lot of cases. So rather than writing it out all the time, he just stamped it. So I take it the lawyer who wants to file an appeal, but we haven’t filed it yet. And I told him, the lawyer riding down the elevator, “You know, most courts measure their backlog from filing to disposition. In th[is] court, we measure ours from disposition to filing.” [Laughter] But he was great. A prisoner had filed a petition complaining about something at a prison. He, Judge Hart, called the prison up and [said], “Deal with it.” And we had another set of cases where Filipinos were eligible for some relief if they proved they helped us out in World War II. And it turned out a scam developed. And I don’t know whether it was me or one of my deputies, as I recall it was me, but I could be wrong — I noticed they would send their complaints in, and they’d send a picture of themselves in a uniform to prove that they were of service, they had served. I noticed the damned uniform looked the same on all of them. It turned out some guy was bringing these people in, putting the uniform on them, taking a picture. Judge Hart raised hell with the Veteran’s Administration. Finally got that one cleaned up. But he was, he was just wonderful and he cared about — and the judges respected him, which meant a lot. And so he was a great Chief Judge. And then, want me to go just through the Chief Judges or — ? Mr. Hollman: I’ve got a couple of follow-up questions for you before you do that. 97 Mr. Davey: Sure. Mr. Hollman: First, you mentioned in passing the question of security. And it just caused me to wonder whether there ever were any security incidents that you recall? Mr. Davey: No. I mean, you could walk into that courthouse and walk into a judge’s chambers. And I don’t — well we had a security incident that probably would have occurred even with the security and that was under Judge Hart’s reign when some, a couple of prisoners took over the cellblock downstairs. But that wouldn’t have been prevented by all this security at the doors and — you know what I mean? In fact I remember Judge Gesell saying one day, he said when they were discussing more stringent security, you know like putting guards or you know, checking people before they came in, he says, “I’m going to die on my way to the courthouse getting hit on C Street.” [Laughter] So no, I don’t recall any incidents where somebody wandering in off the street caused harm. Mr. Hollman: Or any incidents involving criminal defendants? Mr. Davey: The criminal defendants, yes, you know, there was that cellblock takeover. And that was under Judge Hart’s reign. And I remember that he was, he — Judge Hart was managing the crisis. And again, you’ll have to forgive me, I forget the outcome. But I do know that the prisoners in the — we had a huge cellblock downstairs and they would, the way it worked would be that the prisoners would come in from the jail in a bus, and they’d go into the basement of the building where there’s a series, several cellblocks, one for men, one for women, and the like. And then, the prisoners would be escorted to the courtrooms by separate 98 elevators that ran from the cellblock, and they would go into a smaller cellblock behind each courtroom, if you get the picture. So, when these prisoners overcame the deputy marshals in the main cellblock — I think they got his gun, and I don’t know how many deputy marshals were being held hostage — but what I do remember is Jim Palmer, who was a very good looking and smart, um, didn’t turn out to be too smart in this case, though — he was the chief deputy marshal and he was on his way to, he thought, to becoming the marshal. And independent of Judge Hart’s control of the situation, Palmer decided to negotiate on his own, and when Hart found out, he not only got rid of him for the day, he told him, told the marshal never to let him come back into the courthouse. And I remember when Judge Hart left, Judge Jones was then Chief, and he had to deal with Palmer wanting to get back in the courthouse. But that’s the only prisoner one. And we did have the time when the, that wasn’t a security thing, no. So in terms of security we didn’t have any incidents that I recall that on their own would warrant increased measures other than the general, you know, obviously some things were happening in government and all the government buildings were getting more secure. Mr. Hollman: On the question of court reporters being shifted from the judges to controlled by the clerk’s office? Mr. Davey: Yes. Mr. Hollman: How did the court reporters react to that? 99 Mr. Davey: Well, number one, the proposal was killed, 14-0. I didn’t finish the story. Judge Hart said, “Oh, I’m going to show you how powerful a Chief Judge is.” Did I mention this? Mr. Hollman: Yes, you started, yeah. Mr. Davey: Okay and he, we uh, he invited me in to present the case to the judges, and the vote was 14 to 1 against. With Judge Hart voting for. He said, “Jim, I told you I’d show you how important a Chief Judge was.” But years later I did assume responsibility, and I did get a manager, court reporter manager, former court reporter, and the court reporters fought it tooth and nail. I mean this, Berk Brown was his name. Nice guy, former court reporter, he was trying to be fair to all the reporters, and then they were just blowing him out. [End TAPE 1, Side A; Begin TAPE 1, Side B] Mr. Davey: Then there was the scandal that wasn’t. I don’t know if you want to get into that at this point. But we didn’t have enough court reporters to take care of our fifteen active judges and our five to seven senior judges. So, in fact the Administrative Office — I remember when Judge Hart was Chief Judge. This was back in ’73, and this is one memo I wish that I had kept. The AO, by ’73, they had concluded I was significantly overstaffed, and I was, but not as much as they thought. And what I wanted it to do was to shift the staff as the workload shifted to the Superior Court and also just not to fill vacancies rather than lay somebody off. And they — the problem was, Steve, back then, the staffing formula that they used to staff courts with personnel in the Clerk’s office, you get one deputy clerk for every hundred filings, and that was how they worked it. And generally that worked out all right. However, my court, see now it’s my court, how ‘bout 100 that? [Laughter] Never say that around some judges. But our court was, had too many judges for the caseload. And remember that’s one of the main findings of our study. So I couldn’t argue it both ways. On the other hand, if you go based on filings, what I, what I showed them — this would be the simplest way of explaining it — New Jersey District Court and our District Court had the same number of filings. New Jersey had ten judges, I had fifteen. Well, when I go to unlock the door to the courthouse to begin business that day, I need more people than the New Jersey court just because I’ve got more judges. You follow me? Mr. Hollman: Yes. Mr. Davey: Even if my judges don’t have as many cases, I still got to get my courtroom deputy, a court reporter, and whatever. They didn’t take that into account. They didn’t take how many jurors you brought into, brought in. They didn’t have a system of weighing cases. Like Watergate was just one case. That’s all I got out of that. So eventually, eventually, they devised a formula that took into consideration number of judges, number of senior judges, the types of cases and the like. But when I say eventually, I’m talking over a 10-year period. And so I’m fighting these people as we’re going along, and they — in terms of court reporters where I think we started this — they came over with their, they — the Administrative Office — came over with their data showing how much time, how many dispositions there were, our judges compared to other judges, and whatever. And they concluded that we only needed eight or nine court reporters for our 15 judges. And I mean that was incredibly ignorant of how things work. So, but statistically it worked out. So I said, I got tired of fighting them and I brought them over to the Chief Judge’s chambers and let them explain 101 to him. And then we talked a long, a lot, and I said, “Judge Hart, let’s get down to the nuts and bolts. What they’re saying here is that you and Judge Corcoran — one of our other judges — have got to share a court reporter. And you decide whether you want to take mornings or afternoons. And Judge Corcoran gets the other.” And it was just, you know, just incredible. But whatever. This leads up to, okay, they finally agreed that I needed some extra help for our senior judges, that they didn’t count in the formula. But they wouldn’t let me have real reporters that know how to take down, you know, with their stenographic machine. Mr. Hollman: Right. Mr. Davey: We even had maybe 13 stenographic and 2 steno masks, you know the ones that would just talk into a mask? Mr. Hollman: Uh huh. Mr. Davey: Okay, they wouldn’t let me have those kind of people. And they let out a contract, the Administrative Office, with — they sent it out for bid. And we got this outfit that — they gave it to the lowest bidder. And this, I got more damn complaints, I’ll try to keep it short. But it shows you what the courts and all had to go through before we got into the decentralized process we have now. These people would come in with their tape recorders, and they’d set them up. And they wouldn’t even pretend to take down, they would just record it, and then they, in fact, some of them would laugh. You know, they had no idea how to act in a courtroom. And then they would take their tapes back to the office, and they’d have some other person transcribe. Well, we started having troubles, getting transcripts, and I finally, I went over to the place where they did business and I, 102 the first thing I saw was, I noticed on the door that the IRS had some claim against them. And I go in there, and Steve, I wish I had my Minolta camera that I couldn’t remember last time with me. I mean there were tapes and boxes, and it was just incredible. And these foreigners, and I don’t, I’m not saying they were illegal immigrants or what, but, you know, they got their headphones on, and they’re trying to type. And fortunately, the senior judges were only hearing civil cases and not criminal cases, because most, a lot of these transcripts could never be produced. And I can’t tell you how many, how many we had to retry. I don’t think it was a significant number. But that was one of the prices we paid for having control being exercised by a party not knowing what really goes on in a courtroom. So my history with the AO is a rather difficult one. I’m not saying that it was impossibly difficult. I had to educate them, and they got to thinking I was a pain in the ass. And, you know, whatever it took. So the answer to your question I think you started with, when the court reporters got under my control, and I hired a manager, it was difficult. And he ended up having to go out early with physical problems. And then Dawn Copeland took over, and by then we had smoothed things out, and it was working fairly good. And, you know, she would be more amenable to switching people around. But court reporters were always very difficult from a management standpoint. Mr. Hollman: Tell me about the, tell me about the interaction of the judges in the executive sessions and whether that was a revelation to you? 103 Mr. Davey: No, I didn’t see — how do I put it? ‘Cause most of the time that I was in there was under Judge Robinson. All the time. And he ran a good show, you know what I mean? Mr. Hollman: Right. Mr. Davey: So, a lot of what might have been going on before wasn’t going on under Judge Robinson. So I don’t have any, you know, really great stories to tell about those executive sessions and I wouldn’t anyway. I know you didn’t ask for specifics but there would be, there would be heated arguments. Judge Sporkin was kind of a maverick, and you know, he’d wander in late and not pay too much attention but then, you know, get into some discussions. For the most part, though, they weren’t — there wasn’t anything bizarre or heated going on. Judge Robinson was respected, although I do remember him saying, “You know, Jim, Judge Gesell just doesn’t think we can run the court without his help.” That was true, and Judge Gesell would always have his view. And Harold Greene would be independent. And, but some, a lot of the big issues like whether we should have a federal defender, a lot of the judges opposed that, because, I won’t say because, but there was, you know, the idea of the Fifth Street Bar, you know, we’ve got these guys that are doing a good job of representing defendants. They know the system, and we know them. And the federal defender would come in and cause problems. You know, raising issues. But Judge Robinson got those through. As I say, I’m sure that if I had been in the executive session in the early years, there would have been a lot more disagreement. Mr. Hollman: Was Robinson the Chief immediately after Hart? 104 Mr. Davey: Excuse me? Mr. Hollman: Did Robinson become Chief immediately after Hart? Mr. Davey: No, Judge Jones, wonderful guy, became Chief Judge. And he and I had a good rapport. He wasn’t in there very long. You know, I wish that I — I should have — but he died. And my recollection of Judge Jones, he was well respected by the Bar and by his fellow judges, and it was kind of a calm tenure. But it wasn’t too long. And then after him came Judge Bryant, and he served for quite a while. And he, I really think that we didn’t make much progress in terms of court-wide projects like the federal defender, automation and all. Judge Bryant, I mean he was a beautiful man, and I loved him dearly, but he couldn’t make a decision easily. Especially when it came to personnel issues. I’d have people appeal, when they got disciplined, when he became Chief some of the, let’s put it that way, minorities in my office thought that they could get a better deal from him than they could from me. So they would appeal to him. And I remember having one case, this employee, Eleanor Farrar, she just was a mess from beginning to end. And she caused problems for everybody. And she, you know, she filed a complaint against me and she’s going to go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I said, “Eleanor, you’re wasting your time. The EEOC doesn’t have jurisdiction.” In any event, she had a case pending before him, it seemed like a couple of years, and that, really, it really was creating problems for me because she was such a misfit, and I had to put up with her. And so, under Judge Bryant, there weren’t any real initiatives taken from an administrative standpoint, either on the 105 court, you know, and that’s where you go play in your sandbox down in the Clerk’s office where they leave you alone. And that’s — we started the — we started the automation under Judge Jones. That was the beginnings, but furthered it under Judge Bryant. I do remember one night, I got a call real late, not real late at night, around 5, 5:30. There had been a prison break in the D.C. prison, and they had the — I think the head warden was a guy by the name of Hardy. I don’t know if you’ve got this in your notes, Steve, of cases. But they had him at knifepoint, and they wanted to see Judge Bryant. And they were aggrieved about the conditions there. And the call came into my office, and I had — I remember going up to see Judge Bryant, and they said, I actually remember him saying at one time, I don’t know if it was this time, he says, “Jim, every time you come in here, I’ve got more problems after than when you walked in.” So I told him what the situation was, that they wanted to talk to [him]. And he had to think about it. And he finally agreed, but only on the condition that he would not take up any of their individual cases that landed them in prison, but he would hear them on their problems in the court system, I mean in the general conditions. So they brought the prisoners over, and one of them had Hardy still at knifepoint. And they put him in a separate room in the courthouse. And there was — five or six or seven of these other guys. And so they set up, we set up to have the hearing, and before the judge came on the bench, one of the deputy marshals realized that they hadn’t searched these guys. And so, in the courtroom — and there wasn’t a real, my recollection, wasn’t a lot of people there because it was late-breaking and people had gone 106 home, and all but one of the prisoners said, “Well, if you’re gonna search us, do it like they do in jail.” And they stripped buck naked in the courtroom. [Laughter] And then we got over that, and the judge took the bench, and he made it clear to them he would not listen to any of their individual grievances, but he would hear them on their overall grievances. And so we had the hearing and he, you know, questioned them, promised to follow through. And the prisoners had enough faith in him that they released Hardy. And so he put that fire out, which I’m not sure other judges would have done that. But I — so under Judge Bryant not a lot, no major initiatives in terms of making the court a better or more responsive institution. And I don’t say that in a negative way, just in all there’s another, which brings up another point. And then he was followed by Judge Smith, and Judge Smith and I had had a couple of run-ins before that I mentioned. And Judge Smith had been Chief Judge of the local court. And then when he came over he was just another judge. And then when I didn’t do something for him that he thought I should have done, he told me that if I worked over at the Superior Court, he’d have fired me a long time ago. So I wasn’t really looking forward to his tenure as Chief Judge. In fact, I updated my resume for the first time since going there. And, but I got lucky. He only had a year and he called me in soon after he became Chief. He says to the effect that he didn’t want to be bothered with administrative matters, let, you know, let me take care of all that and we’d get along fine. Which was a-okay with me. And then he only lasted a year, and then Judge Robinson came on. And then between when Hart was Chief and when Aubrey was Chief, that’s the golden eras in terms of court administration. I might add that Judge 107 Hart, when he was Chief Judge — well the Chief Judge of the District Court in D.C. automatically is a member of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is the policy-making body for the judiciary) headed by the Chief Justice, a nd normally the Chief Judge of the, each of the U.S. Courts of Appeal and a district judge, not necessarily a chief but, maybe it was, yeah, a district — one district judge from each of the Circuits. Well, in our case, we only had one district so we always had a voice on the Judicial Conference, and that was big when Judge Hart was Chief because Judge Hart became the Chairman of the Committee on Court Administration which was the Committee of the Judicial Conference that handled administrative matters, and we got him to get us a twenty percent pay raise. But I also remember, it was back during his tenure when we were trying to get the title of the Clerk changed because we didn’t think it represented what the Clerk really did in the modern age, and we wanted it to be Court Executive, which is more descriptive, or Clerk/Court Executive. And I remember Judge Hart saying, “I’m not going to push this one Jim. Why would you want to get rid of the ancient and honorable title of Clerk?” [Laughter] And I said, “That’s the problem with it, it’s ancient and honorable, but it doesn’t represent what we need.” And they still, there are a number of courts now that do have the title, they’ve done it locally — Clerk/Court Executive, or just Court Executive, and among your peers, you know they’re — they’ve got a leg up on you. I never made it. [Laughter] And it took me a while to get into the executive session. That was two things that you got judged on. Whether you got into the executive session and what your title was. Mr. Hollman: Well, but at least you remained ancient and honorable. 108 Mr. Davey: Yes, that’s right. With the emphasis on ancient. Mr. Hollman: So who followed Judge Robinson as Chief Judge? Mr. Davey: Judge Penn. I remember when I told him I was going to retire, he said, “Jim, you and I had a deal. You weren’t going to retire until I did.” And I said, “We never had that deal.” After, oh yeah, that was another interesting one: Judge Penn. And Judge Penn truly was not an administrator. And Judge Robinson was truly concerned about what was going to happen when Judge Penn became the Chief Judge. One of the things we did, I had a beach house in the Outer Banks in North Carolina, and I had initiated years before, taking my management team, we’d have management retreats, we’d go down there, let your hair down, and come up with ideas on how to improve things. Judge — I proposed to Judge Robinson that, why don’t we get you, Judge Penn, myself, Nancy, who was my Chief Deputy, LeeAnn Flynn, Judge Robinson’s Administrative Assistant and the chief probation officer to go down. And the theme of the two or three days was going to be looking to the future, what are the changes that are going to happen in the court, and how do we plan for them. And just try to get Judge Penn geared up to the role. And so we went down to my beach house, and it turned out to be a fantastic seminar. We laid out things, and it was really something that any organization should do when there’s, you know, expecting big change. Not that it had made any difference after Judge Penn got to be chief, but at least it was a step in the right direction. But Judge Penn took over and by then Judge Robinson had taken on most of the major issues, and down in the Clerk’s office we had come along pretty Reverse Chronology of Imporant Cases During the “Davey Era,” 1975-1990, Tab 16. 18 109 well. And we were one of the most automated courts and modern management, and so we were — things were in pretty good shape when Judge Penn took over. And I remember Nancy, Nancy was, and he loved Nancy and Nancy loved him. And so my recollection, my understanding is that the tenure, his tenure as Chief Judge was good. Mr. Hollman: Okay, I think that actually is sort of a natural breaking point. Mr. Davey: Okay.. 1 8 [End of TAPE for 6/19 session] 110 Interview of James F. Davey Session #5 – September 2, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. This interview was conducted by telephone on September 2, 2008, commencing at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Hollman: I thought I’d start with a few cleanup questions concerning your tenure as Clerk of Court and then go to your life afterwards. Mr. Davey: All right. Mr. Hollman: So, to start with, you provided, in addition to serving as Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, administrative support services for the D.C. Circuit, and I wondered if you could just take a moment or so to describe the nature of those services? Mr. Davey: Well, they were part of my responsibility to maintain the building, air conditioning, cooling, so forth, and I was the liaison with GSA, who was responsible for that. We also processed their payroll. It wasn’t a real big part of my job, but I always remember the Clerk of the Circuit Court got as much money as I did, and he had about a fifth of my people and about a third of my responsibilities. But, you know, appellate rules. So that wasn’t a big deal. Mr. Hollman: I neglected to mention that it’s September 2, 2008, and we started our interview at 3:00 p.m. So I just wanted to get that upfront in case someone’s reviewing this years down the road. Mr. Davey: Okay. Mr. Hollman: Who was the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit during your tenure as Clerk? 111 Mr. Davey: Oh, jeez, I knew you were going to ask me that. We had a very good relationship, and I can’t think of his name right now. [Hugh Kline] But we had no problems, and his successor, we had no problems. I did have a little issue when they appointed the Circuit Executive, and we all did. The Circuit Executive had broad responsibilities for the Circuit. And he was the chief non-judicial officer in the Circuit. And the District Court didn’t want anything to do with the District Executive. The first guy was — well, I don’t want to get off on that. We had an okay relationship. I do remember one time that I hung up on the Circuit Executive. Mr. Hollman: What was the issue? Mr. Davey: Charlie Nelson. It was about statistics. He just didn’t understand, and I tried to explain it to him, and it wasn’t working. And he got a little bit upset, so I just hung up on him. I got upset with him. So the next day I called him up, and I said, “Hey Charlie, that was very unprofessional of me to hang up on you, and I apologize.” Two days later — he was a former captain in the Navy — I got a letter from him, you know, telling me in no uncertain terms that we’ve got to conduct ourselves properly, and whatever. He never set foot in my office in the three or four years he was there because I had to go to him, you know? Whatever. The Circuit Executive was a concept pursued by Chief Justice Burger, and you know they also wanted a District Court Executive. And some courts have established those, and I think I may have told you in an earlier interview when Judge Hart was Chief Judge and he was on the Judicial Conference Court Administration Committee, I was pushing for him to get a change in title because 112 District Executive would more properly describe the current responsibilities of the clerks, you know? They were managers. And he said, “Davey, why would you want to get rid of an ancient and honorable title like Clerk?” So that didn’t go anywhere, but some courts have done it. You know, what’s in a name? In any event — Mr. Hollman: What was the driver behind the appointment of the Circuit Executive? Was that a GSA appointment? Mr. Davey: No, that was — the courts themselves decided that to better manage themselves, that each Circuit should have a Circuit Executive reporting to the Court of Appeals and have broad responsibilities over district courts. For the most part, they ended up functioning strictly for the Court of Appeals, and they were never, at least — we didn’t feel — we only had one district court in our Circuit. Mr. Hollman: Who decided on the allocation of responsibility between the — Mr. Davey: By statute — when they set the Circuit Executive up. And then it would work out on an individual basis of where they want to stick their nose. The concept is good, but really, they ended up, as my understanding from talking with my fellow Clerks, for the most part the Circuit Executives end up just working for the Court of Appeals rather than getting too much involved with the District Courts. But it was another step to modernize the management of the U.S. court system, and they did some good work. Mr. Hollman: Did you have direct interface with any of the, what became Supreme Court Justices who were on the D.C. Circuit while you were Clerk? Mr. Davey: I did. Not often. I met Scalia often in the gym that we had upstairs, and he would complain about the equipment not being clean and so forth, but he was okay. 113 And Justice Thomas I also met in the gym. I don’t know if I told you that story before. Mr. Hollman: No. Mr. Davey: I was working out late and we had — the Marshals had established a gym. This was after the one I had created when we no longer — the courthouse was built and it had jury — if you sequestered a jury they could sleep in the courthouse. There were bedrooms and showers and big rooms for them. When Watergate came along, that was the first time that they did not use those facilities. They decided – and rightly so — to put the jurors up in a better place, in a hotel. So those spaces became vacant, and I came up with the bright idea that we could put a gym up there. We had plenty of showers for the bedrooms, and with very little expense, we were able to create a gym. We used different rooms. You had barbells in one, and stretching in another, and then we had a big Universal right over Judge Parker’s head. There were days when I was wondering if — no, I won’t go there. The interesting thing was that when I had to get approval from the Administrative Office for spending some funds for that, and nobody had ever had a gym before. I found some statute, and I got the Department of Justice’s support that it was the responsibility of each branch to create health programs for their people. So I got the money on the condition I wouldn’t tell any of my buddies around the system. But in any event, then the Marshals years later built a better one downstairs. And I was working out late one night, and I was all by myself, and this big guy comes in with a new boom box — not a new boom box but a boom box – and I hadn’t seen him before. I figured he was a new Deputy Marshal. So 114 he goes, works out, and he puts some classical music on. And I take a shower, and on my way out I just went over and said, “Hey, I never heard that kind of music before in this place. I’m Jim Davey. I work for the District Court.” And he says, “I’m Clarence Thomas. I work for the Court of Appeals.” [Laughter] I didn’t really have much official interface with them. There were a couple of judges up there that would call me all of the time with problems — they needed a file or something. Bork and the two Ginsburgs and Scalia. And I saw more of Clarence Thomas. In fact, when he was going through — he would come to parties, and when he was going through that ordeal, I offered him the use of my beach house if he wanted to get away. In fact, he mentioned in his book that he had some offers of beach houses. He didn’t identify those. Whatever. That’s my extent of contact with them. Mr. Hollman: How about with Chief Justice Burger? Mr. Davey: Very little. He was very much pushing for — he was there when all of this change was coming about, and he pushed for the Court Executive and District Executive, but I did not have any real contact with him. Mr. Hollman: I wanted to just get back on a couple of the cases that ran through the court during your tenure and ask if you had any comments about how the Watergate case and the Oliver North case and the Pentagon Papers case affected the atmosphere at the court. Mr. Davey: Well, obviously those were big cases, and they were exciting times. Every day you would pick up the paper and there’d be something in there about it, and it put a lot of — I wouldn’t say pressure — but we had more activity with them, meeting the press needs and the like, and trying to maintain a regular schedule 115 despite these big cases. But it was — for me and my management staff, it was a real opportunity to develop ways of managing high-profile cases. How do you allocate seats to the press? How do you deal with the press? How do you get them information? And we developed a little manual for whenever a judge would get one of these cases. We’d go up — I think I sent you maybe a copy of a letter I had written to my staff when we got the Hinckley case about what are we going to do when the indictment comes down, and so on. We would go to the judges and say, Hey, this is what worked before, and they would buy, ended up buying most of it, but everybody was a little bit different. But it was exciting to be working on Pentagon Papers and John Hinckley and Watergate. We liked working on something that was significant and doing our jobs well. And for the most part, I don’t think of any real major goofs that we made, and we did get quite a few compliments. We were in the spotlight, and everybody likes a spotlight. Mr. Hollman: You had sort of a first row seat on cases that had, that raised the critical issue about the extent to which the public has a right to know what the government is doing and also about the issue of how much the public has a right to know about matters that are winding their way through the court system. And I wondered if you had any observations about those larger issues based on the direct experience that you had with them? Mr. Davey: Well, we got — when you’re — on a day-to-day basis you’re not dealing with the issue. You just try to get through the day. But we tried — and I think we did very well — to get as much information out to the public as we could. Quite apart from that issue was — the thing that bothered me a lot was that there was a lot of sealing of records — not just in these cases but in civil cases, too. And that 116 went against the grain of what I thought the courts should do. I never could do much about that, and I’m trying to remember — there was one guy who was pressing that, and I said, Hey, we’ve done all we can. You’ve got to take on the judge. A lot of people would complain, but they wouldn’t want to irritate a judge. But for the most part on the big cases — I’m trying to think of Watergate and all — our main goal during those cases was to make sure that we did not discriminate or give some member of the press some information before the other. You know what I mean? We played no favorites. We set up a system where we said to the press: you give us your liaison, and we’re going to get that stuff to him or her, and then you guys can worry about how you disperse it. We had a committee of the press to help us with these issues — Carl Stern I remember from NBC was on it, and there was somebody else. But when you got down to allocating seats within the courtroom, early on it wasn’t bad, but then all of these additional — cable came along, CNN came along, international came along, you had print, and whatever, and it’s kind of difficult to satisfy everybody. But we worked it out by establishing that committee, and then we would go to the judge and say, this is what we recommend if you allow sixty press, and this if you allow thirty press. And it worked out pretty well. But I was still bothered generally throughout my tenure that I thought there was too much sealing of documents, but I don’t know how that’s changed. Mr. Hollman: Any other general comments about the balance between the public’s right to know and the right of the litigant to a fair trial, and whether the balance was struck on one side or the other or about right? 117 Mr. Davey: I think they got it right. There were times when information was delayed getting to the public. I’m think of jury selections — they didn’t want the public to know the names and addresses of the jurors, and I felt that that was a reasonable restriction. Overall, I thought we were a pretty open institution, but I just thought that — I can’t give you specifics, but I just remember thinking too quick to seal and too slow to unseal in too many cases. But overall I think the public generally had a pretty good idea of what was going on and on a timely basis, and I’m satisfied that in our court for the most part people, for the great part, got a fair trial. There was a time when we had a judge, a retired judge, who — I can’t think of his name right now — he shouldn’t have been sitting, and nobody wanted to take him on. And the court reporter would come to me and tell me that the judge just doesn’t know what’s going on. And I finally remember getting a transcript in a criminal case that showed that — and I can’t remember the specifics — but it was clear documentation that this judge should no longer be sitting. And I was able to take that transcript to Judge Hart, who was my Chief Judge at the time and a military man, and I said, “Judge, you’ve got to do it.” And he did it. He went to the judge, it was Walsh, Judge Walsh. And that was always a sensitive subject — how long should senior judges serve. But he was the only one that was causing us a problem, and it took us a while, but Judge Hart did the right thing. I do remember another case, though. Judge Sirica was the Chief Judge, and somehow the Administrative Office was looking at its statistics and — oh, I know, we wanted to build a couple of extra courtrooms. We used to have an 118 Assignment Commissioner’s office when we used to be on a master calendar, and one of my recommendations was to get rid of that Assignment Commissioner’s office, especially when we went to the individual calendar. And we did. And we had all this space available, and we had a lot of senior judges sitting. So we decided that we would convert that space into two courtrooms, small courtrooms, and we had to go to the AO for approval. And they said, “Well, Hey, we’re looking at this data. This Judge McLaughlin, he hasn’t done anything. Who’s using his courtroom?” And nobody was. And so Judge Sirica said, “Jim, when we get back, you tell Judge McLaughlin he’s got to give up his courtroom.” Mr. Hollman: How did Judge McLaughlin take that? Mr. Davey: I never — I said, “Judge Sirica,” — there were a few times I told the judges that that’s their job — “you go tell Judge McLaughlin and [count] me out.” You know, he was so far gone at that point — I don’t remember. But we did eventually get, and needed, the extra courtrooms, even after we got the senior judges to give up their courtrooms, because we had visiting judges and whatever. Mr. Hollman: Well, Jim, how did you decide when it was time for you to leave? Mr. Davey: I decided it was time for me to leave — I had a boss in Agriculture, who remained a dear friend all of our lives, said, “Hey, Jim, if you can afford to retire at 55, then you ought to do it.” He had, and he was about ten years older than me. And he had gotten me to invest in the Outer Banks and buy a home down there. And I did that, and a few other things. And every thing that Charlie said seemed to make a lot of sense. So when I came to be 55 — and I had gone through this — I don’t know if I mentioned I had been sued by one of my employees, Marge Whitacre, who filed The case is reported as Whitacre v. Davey, 890 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 19 cert. denied, 497 U.S 1038 (1990). 119 a civil suit against me alleging age discrimination when I selected a younger female for chief deputy over Marge Whitacre, who was older and had more experience. And that — she alleged a constitutional violation of her rights, and if she had prevailed — she was seeking, I don’t know, $300,000 or $400,000 — the government, even though they would defend me, if I had been found guilty, that would have been out of my personal pocket. And that’s quite a, that would be quite a way to end your career. Well, it turned out that when all was said and done, I filed a motion to dismiss, and it was heard by — all of my district judges recused themselves — and they gave it to a court of appeals judge that had just come on — in fact, he’s the Chief Judge now. I can’t think of his name. He was Chief Judge of the wiretap court too. It’ll come to mind. But he granted the motion to dismiss after a hearing, saying that she hadn’t provided — you have to provide sufficient evidence before you can have a wrongdoing, before a government official has to put on a defense. Mr. Hollman: You have to make out your own prima facie case before you shift the burden to the other side? Mr. Davey: Right. And she hadn’t. So then she went to the Court of Appeals, and they upheld it, and then she went to the Supreme Court on a writ, and they denied it. 19 And about that time, I was turning 55. I said if I stay around longer and get whacked with something else, Charlie Riser will never forgive me, and I’ll never forgive myself. And it turned out, jeez, I’m glad I did. I mean, I’ve had 17 years of retirement, and as you know, my wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 120 2005, and even though we’re still doing things, it’s not the same. But for 12 years or so, we were traveling all over the world. So that’s why I decided, and it was a good decision for me. Mr. Hollman: Were you defended in the case by the U.S. Attorney’s office? Mr. Davey: I was. Mr. Hollman: So at least, did you feel like you got good representation? Mr. Davey: Oh yeah, I got excellent representation. And I told them that I thought that part of — well, I don’t want to get into that. Marge thought that there might be something going on between me and the younger selection, and there wasn’t. There had never been, and I made that clear to the U.S. Attorney on our first visit, and he said, “Well, that’s good, because otherwise you’d better open up your wallet now.” Mr. Hollman: And of course your selection was the woman who ended up becoming the Clerk of Court. Mr. Davey: Clerk of Court, yes, appointed by the court, not by me, and doing a fantastic job. Mr. Hollman: Right, and that’s — Mr. Davey: Nancy Mayer. Mr. Hollman: Nancy Mayer, now Nancy Mayer-Whittington? Mr. Davey: Yes. So things worked out well. Mr. Hollman: Were you called upon to have to explain your decision-making within the courthouse? Mr. Davey: On that case? Mr. Hollman: Yes, in connection with the decision to elevate Nancy despite the fact that Marge believed she had — 121 Mr. Davey: Oh, I didn’t elevate her. I didn’t elevate her. The court did. Oh, no, I’m sorry. Mr. Hollman: I mean originally as Chief Deputy? Mr. Davey: Let’s see. There was a time — Judge Robinson was Chief Judge. There wasn’t any of that. There was a time when I had a restriction on me. When I first came in — well, back up. When I first came in, I had to clear all appointments, even Grade 5s, with the court. And then gradually I got more and more control and was able to do all of my appointments without consulting judges, except when you get to courtroom deputies, and that gets a little trickier. You have to obviously consult. You just can’t go in and tell Judge Gesell, here’s your new courtroom deputy. But there was a restriction, and they put it in writing, that Davey can appoint anybody he wants to all of these other positions, but a selection of Chief Deputy, we want a say in. But that had gone by the time this came up, and there was never any discussion. I didn’t have to defend it. Mr. Hollman: And any talk from Nancy about whether it made any difference in connection with her fulfilling her responsibilities as a Chief Deputy, that the suit was sort of hanging over for a while? Mr. Davey: No, Nancy — in fact, I never really talked much with Nancy about it. In fact, the interesting thing is that Marge Whitacre continued on my staff. I took her out of her management position and put her into a staff position in addition to not making her Chief Deputy. And that was — I think she was going to challenge that as retaliation, but my point was that she did continue to serve in a staff capacity. She did well, and there were people who came into the office after that and worked and never knew there was anything going on between me and Marge. We both maintained professional attitude — at least I did. She had — one of the 122 things she had done before I appointed her, appointed Nancy — I didn’t know this until after she filed her suit — was that she had stolen some documents from my desk — [End TAPE 1, Side A; begin TAPE 1, Side B] Mr. Davey: — and these were very confidential. That was a clear violation of trust there. Mr. Hollman: Did you discuss that with her? Mr. Davey: Pardon me? Mr. Hollman: Did you ever discuss that with her? Mr. Davey: With Marge? Mr. Hollman: Yes. Mr. Davey: Yes, I did. Mr. Hollman: What was her reaction? Mr. Davey: I forget specifically, but she was defiant at that point, saying that whatever, anything was fair game. Mr. Hollman: Let’s talk about post-court and your return to Rhode Island. Mr. Davey: Okay. Before I do that, there’s a couple of things that I just wanted to mention. Mr. Hollman: Sure. Mr. Davey: Just a funny one about Judge Gesell. He never was for celebrations, and in fact, he didn’t attend my retirement ceremony even though he was in the court. He didn’t believe in that stuff. But when he turned 70 I got — I guess it was Judge Robinson or whoever was the Chief — to agree that we could, at the — they happened to have a judge’s executive session at the time of his 70 birthday, and th they allowed me to come up and bring a cake from the Clerk’s office, and we also had champagne in paper cups. The next morning Judge Gesell calls me. He said, 123 “Jim, I want to come down and thank the Clerk’s office. Where in the hell is it?” Can you believe that? He had been in the court for 20 years or more and would come park in the basement, take the elevator up to the second floor, and never had been down to the Clerk’s office. Mr. Hollman: That’s amazing. Mr. Davey: That’s amazing. The other note I had, Aubrey Robinson, I think I had mentioned in an earlier interview that I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, that he always put the interests of the court above his own interests. And he was tough. And we went on an individual assignment system back in the 70’s, and when somebody became a Chief Judge, we encouraged them to take a reduced case load, but the peer pressure was such that they felt they had to keep their case load. Now, they may have ended up dropping their criminal case load after a few Chief Judges, but Aubrey was the first one that said, “I’m getting rid of — I’ll keep the cases I have, but I’m not getting any more new ones, but I’ll help out when somebody needs some help.” But he knew that managing that court needed more emphasis, and I admired him for being the one that would break through that mold. And he did help out quite a bit with judges. The other — just an overall picture of — if I could just sum up about 20 years of being the Clerk of the Court. When — Mr. Hollman: Well, I was going to ask you about your legacy at the end, but — Mr. Davey: Oh, okay. Mr. Hollman: I think actually it fits in here, so go right ahead. Mr. Davey: Well, I just wanted to say that when I came into the court system, I came in because I was part of a management study that was called for by the Senate 124 Judiciary Committee, who thought that the whole system of justice in the District of Columbia was a mess, not only federal but local, and they had huge backlogs and crying for more judges, and crying for more people. And they were reluctant to give it without having a fresh, objective look at what was really going on. So that’s — and then they, there was a committee of lawyers called the Committee for the Administration of Justice that was formed by the Bar to oversee this study. In fact, some of the judges, some of the lawyers on that committee — Judge Gesell, June Green, John Pratt, Tom Flannery — all became District Court judges. Newell Ellison was the Chair of that committee. In any event, we went in for a year and a half, and we studied, and we found all kinds of problems, felt that at least on the federal level they didn’t need more judges or more people, they needed better organization, better management. The court asked me to come over to be Chief Deputy, and I did, and during that period I helped them prepare a plan for converting civil cases from a master to an individual system. I’m losing my train of thought. Going to the individual calendar system. So we started back then to make some changes, not only in the way the judges operated, the individual calendar system, and that was because there were judges like Judge Robinson and Judge Gesell and the like, that the newcomers could see that the old way of doing business wasn’t the way to do it. So they only had an 8-7 majority at the time, so it wasn’t a piece of cake. But between the younger judges converting from the master to the individual and me being given more freedom, we went from being a dysfunctional institution over a period to being a very functional organization. 125 And I say “we.” I was just part of that overall effort that included leadership from the judges and eventually developing a management team that was thinking alike. And that took time, but we developed — I was very proud of what we did in the Clerk’s office because we were innovative and modernlooking. We were one of the first to computerize. We were one of the first to cut back on jury expenses by reducing the number of jurors we called in, even if it meant the judge had to wait. We developed a handbook for managing the grand jury process that the AO indicated saved millions of dollars nationwide because there hadn’t been any controls on the U.S. Attorneys bringing them in and making them sit around — whatever. We developed an earned reputation for people that wanted to do things better. In fact, I remember one clerk said that he told his people when they were looking to — what do we do here? And he said, ah, “Check with Davey’s office. They’ve tried everything at least once.” So I was proud to be part of that conversion from a dysfunctional system to a court that had a very good reputation. And I think I indicated earlier that one of my goals was to — when I left — was for the court to be able to select my successor from somebody that had come from within our career development program. And that happened. That made me feel real good. And during this period we were having all of these highly publicized cases, and that made it even more exciting. And when I left, I felt good. I didn’t feel I had done everything that could have been done, but I knew that I had done 126 well and that I had worked for an important institution. And in retirement, it’s nice to be able to say that, you know, you didn’t waste 20 years in a dead-end job. Mr. Hollman: Jim, you talked a bit about the different views of various judges concerning how they could best serve the system, some by sitting on the bench for every possible minute, some by adhering to a rigorous schedule for the case. What was your view from the 10,000 foot level looking back on how the federal district court can best serve its function? Mr. Davey: Do what Judge Gesell did. Take his principles and apply them. That would be the — I mean, you get the lawyers in early, you set a schedule, you say, Hey, if anything comes up, I’m available. We don’t need to file a lot of papers. And he kept that schedule no matter what. And he only had one law clerk, and he consistently had the most current calendar. And that used to drive Judge Richey nuts. But Judge Richey would not — even though he had a lot of good qualities, I think he pushed the lawyers a little too much to get rid of cases. But Judge Gesell’s system of setting a clear schedule, sticking with it, being available at any time, that gives everybody justice quicker. It’s cheaper. Most of the cases settle anyway no matter what you do. Ninety percent of the civil cases settle. I don’t know what the plea rate is. So the idea is to get them to that final point as quickly and as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. This waiting around for justice that happens too frequently is costly to the litigants, and it leaves a bad taste in their mouth for having to wait to have their day in court. So I have no hesitation of saying that the simple system of Judge Gesell, and also it helps to be bright like he is, too. 127 Mr. Hollman: Let me take you now to your post-Clerk of Court career. So you retired in 2001 and decided to return to Rhode Island? Mr. Davey: No, I retired in 1991. Mr. Hollman: ’91. Sorry. Mr. Davey: And the first thing that the AO did was offer me a consulting contract to contact all of the district courts in the country to see what their problems were with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. And I’m saying to myself, I’ve been trying to tell these guys for free for 20 years what they’re doing wrong. Now they’re going to pay me. [Laughter] So I took the job, and that’s the only paying job related to — until I got elected to office. And I did that the following year and released a report, and I don’t know how much came of that. And then I had the opportunity – you know, the Iron Curtain was coming down. Came down in ’91, didn’t it? Mr. Hollman: I think thereabouts. Mr. Davey: So these countries that had been under the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe needed some help in setting up their court systems. And through an outfit CEELI, Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative, they had judges and court administrators go over and spend some time, and I had the opportunity to work with a judge in Estonia — an American judge in Estonia — and in Macedonia, three fellow clerks. And that was tremendously interesting and exciting work. Estonia ended up listening to us; Macedonia didn’t. 128 So then I got involved — you know, when you’re working you don’t have time to do a lot of civic stuff, so I ended up getting involved with my community and I still continued on as treasurer of the FCCA Foundation, and we created an award for front-line deputies. It was pretty much my baby. I wanted to be sure that those people right on the front lines who were — the people that come in contact with the court, where these front-line people do a great job representing the court — they ought to be recognized and rewarded. So we created a public service award, and every year we give at least one person $1,500 for doing a good job, a great job servicing the public. And I became president of my civic association and whatever. And then I went back to Rhode Island in 2001 where we had grown up. We had spent 40 years in Washington, so that was most of our life at that point, but our real home was Rhode Island. And when I got back to Rhode Island, I started getting involved — Rhode Island is pretty corrupt politically. I started attending city council meetings, and it became — I’ll shorten this up — but it became clear to me that the heavy — they have the fifth highest tax burden in the country. You can go on and on and on. But the dominant people in that system are the public sector labor unions — the police, the fire and the teachers, and they wring these — they negotiate these unbelievably generous contracts out of these weak-kneed city council people, to the extent that an excessive amount of our taxes was going into the pockets of police and fire and teachers, which is a hard group to attack. But when you can retire at 20 years — your retirement is based not only on your salary but on longevity payments and holiday pay and you get free health insurance. I mean, it was just unbelievable the way they were — how 129 generous these contracts were. And they were outside the budget process because — in fact, the budget process only accounted for maybe 25 percent of the town’s budget. And the town had the lowest rating in the country — bond rating, so I started attending city council meetings, and I started speaking up about these contracts. Mr. Hollman: Am I crazy to imagine that you didn’t endear yourself to public employees by speaking up on this issue? Mr. Davey: Oh, of course. There was one time when I spoke up at a city council meeting, and it was lined with firemen because they knew I was going to be talking about them. You’re supposed to identify yourself, and I went up, I said, Hey, do you mind if I pass on my name? [Laughter] At one point I asked the city council, one of whom was the head of the labor union in the adjoining county, adjoining town — he lived in Cranston — I was wondering, I said, what is the public policy justification for giving longevity payments and extra holiday pay to retirees? And these were big amounts. And there was silence. And then finally this one councilman said, “Mr. Davey, I don’t know what the policy justification for it is, but I know it’s in the contract.” [Laughter] In any event — no, it was tough. Then a bright, young guy comes on the scene by the name of Steve Laffey, and he’s running for mayor, and I support him, and he beats a well-established politician. And he starts making noises about the unions. He’s going to be a union-buster. That was in 2002. So 2004 rolls around, and a couple of Laffey’s people say, Jim, you know, you ought to run for state representative against Frank Montanaro. And he was the poster child of the union movement. I mean his father was the head of the 130 labor — IS head of the labor movement in Rhode Island, and this guy had served, Frank Jr., had served nine consecutive terms, and he only needed one more term to be eligible for a pension — not only from his day job — he worked for Rhode Island College of Education — Rhode Island politicians work during the afternoons — they start at 4:00, so whatever. I said, no, I’ve never been in politics. But about two weeks before, I said, you know, what the hell? In Rhode Island, one of the things that bothered me, Steve, you’d talk to Rhode Islanders, they’d say this is the way it is in Rhode Island. You’ve got to get used to it. It’ll never change. And I said, “It’ll never change unless you make it change.” So I said, if I’m going to walk my talk, I’ll run against this son-of-a gun. I’ll pretend it’s a marathon, and I’ll just get ready for a marathon. If I make it, I make it. So, two weeks before, I decided to run. Frank was there the day I filed my papers. And he was standing outside the place you have to file your papers, and he saw me coming. And he said, “Who are you running against, Davey?” I said, “You.” He said, “Why don’t you run against Senator Lanzi? You know, there’s only 38 senators, and there’s 75 of us representatives.” And then he said, “You know, there’s another Republican that just filed, and you’re going to have a primary.” And I said, “Yeah, I checked him out, and he didn’t file in time.” Whatever. I started running against him, and nobody gave me a shot, even the Republicans. But I put a campaign staff together of three people — one, I got a treasurer so I didn’t have to worry about the financial angle of it. I was willing to 131 spend my own money. It turned out that I raised enough so I didn’t have to spend a dime of my own money. I got, to chair my Committee, the former Chairman of the Cranston City Council, who knew Cranston politics in and out. He was a Democrat. I was running as a Republican. I was registered an Independent and ran as a Republican. And then I had another guy who was a speechwriter for O’Neill, the former U.S. Speaker of the House from Massachusetts. Mr. Hollman: Tip O’Neill? Mr. Davey: Yes. So I got good advice, and the main thing I did, Steve, is I hit every door in my district at least once. I also had a good resume. And I remember one 90-yearold guy telling me, he said, “Hey, Mr. Davey, I’ve been a Democrat all my life, but I’m voting for you, and you know why?” He said, “I’m getting by on $1,000 a month on my Social Security, and I’m paying for my life insurance, and I’m paying for them damn firemen.” So I edged Frank out. Oh, I’ve got to tell you one other story. When you go politicking, you got to — you knock on every door, and you have a card that you give them that has all of your bio stuff, and I wasn’t paying attention one day, and I knocked on this one door, and I looked, and it was Frank, Sr., the head of the labor movement in Rhode Island, and I’m running against his son. [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: How did he appreciate your visit? Mr. Davey: Well, I said, “You’re not going to need this card.” And he said, “You know, Frank’s had a number of opponents, and just keep it clean.” And I said, “There’s not any problem on this end.” Biographical material on Representative Davey is attached at Tab 17 20 A Press Release on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2005 is attached at Tab 18. 21 132 So, I tell you — and then election night, everybody — Laffey had a lot of people, he had a lot of support, and there were a lot of other people that ran at the same time that I did for Senate and House. And I had a little party over at my house, and I had sent runners to all of the eight different polling places, and we knew that we pulled it off around 9:00. And then we went over to the Laffey headquarters where everybody else was to join in the celebration, but it turned out nobody else made it. Laffey was reelected, of course, but nobody else made it. So it took some of the fun out of that. But not a lot. To beat that guy — whatever. In fact, when I got to the state house, the guys said, you don’t really have any idea what you just did. Mr. Hollman: You were sworn in in January of ’05, and by February, you were introducing the 20 Taxpayer Relief Act of 2005. 2 1 Mr. Davey: I did. And that was pretty much Laffey’s program that I introduced on his behalf, and that Taxpayer Relief Act, if you looked at it, would have really cut those union folks back. And I got hearings but no votes. No votes. They wouldn’t even report it out of committee, although by that time they were getting to know me, and I don’t know if it was then or whenever that I took the Chief Justice on. Do you have that? Mr. Hollman: No. Mr. Davey: The Chief Justice had established a Web site that talked about the courts and all, but it also talked about — he’s a Lincoln scholar — Chief Justice Williams — and if you want to have him for a speech, you click this thing and, you know, fees 133 to be established. And so I wrote an open letter to him that the Journal published, saying that I thought that was a breach of his duty — not to use his office for personal gain and the like. In fact, I pointed out, one of my Chiefs, Judge Hart, he said, you know I never made a friend, a new friend after I became Chief. He just didn’t feel it was right. That was the other extreme. But after some moaning and groaning, the Chief Justice took the Web site down. And the other thing was that we had a voting — I don’t know, did you get that voting fraud — we had a vote taken where the leadership lost a vote — they didn’t lose too many. We had 13 Republicans. We had some dissident Democrats. But we rarely had enough votes to do anything against the leadership. But they lost a vote on a motion, and then the No. 2 guy in the leadership comes out: “There’s voting fraud; there’s voting fraud in here. Flannery, who has voted FOR, and some others — they’re not here.” And it turned out that one of the other representatives who sat near them just had turned around and pushed Flannery’s button and another button. And I gave a talk on the floor that night. I said, Hey, I really commend you for, you know, to the No. 2 guy in the Democrat Party, for pointing this out, this fraud. Well, I was still naive. It turned out that the only reason they did it is it was against them. And on the re-vote, they won. Well, there it sat until a Democratic friend of mine in Cranston, he said, you know, I went through all those other votes. There were 11 other votes that night where this guy voted for these absent people, but they were all in favor of the leadership, so the leadership didn’t question those. So I went to the Speaker and said, you’ve got to do something about this. 134 Am I going too far on this stuff here, Steve? Mr. Hollman: No, although I’m going to have to stop. I’m out of time for today. [End of TAPE for 9/2 session] 135 Interview of James F. Davey Session #6 – September 9, 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 James F. Davey. The interviewer is Steven P. Hollman. This interview was conducted by telephone on September 9, 2008, commencing at 3:38 p.m. Mr. Hollman: Good afternoon, Jim, this is September 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm and this is our 6th session of the Oral History of former Clerk of Court Jim Davey. Mr. Davey: Hi, Steve. Mr. Hollman: How are you? Mr. Davey: I’m good. Mr. Hollman: I think the most important question is, did you win your softball game? Mr. Davey: Well, let’s put it this way, we are no longer in the tournament. We played sporadically, we killed one team, another team killed us and then we lost in an even battle to another team, but we had fun! But I had something happen that never happened to me in 50 years playing softball, slow pitch. Mr. Hollman: Well, what was that? Mr. Davey: Well, one of our guys got up and got called out on strikes. Do you ever play slow pitch? You never get called out on strikes. Mr. Hollman: I hope he walked away in great embarrassment. Mr. Davey: He did, and two minutes later I did the same damn thing for the first time in my career. It was a bad call by the ump but not an egregious call, and I should have been swinging. And I’m going through another 50 years without that happening. Mr. Hollman: Here, here. Mr. Davey: Okay. A Press Release regarding Davey’s Open Government bills is attached at Tab 19. 22 136 Mr. Hollman: So where we left off was, we were discussing the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2005, which was one of your first legislative initiatives in the State House in Rhode Island. Mr. Davey: Right, and that was drafted, ninety percent of it, by a supporter of the Mayor of Cranston, Steve Laffey, who is a reformer. He subsequently ran for Senate against Chafee and lost, but he’s a potential governor. And that was just a bundle of things that had accumulated through the years that, if we could get them passed, would provide significant relief to taxpayers at the expense of the unions that dominate the legislature. And it didn’t go anywhere, and that was my introduction to politics, not just politics in Rhode Island, but I guess politics anywhere. A freshman of a minority party has no clout. And even though we had hearings on the bill, it didn’t go anywhere. As did all the other bills that we submitted. 2 2 Although I did have legislation pass, but it wasn’t under my name. I’ll just give you a quick story, and that will tell you a little bit of how things run. I and a Republican colleague introduced a bill that would allow cameras at intersections to catch people going through red lights. And I had quite a bit of background on that because my son lives in Cary, North Carolina, and they had implemented a system like that years ago. And I had all the data about the accidents, and so on. But it was controversial because, you know, invading peoples’ privacy, and so on. So we introduced the bill, and then the Democrats entered their own bill, but not with the same language. But the ACLU in looking at our two bills said Davey’s bill is better, [Laughter] which rarely happened 137 while I was up there. So what happened was, they took language out of my bill and put it in the leadership bill, and when it came to the floor, the sponsor of that bill was surprised after we had the discussion because I stood up in support of it. And actually, I was supporting my own bill. [Laughter] And the sponsor had no idea what was going on. And he came up to me afterward and thanked me for — he said, you were the strongest supporter of that bill. I said, well you know, if something’s good, I’ll support it regardless. In any event, it was an eye opener to see how the system worked. And if you wanted to get anything done, you had to find a Democratic sponsor. And you know, you got virtually no credit, which isn’t important if you can get something done. But it is frustrating. I remember I sat on the Judiciary Committee and attended all the meetings faithfully and me and two of my Republican colleagues had the best attendance record of all the people, and yet we couldn’t get a hearing on any of the bills that we introduced that went to Judiciary. That’s frustrating, and the lack of — I also sponsored bills that make the legislature more open and accountable, have audits, regular audits, like they require of the executive branch, and that went nowhere. The Democrats, you know I’m an Independent, I ran as a Republican to get their support but the Democrats have been entrenched in power in Rhode Island for a long, long time and so entrenched that they really don’t have to listen. And the net result is that the special interests get a better deal, and the ordinary taxpayer isn’t the top priority up there. And that’s unfortunate, and I hope it’s not typical throughout the nation. Mr. Hollman: How long did you serve in the legislature? 138 Mr. Davey: I just served one term. I was going to run again, and then my wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. And I concluded that spending time with my family was more important than spending time with those kooks up there! I would’ve liked to have continued, but I didn’t run the second term. And who knows what would have happened even if I’d run. So I just spent one two-year term. Mr. Hollman: Have you been able to continue your involvement in Common Cause? Mr. Davey: I have not down here, Steve. Actually it was Common Cause that got me into the political arena. When I got to Rhode Island, you know, being retired, I was interested in good government issues, and there’s lots of them in Rhode Island. And Common Cause was an outfit that I remember when, I don’t know if you remember John Gardner started it many years ago, and he was an inspirational figure. And so I hooked up with them and worked on, we were, one of the big projects at the time was separation of powers. The legislature not only was Democratic solidly Democratic, but they had their fingers in the executive branch’s business on a whole bunch of boards and commissions that were performing executive functions and led to a very unbalanced system with even more power in the legislature than in most states. So twice there was a voter referendum urging separation of powers. And Common Cause was the group that fought for that, so I got involved with them. Eventually, three members of the Common Cause board became my threeperson Committee when I ran for office. So there’s a direct link between Common Cause and my political career. But I’ve talked to the guy down here in North Carolina. But I’m not in a position to leave home for any extended periods, and so my activist days may be in the past. I still remain interested. 139 Mr. Hollman: What’s your thought about the role of the judiciary and separation of powers issues, now that you have had the opportunity to serve both in the judicial branch and in the legislative branch? Mr. Davey: Well, you know, I think with all the frustrations that we have with our system of government, that the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of dividing things up. And properly executed, the three branches, when they stay within their own spheres, offer, you know, a system of checks and balances where one side can’t get too far out of control. I think an excellent example of that was Watergate. That was a true test of separation of powers, you know, when Judge Sirica subpoenaed the tapes of Nixon, and never before in the history of our government had a president been forced to give up something that he didn’t want to give up. Jefferson had been subpoenaed, and he said he didn’t have to comply, but he voluntarily complied, but it wasn’t a true test. But when that subpoena went out from Archibald Cox wanting the tapes and then Nixon said ain’t gonna do it, that set up a real battle. And if we didn’t have a judiciary to resolve it, who knows where we would have ended up? And there was nothing in the Supreme Court opinion that said, Hey, the Executive Privilege comes in second when we’re seeking evidence in criminal trial. So I think the judiciary is a very important part of that whole concept of separation of powers. Now you can argue about individual decisions, you know, whether they did the right thing or not, but it’s good to have a body that will periodically see whether the legislature is passing constitutional laws or whether the executive is going too far. And so that our tripoded system, I think, works well. 140 Mr. Hollman: Well as a recovering politician, do you have any thoughts on the political landscape today at the presidential level? Mr. Davey: I think that what McCain did in selecting the Alaska governor as his running mate was a brilliant move politically, but boy, I just — that’s — it’s scary that somebody that inexperienced — talking about his choice — could be our next president. And I’m concerned on that. And I’ve been disappointed in the way the — I don’t think there’s too many people that are real happy with the way our federal government has been responding to overseas crises and domestic crises in the last 6-8 years. And I’m not being partisan on that. I’m just unhappy. Things just don’t seem to be going right. But I have been fortunate that I have been able to travel either during my prior career in the Department of Agriculture or being retired, I’ve been to 5 continents and over 30 countries and been able to look at a lot of different systems. And we have flaws, and we’re not in a good period right now, but we are still the best country — I wouldn’t trade it for anything else out there. And I’m hopeful. You know, there are signs of hope. You know, they did better getting ready for this last hurricane, and I think the move to take over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was doing the right thing at the right time. But it’s going to be an interesting 60 days, and I just wish that we could get, you know, to the issues and know people or what, you know, where they want the country to go. I’m leaning towards Obama, quite frankly. You know, he’s got the youth of the country behind him, and I think we ought to turn it over to the youth. We’ve screwed it up pretty well. [Laughter] 141 But I’ve got an old — I’ve got a picture of me and my wife and McCain. Actually, it’s funny, when we went up to New England, left Virginia in 2000, one of things we did is, we got involved with the Bill Bradley campaign, and we went door to door in New Hampshire for him and my wife was pulling up McCain signs. I said, “Hon, you can’t do that.” “Why not?” And then Bradley lost, so then we shifted to McCain. And then McCain lost, and then we were left with Bush and Gore. That wasn’t much of a choice. So that’s kind of a rambling answer. I’ve been very concerned and disappointed with the reaction of the federal government to our basic problems. I hope that whoever wins does start making some basic changes. You know, they’ve tried to reduce the influence of money, through campaign finance reforms, but then the 527s sprung up. I think you gotta keep fighting. I saw the negative effect on the ordinary folks there up in Rhode Island, when a small select few lobbyist interest groups get entwined with the leadership — the normal average person doesn’t get the better end of that deal. And I think the same is true at the national level. I’d like to see both McCain and Obama make some basic changes. You know, Obama is talking about looking at programs that no longer are useful. I don’t know if the Department of Agriculture still has the REA program — or the Rural Electrification Administration — they had it back in the 60s when I was there and they had already served their purpose but they were still booking along. So let’s hope that the next 60 days does shed some light on what they’re really going to do, and maybe they can get more specific so that when January 142 rolls around that we do get some change. But there’s going to be a slow process, and my big thing would be to try to reduce the influence of money. Mr. Hollman: Jim, what advice as a student of the administration of justice would you offer to people who are concerned about that issue? Mr. Davey: The only advice I would give them is that if you’re concerned about it, then get involved with it in whatever way you want. I have a nephew whose thinking about it and wants to become a probation officer. And I think that would be great. There’s all kinds of aspects to the justice system, and it’s our system, and if you’re young, there’s plenty of different careers, paralegals, probation, a lawyer. I would just say get involved, and there are some very rewarding careers. I know that when I retired, I felt like I had been in a meaningful job that had some impact, hopefully positive, on the system. And so there are many jobs in the system, and there’s people to take a look and get involved. Mr. Hollman: Any last thoughts on your experience as the Clerk of Court? Mr. Davey: We covered that a little mostly last time, Steve, but I did want to thank you for taking the time to listen and go through this. You know, we started almost three and a half years ago. No, we didn’t — we said we were going to start, and then I got involved, and you got involved. See that’s — you gotta have hope. We stuck with it. Mr. Hollman: We did, and I must say that you’re recounting of your experiences has been extraordinarily entertaining and also insightful in terms of how things operated before and how they operate now. I’ve learned a tremendous amount. Mr. Davey: Well, I don’t know how insightful, I’ll defer to you on that, but I was fortunate to have a good job, and we were in a climate where change needed to be made. And 143 I’ll put it this way, if either one of these candidates can change their institutions as much as we were able to change ours, change is a-coming. [Laughter] Mr. Hollman: Well that is one constant in our system of government, I think. Mr. Davey: Yes, yes. Hey, you got the tape on? Mr. Hollman: Yes. Mr. Davey: Last time we talking about the fact that I found a guy that voted fraudulently for two or three guys that weren’t present. He pushed their buttons, and the leadership challenged it because the vote went against the leadership. Mr. Hollman: Right, you said they challenged that one bill, and there were a couple of other bills that day that didn’t get challenged. Mr. Davey: Well, yes, and so when it was over, I went to the Speaker and said, “Well what are you going to about it?” And he said, “Well, there’s no rule against it.” And I said, “Well, you know, you could use the power of your position to at least make a public admonishment of this guy,” because it had become public. Well, he did. And — but just like I say, they never get around to it — but then I did some more writing that the newspapers published, and we now have a new rule. Let me read it to you: “No member may vote for another member nor activate another member’s voting machine except by the express direction of that member who was present in the House chamber. No one may occupy the vacant seat of a member.” A violation of this rule could result in expulsion. How about that? Mr. Hollman: Well, that’s an honest government reform. Mr. Davey: It is. 144 Mr. Hollman: Thank you again so much, Jim, and I’ll be in touch, probably by email initially, and then to send you the materials. Mr. Davey: Thank you so much. Mr. Hollman: Thank you Mr. Davey: Bye, bye. Mr. Hollman: This concludes our session at 4:06 pm. Thanks. [end of TAPE for 9/9 session] A-1 Oral History of James F. Davey INDEX (“n” following page number indicates footnote) Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 25, 45, 90, 113, 117–18, 125 Davey consultancy, 127 staffing formula, 99–102 Agnew, Spiro T., 85n Agriculture, U.S. Department of (USDA), 21, 141 Barker, Bernard L., 61 Bazelon, David L., 48, 49–50, 51, 75, 82 Ben-Veniste, Richard, 79 Bernstein, Carl, 59, 60, 68 Bork, Robert, 114 Bossert, Denny, 54 Bradley, William (“Bill”), 141 Breslin, Jimmy, 78 Brown, Berk, 99 Brown, Doris, 48 Bryant, William B., 38, 42, 44, 53–54, 104–106 Buckner, William (“Bill”), 15 Burger, Warren E., 111, 114 Bush, George W., 141 calendar system, individual, 27, 37–39, 40–41, 43–46, 124 Capitanio, James (“Cappy”), 62, 63, 76, 78 Cash, Johnny, 76 Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI), 127 Chafee, Lincoln, 136 Christofferson, D. Todd, 63, 69, 76 Chung, Connie, 60 Committee on the Administration of Justice of the U.S. Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit, 34n, 35, 37, 38, 124 Common Cause, 138 Cooper, Morton (“Mort”), 14 Cooper, William (“Walker”), 14 Copeland, Dawn, 102 Corcoran, Howard F., 56, 64, 101 A-2 Court Management Study. See Davey – Court Management Study Court of General Sessions, 33, 34, 46–47 court reporters, 88–89, 98–99, 100–102 Cox, Archibald, 64–65, 67, 139 Curran, Edward M., 40, 42, 87–88, 90, 91, 92 Davey, Catherine, 3, 9–10, 11–12, 35 Davey, James F. – Personal birth, 1 brothers, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 childhood, 1–7, 9–10, 11–12, 13 children, 21, 76–77, 136 community involvement, 128 father, 1–2, 3, 4, 7, 9–10, 11 Florida jobs, 7, 17 Georgetown Law School, 20, 21 grandmother (maternal), 4, 9, 10 grandparents (paternal), 5 great aunt (maternal), 10–11 high school, 7, 15 principal, 11, 18–19 male influences, 11 Marine Corps service, 7, 15–17 marriage, 8, 19, 21 mother, 3, 9–10, 11–12, 35 Navy Reserves, 15 politics, 128–29 Red Sox Fantasy Camp, 14–15 religion, 9 sister, 3 sports, 12–14, 24, 135 travel, 21, 140 University of Rhode Island, 7, 18, 19 wife, 8, 19–20, 21, 119–20, 138, 141 and World War II, 1–2, 5–6 Davey, James F. – Professional on administration of justice, 142 Chief Deputy, 29, 124 and docket sheets, 28, 29 and dress code, 32–33 and flextime, 31–32 and workloads, 33–34, 39 A-3 Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 23–24, 41, 87, 89–90 and bailiffs, 41–42, 43 cases, 109n computerization of courthouse, 26–27, 105, 125 and courthouse politics, 48–51 court reporter responsibility, 52–54, 88–89, 98–102 D.C. Circuit duties, 110–11 employee civil suit, 118–20 gym creation, 113 high-profile cases, 114–16, 125 and Judge Gasch, 48–50 and Judge Hart, 40, 55–56, 92–93, 94–96, 99, 107, 117 and Judge Pratt, 52, 53–54 and Judge Robinson, 54, 90, 91–92 and Judge Smith, 52–54 jury utilization, 93–95, 50–51, 125 management assistant, 93–94 management retreat, 26, 108 missing exhibits, 83–84 oversight, 91–93 and the press, 67, 68–69, 72, 115, 116 on public’s right to know, 115–17 on separation of powers, 139 retirement, 118, 119–20, 122, 125–26, 127 and Supreme Court justices, 112–14 title change issues, 107, 111–12 and Watergate, 58, 75–77, 80–82 Cox subpoena, 64–67 Dean documents, 63–64 McCord letter, 61–62, 64 verdict, 78–79 See also Watergate Common Cause involvement, 138 consultant to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 127 on federal government policies, 140–41 internal auditor at U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20–21, 35, 140 Rhode Island state legislator, 80, 84–85, 137–38 campaign, 127, 129–132 on Judiciary Committee, 137 Open Government bills, 136n Taxpayers’ Relief Act of 2005, 132, 136 on voting fraud, 133, 143 staff member of Court Management Study, 22, 26, 28, 59, 123–24 A-4 and calendar system, 37–39, 40–41, 43–46, 124 and case assignments, 43–44, 59 and court executive, 37, 38, 41 selection for, 34–35 treasurer of Federal Court Clerk’s Association (FCCA) Foundation, 128 Davey, John M., 3, 5n, 12, 16 Davey, Thomas, 3, 8, 11, 15 Davey, Thomas Leo, 1, 3, 4, 7, 9–10, 11 Dean, John, 63, 64 DiMaggio, Joseph (“Joe”), 14 District of Columbia Department of Corrections, 105–106 Doerr, Robert (“Bobby”), 14 Drexel, Al, 13 Dushane, Dwayne, 49–50, 52 Ehrlichman, John D., 59, 61, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77 Ellison, Newell, 35, 124 Farrar, Eleanor, 104 Federal Court Clerk’s Association (FCCA) Foundation, 128 Flannery, Thomas A., 35, 124 Flynn, LeeAnn, 108 Gardner, John, 138 Gasch, Oliver, 48–50, 75, 89 Gesell, Gerhard A., 41, 44, 66, 74, 81, 88, 90, 97, 103, 121, 126 and Clerk’s office, 122–23 on Committee on the Administration of Justice of the U.S. Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit, 35, 124 and jurors, 51, 55, 94 and Sirica, 82 staff of, 45–46, 48 Gibson, Charles, 60 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 114 Gonzalez, Virgilio, 61 Gore, Albert, 141 Green, June L., 35, 124 Greene, Harold H., 52, 90, 94, 103 Haldeman, Harry R. (“Bob”), 50, 59, 61, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75 Hamilton, James, 82 Hardy, Kenneth, 105, 106 A-5 Harris, Clara, 68 Hart, George L., Jr., 44, 50, 87, 88, 89, 91 and cellblock takeover, 97–98 as Chief Judge, 33, 42, 106–107, 133 and Davey, 40, 55–56, 92–93, 94–96, 99, 107, 111–12, 117 Hughes, Greg, 24 Hundley, William, 71, 73–74, 79 Hunt, E. Howard, 61 Jackson, Thomas Penfield, 26 Jefferson, Thomas, 139 Jenkins, Miriam, 29–30 Jones, William B., 41, 42–43, 44, 98, 104, 105 Judicial Conference of the United States, 107 jurors, Watergate, 50–51, 60, 69–71, 74, 80 Kline, Hugh E., 62, 75, 111 Laffey, Stephen, 129, 132, 136 Lanzi, Beatrice A., 130 Lewis, Marion, 92 Liddy, G. Gordon, 61 Line, Robert, 65, 74 Lowney, Robert, 25–26 Mardian, Dorothy, 79 Mardian, Robert C., 70, 74 Martinez, Eugenio, 61 Mayer-Whittington, Nancy, 23–28, 32, 33, 50, 108–109, 120–22 McCain, John, 140, 141 McCord, James W., Jr., 61 McGuire, Matthew F., 39–40 McLaughlin, Charles F., 118 McPeak, Maureen, 35–36 Mecham, Ralph, 91 Mitchell, John N., 59, 61, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 79 Montanaro, Frank, 129–30, 131 Murrah, Alfred P., 37 Neal, James, 79 Nelson, Charles, 111 Nixon, Richard M., 66, 85n, 139 A-6 Obama, Barack, 140, 141 O’Neill, Thomas P. (“Tip”), 131 Palmer, Jim, 98 Parker, Barrington D., Sr., 78, 113 Parkinson, Kenneth W., 70, 74, 78, 79 Pearl Harbor, 2, 5–6 Penn, John G., 46, 108–109 Pentagon Papers, 58, 114–15 Pickering, John, 35 Pratt, John H., 35, 52, 53–54, 124 Red Sox, 13, 14–15 Rhode Island politics, 128–30, 136–37 Richey, Charles, 126 Riser, Charles, 118, 119 Robinson, Aubrey E., 41, 50, 103, 106, 108, 122, 123, 124 as Chief Judge, 42, 77, 121 and Davey, 54, 90, 91–92 Russell Sage Foundation, 35 Saari, David, 35, 36, 38 Scalia, Antonin, 112 Seabees, 4 Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 81–82 Sirica, John J., 40, 42, 87, 91, 92, 117–18 and Watergate, 61–63, 64, 66–67, 68, 75–76, 82, 139 jurors, 50–51, 60, 69–72 trial,73, 79 verdict, 78 Smith, John L., Jr., 42, 52–54, 88, 106 Solomon, Harvey, 35–37 Sporkin, Stanley, 103 Stahl, Leslie, 60 Stanley, Robert, 15 Stearns, Robert M., 28, 29, 32, 33, 41–42 Stein, Jacob A., 78, 80 Stern, Carl, 116 Strachan, Gordon, 73 Strickler, Frank H., 79 Sturgis, Frank A., 61 Thomas, Clarence, 113–14 A-7 Timpane, Mary Elizabeth, 4, 9, 10 Triga, Carmelia, 8, 19–20, 21, 119–20, 138, 141 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 34, 48, 62, 75, 110–11 Circuit Executive, 111–12 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 62, 111 backlogs, 39 bailiffs, 41–42, 43 budget process, 90–91 Clerk’s Office, 24–25 court reporters, 52–54, 88–89, 98–99, 100–102 deputy clerk appointments, 91 high-profile cases, 114–16 judge composition, 87–88, 104, 106 judge interaction, 103 Judicial Conference membership, 107 jury utilization, 93–95, 125 Management Study, 34n, 37, 43 calendar system, individual, 27, 37–39, 40–41, 43–46, 124 court executive, 37, 38, 41 Pretrial Examiner office, 37, 39 security of, 97–98 staffing formula, 99–102 Walsh, Leonard P., 117 Watergate cases, 23, 50–51, 58, 100, 114–15 116, 139 Cox subpoena, 64–66, 67 Dean documents, 63–64 jurors, 50–51, 60, 69–72, 74, 80 materials pertinent to cases, 85–86 McCord letter, 61–62, 64 Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 66n press, 59–60, 68–69, 72 trial, 61, 73–74 verdict, 78–79 Watergate Seven, 61 Whitacre, Marge, 118–22 Williams, Frank J., 84, 132–33 Williams, Theodore (“Ted”), 14 Wilson, John, 50–51, 69, 70, 74 Wolf, Warner, 74 Woodward, Bob, 59, 60 World War II, 1–2, 4 B-1 Cases Cited United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C. 1981), clarified, 529 F. Supp. 520 (D.D.C.), aff’d 672 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir. 1982), 78, 115 United States v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Harldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Robert Mardian, Kenneth Parkinson, Gordon Strackan (CR 74-110, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) March 1, 1974, 69–79, 114–15 United States v. Washington Post, 446 F.2d 1327 (1971), 114–15 Whitacre v. Davey, 890 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038 (1990), 119–20 BIOGRAPHY OF JIM DAVEY Jim, the son of a naval officer, was born on Parris Island on September 19, 1935. Six years later Jim’s father was the Public Works Officer on Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Jim’s house was located just two battleship lengths away from Battleship Row; thus, Jim and his family became eyewitnesses to history when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. In 1942 Jim’s father was transferred to Rhode Island. Jim spent his remaining childhood in Rhode Island attending public schools including the University of Rhode Island from which he graduated in 1958 with a BS degree in Accounting. Upon graduation he took a job with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an internal auditor. While working for USDA Jim attended the Georgetown Law Center where he graduated from its evening division in 1965 with a Juris Doctor degree. In 1966 and 1967 Jim was assigned to the USDA’s Overseas Audit Branch and became the Supervisory Auditor-in-Charge of the Branch in 1967. Jim participated and/or supervised audits in Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile, Kenya, Israel, India, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 1968 Jim joined a small group that conducted a management review of the DC Court System that was requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee and funded primarily by the Ford Foundation. The study resulted in major recommendations for reorganizing the courts in the District of Columbia as well as major recommendations for changes in the courts’ policies and procedures particularly those relating to case management. At the conclusion of the study the US District Court for the District of Columbia hired Jim in 1969 as the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Clerk’s Office with a mandate to begin implementing many of the study recommendations. In 1970 when the Clerk retired the Court appointed Jim as Clerk. Jim served as Clerk until he retired in 1991. During Jim’s tenure the Clerk’s Office provided major assistance to the Court as it converted from a master to an individual calendar system. The Clerk’s Office also was of major assistance to the Court in a number of highly publicized cases including the Watergate, Pentagon Papers, AT&T, John Hinckley, and Oliver North cases. His Office was also a leader in computerizing not only the Clerk’s Office but also Judges’ courtrooms and chambers. Additionally, the Clerk’s Office became noted for its utilization of modern management techniques and its employee centered programs that rewarded outstanding performance, gave cash for suggestions that led to improvements and allowed employees very flexible work schedules. The Office’s Career Development Program produced many capable supervisors and managers several of whom became Clerks of other Courts and one of whom, Nancy Mayer-Whittington, was appointed Clerk to succeed Jim when he retired. She became the first female and first non-lawyer to become Clerk since the Court was founded in 1801. C-1 am es Davey with Chief Judg Bryant – 1978 Tab 1 LI` James Davey with Chief Judge Sirica – 1974 Tab 1 James Davey with Benjamin Robinson (left) and Keith Custis (center) of USDA Inspector General’s Office – 1966 Tab 1 Tab 2 TABLE 46 18 PERSONS vrr •., *.• .. 5518.. 55111-‘ iztergate I e, 5513 et:ace 5518 a ,71r LA, • -40 74.75ron 74.75F 4575V ROOM CHEC126.. .t: CHG 1747137 9 /4 0 ga 552r 0.0 CliG COFFEE TEA OTHER FOOD / TO TBAR did I qrS TOTAL TAX ? 7 TOTAL 0. Tab 2 BAR 7 only set-upS .esn1 one (1) . bottle.cLitty Sark – • . WiNt.S . GOVERNNa0411 “Ais•191JVT 01, i LINC.I K)N; i-f.C.TE.1-1.6 .. , ‘;” /,’ i . . 1_,J.—- I 6 Ad ■ ? . ..-^ ., . . . . . Naivie of Fundion • 1)3.nn el.- —- No . ‘ — Pat. ‘anLI Day Pr idc.cy , My 26 +1972 fill.:. 8:30 FoorItoorn• Cont. lent S _ . . . . . . . A ..!1:35 ols Row:ntibi l ify of Nay -C.::$1. D;:poa ,-, • i Cr..dif Approved .. Priccr 11 ….i.-1 perscaL) f; . N. Exped.:d :10 No. Prepare for / . N:.. 0L60:Eked . . . I . . EXTRAS: Winos .. Corkage . Cigar; Cigar6-tes . 1.ettgle; – . L Flowors -Orr: h;: r.• MENU . ‘ – DIFEFET • , •. .00 ii.■ /.1v La Onyr,;7ation Amer ir t s • • 5 it? j t__.f:>,t … V32 NAffs6 of14. wev,iderpe.e. Palcx,o Kiehael Suarez /Preslacni.a.. • rhorio . . Shrirap Cocktail Filet Mignon, Medium, Baked Potato – • Sour Cream Bouguetiere Fresh Vegetables ToSSed Green Salad Frozen Parfait Cake Bread – Butter • Coffee – Tea $14.95 per porzon T T – f&fify pct rtmeni f.o.;;;;Sret:on clerk Of PIOni ❑ 7zR5 osPoLe s C..::ad soya 1 Schism ICJ Co-Os O T.f..:N•1. 101. 4 :.:^1 Gil 0 Elackbo ord li poThlor inock:o9 9 “… Moid .s ors:[ l’•oons ervon . (trams, o . rssod for ceolsolls , • RE?..jARKS. Bill Aaster Acct. in liot.c1 DETAILS. artc; REMINDERS Tab 2 ;r.,fitzez,d _ ‘ ,..der4L Tab 3 The Watergate Files – The Watergate Trial: May 1972 – June 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 4 JAMESW WCORD,JR, 7 VYTNCIER GOUNT ROCK-1L1A MARyLArirk ;F;30,50 F 1 L gr’\ MAR 1,9,t3 to jUta JAMES F.D AVEY tfr„.T. , 4 Certain questions have been posed to v:e from your honor throut,h Ole probation otCieek. , deck:Jab vita details of tha motivatfoila, Laski and eircurvitances. In endesvorinp, to respond ea these questions, Ian W . hiPsauc d in a vaei.bt Y 6E legalities. First, I may.be celled before a Serkete Committee inventiatiag this matter. Secondly, I may be involved in a civil suit, and thirrIly Chore .7ay bti a new trial at sc,,le future date. Fourthly, the probation officer %!ay be called before the Senate Committee to present testin.ony re2arding what env otherwise be a privileged cowgunicatien between dui:cndant and Jodl_e, nu understand it if Isnswered certain questions to the probation °filter, it Ja pessibJe such answers could becacae R matter ot record in the Senate and therefore a ,..ailehle for useitt th other proceedins just described. My elswers would, it ‘n1d seen: CO me, to violate my ti.eh c;:,andmeat riOts, Rad posst,b17 my 6th oxdadwent right to eaunsel asiirmusihir.ntterxntaz and •possidly other r4„hts. 9a the other band, to fail to answer yOur questions may appear to be non-cooperatitle, and 1 can therefore expett a much more severe sentenee. Tbere are further considerations which are not to t.i0itly taken. Several mek:kbers oI w> 4culi;y :kavo expressed Liar for my if I disclose knlyk4itdc or: 5vw kthe facts in this matter, either publicly far to WI’) ,oterrment represeutstive. Whexess K do not share their concerns to the same 0–,.kee, no, o urrnetens, I believe that Icatelieter; measures will bu .k.rklr.ct a y fewily, and friends -should Idiselc,so such facto. Such retaliation could destroy careers, income, and reputatioas of persons who are innocent uf any quit waacevet. Be that as it may, in thG interests 4f justice, and in the interear.; of resteriai, fair h in the triminal jciatice system, whieb faith has been severely da rznpd in this case, t 011 state the followiny to you at this time nhich I hope wLly he of help to you in meting ont justice in this case; There yes political pressure appll,ed to the defeadan 3 to plead guilty and remain saent. 2. Porja eturred dutIns the trial in ekaCtura hi_011y material to the very structare, orientation and impost cf the bive ,on,luc l a case, and to tao mativetioi: and intent of OA) defendants. 3. Others involved in the laterate operetioa wore n ,or. identifieJ durikv, the trial, when they conl4i have been by those testif, A true eopy: 4 o Narch 0, L973 http://www ,ford,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion =1&page.. . 5/28/2008 tiYi The Watergate Files – The Watergate Trial: May 1972 – June 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 2 54 JAMOSIM.-M:aCORD.,JR. I Vi tai ntrt Gvvri.r ROCKVILLE. 9 4.11.FlYtd. KO 30Z SO 4. The Uatergate operatiOn was not a CIA operation. The Cubans may have been mislod by others into believing that it was a -CIA operation. I know Coe a Mot that IL wdS nfiti or statemnts wore unfortunaply cade by,yitaesso= which left the Court with the impression that Iheltio untruths, or withholdinz facts of A/s Mr:viz knowleke, when in fact only honest errors of memory were involved. 6. My motivations wort different than those of the others involved, but were not limited to or simply those offered in my dzienne durilv the tial. 74%s is no fault of my attorneys, but of the circumstances under whien wo had to prepare my dafenae. Followin5 sentence, I would appreeiate the opportunity to talk with you privately in chambers. Since I cannot fool confidant in talking with an FBI a4cnt, in testifying before a Grand jl,ry those U.S. Attorneys work for the Department of justice, or in talkin with other government representatives, such a discussion with you would he of assistance to ma. I ha •v not 4i cussed the above with my attorneys as• a matter of prcrtcation fox them. I give this atatemont freely and voluntarily, fully raaltzin thaC I mny be nonopned for ,riving; a false statement to a judicial Official, it the statements herein arc knowinr,ly uatrue. The statements are true and correct to the hest of my khowleilae and belief. IJA,q1’141 (.gases. W. •eCord, Jr. Tab3 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =l&page.. . 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 5 :Gerald R ticird Library & Muti The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents files Battle for the Tapes Documents Image(s) of Grand Jury subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to President Richard Nixon (View Transcript) Page 1 of 4 -Mcuirt .;MJ.1. 1)%1COS Ift lintteb tattl jeb ‘ur t ,,r• DiskfiNci MIME’ Court iy ■ 17 -9 3 THE UNITED STATES JOIN-I:104 r K .! .31-W TE, grAN icr r’W?fir e? r, Pr AF,Ws rto, • ri e ti tiF Irill!O1A91:1*: ,.;rand Jury +Room 3 K.’ : Jtj 0,„ C… OK. Any w..11.4rdirixtt-L2 affi tv.r., gn”.fici..,a1,. Dr avloyit oath, ccofiXca c!kf the 1trn r,–.):)jemtn h.orcriztattor ISCri4ust ad JUL 214 .6/3 JAI4E F, our k .•-. t;p v:•, ••••1,1.N11.. Ji 4 itl C4ir ii •”.!:’,’3..tra4.41,7 A. , tn:.tratify Otaht.Mit .,1::ila.$)L’i.;41.,:rISI:44414;A41+3.:14,tcrloparr,e.c..t43=1…wittroytickom-tirchoetairt;sx.:;pistex.t;Aultaxm b rf,11x: t.:11 flot-rormtrr.7-11 6:Lr objectia tigtoil Oft the 4itt4Ched gottua41…. WIT,’,”C.AN The $1,..:4;,,,,q(4:* J.02:ft j„ l’Erf J! f .rid rwr IhtY 23rAi 47-1. ee< eigiR.41414Pekt.4 scAt4o •’t N. 41:4)) of • 4104 . , • JANitS r Tab 4 http://www.forcLutexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 at. .41elp …._ „ UNITED STATES tIBPOLVA FO/ TUE GRAD V. .41.)Vtl’en, *014″.. r5:71- . Dv: – xis Tab 4 ,.,; , i .•,…,…….„4.7VA..,.1.–2.-i-..-.. -, -“4.– — “.t ——— . fri..1… . C.. –\,-.,’:,…- 7. The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 4 MARSHAL’S RETURN 7 anti Jr.ry No, „„ Subpoenaed personally di, . http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 4 UNITN0 STATMS p1STRICT COURT 1′[s,? THEE DISTRICT OF cOLOWIA GRAND JURY UUnPORNA 1)UCE5% MOM Dat,Ad auly 23, 1973 Schedule of Documents or Objects to be Produced by or on BehAlf of Richard M. Mixon: 1. All tapes and other electronic m isc. # 47-73 Fl ✓ fi irs?a 4144,4 uAV, Clerk t..cnani and/Or 11 cal recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda, papers, transcripts or other writings, relating to: (a) Meting of June 20, 1972, in the President’s Executive Office Building (“E04”) Office involving Richard Nixon, John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman from 10:30 a.m. to noon (time approximate). (b) Telephone conversation of June 20, 1972, between Richard Nixon and John. N. Mitchell from 0:00 to 6:12 p.m. (e) Meeting of June 30, 1972, in the President’s E013 Office, involving Messrs. Nixon, Haldeman and Mitchell from 12:55 to 2:10 p.m. (a) Meeting of September 15, 1972, in the President’s Oval Office’involving Mr. Nixon, Mr. Haldeman, and John W. Doan III from 6;27 to 6:17 p.m. (e) Beating of March 13, 1973, in the President’s Oval Office inmolving Messrs. Nixon, Dean and Haldeman from 12:42 to 2:00 p.m. (f) Meeting of March 21, 1973, in the President’s Oval Office involving Messrs. Nixon, Dean, and Haldeman from 10:12 to 11:55 a.m. (g) Meeting of Maroh 21, 1973, in the President’s DOB Office from 5:20 to 6:01 p.m. involving Messrs. Nixon, L. -.apuridA….mrakitAt.,,……-A4.06.1i..,14,64 Tab 4 http://w-vvvv.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 4 of 5 Zici,jler, Haldeman and Ehrlionman. (h) Meeting of March 72, 1.. 73 0in the Vresident’s mn Office from 1:57 to 343 v.m. involving Messrs. Nixon, Doan, Ehrlichman, Valdelman and Mitchall. (1) Meeting of April 15, 1973, in tho ,vrceident’s FOB Office between Mr. taxon and Mr. Dean from 9:17 to 10:12 p.m. 2. The original two paragraph memorandum from W. Richard Howard to Brace Kehrli, dated March 30, 172, concerning the torMination of Howard Hunt as a consultant and transfer to ‘1701’, signed “Dick.” with handwriting on the top and bottom of the one-page memorandum indicating that it was placed there by Kehrli. copy of this ummorandum was turned over to the Federal Bureau of Xnvestigatian on August 7, 1972, by James Rogers, Personnel Office, White Bouse.) 3. Original copiea of all “Political Matters Memoranda” and all “tabs” or “attachments” thereto from Gordon Strachan to B. R. Haldeman between November 1, 1973., and November 7, 1972, XXX Tab 4 Citation: Grand Jury subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to President Richard Nixon http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion—3&pa ge .. , 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 5 of 5 July 26, 1973, Misc. 47-73; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the Di: Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 4 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 A TRUE COPY AMES F. DAVEY, Clerks A l’IZUE Ci)11Y • r C” 17 L- I • ” j “I rte-fet/1/ Tab 5 WASH iNcras July 25, 1973 piz et) White House Counsel have received on my behalf a subpoena L i j444c . (3′ p), /3 duces tecurn issued out of the United States District Court for S p: the District of Coh to ambia on July 23rd at the request of Archibald si ii- e’y Cox. The subpoena calls on me to produce for a Grand Jury ‘ C< Of/ certain tape recordings as well as certain specified documents. With the utmost respect for the court of which you are Chief Judeg, and for the branch of government of which it is a part, 1 must decline to obey the command of that subpoena. In doing so I follow the,example of a long line of my predecessors as President of the United States who have consistently adhered to the position that the President is not subject to compulsory process from the courts, The independence a the three branches of our government is at the very heart of our Constitutional system. It would be wholly inadmissible, for the President to seek to compel some particular action by the courts. It is equally inadmissible for the courts to seek to compel some particular action from the President. That the President is not subject to compulsory process from the ,other branches of government does not mean, of course, that all information in the custody of the President must forever remain unavailable to the courts. Like all of my predecessors, I have always made relevant material available to the courts except in those rare instances when to do so would be inconsistent with the public interest. The principle that guides my actions in this regi*. was ‘V ell stated by Attorney General Speed in 1865: Upon princi-oles of public policy there are some kinds of evidence which the law excludes or dispenses Trith. * * The official transactions Dear Judge ,Sirica: u(114 between the heads of departments of the Government and their subordinate officers are, in general, treated as “privileged communications. ” The President of the United States, the heads of the great departments of the Government, and the Governors of the several States, it has been decided, axe nqt bound to produce papers or disclose information communicated to them where, in their own judgment, the disclosure would, on public considerations, be inexpedient. These are familiar ruleS laid down by every author on the law of evidence. A similar principle has been stated by many other Attorneys General, it has been recognized by the courts, and it has been acted upon by many Presidents. In the light of that principle, I am voluntarily transmitting for the use of the Grand Jury the Memorandum from W. Richard Howard to Bruc&’Kehrli in which they are interested as well as the described memoranda from Gordon Strachan. to H. R. Haldeman: I have concluded, however, that it would be inconsistent with the public interest and with the Constitutional position of the Presidency fo make available recordings of meetings and telephone conversations in which I was a partici- . pant and must respecdully decline to do so. Sincerely, Honorabli. John J. Sirica U.S. Court House 3rd and Constitution Avenue, N. W. Room 2428 Washington, D.C. 20001 cc: Honorable Archibald Cox Special Prosecutor Enclosure: Ilcwa.rd/Kehrli rrernoranclum efftaif ‘Op Anil-nut) 03zura1 Iti ztaill-zgLart,11. Q… 2353a The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 4 TITLE 28 — JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIM CHAPTER I — DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 0 — ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Order No. 546-73 ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE This order abolishes the Office of Watergate Special -Prosecution Force. The functions of that Office revert to the Criminal Division. By virtue of the authority vested in me by 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 5 U.S.C. 301, the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force is abolished. Accordingly, Part 0 of Chapter I of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follovs: 1. Section 0.1 of Subpart A, -which lists he organizational units of the Department, is amended by deleting “Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force.” 2. Subpart G-1 is revoked. Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 2 • Date: The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 2 Or . 517-73 of Oay 31, 1973, Order to. 518-73 o’E Xay 3/, 1973, Oraur No. 525-73 of Zuly •8, 1973, and Order 531-73 of Jay 31, 1973, are revoked. This order is e’llIcave as oE October 21, 1973. Acv.in.2′, Attorney (era ..v Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexa s.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 4 of 4 Citation: Department of Justice Order No. 546-73, “Abolishment of Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force as the Director Thereof”, October 21, 1973; Basic Documents, BSD-1 Authority and Establishment, box 1; Administration Records, Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Re Group 460; NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 4,94- The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 2 of 3 MAR, iithiTL6’F.ai LY, etcrk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No, ; 1.0 Violation of 18 U.S.C. 00 371, 1001, 1503, 1621, and 1623 (conspiracy, false statements to a government agency, obstruction of justice, perjury and false declarations.) V. JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY Ilk HALDEMAN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, CHARLES W. COLSON, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, and GORDON STRACHAN, Detendants. INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges: In troducti n 1. On or about June 17, 1972, Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank L. Stu gis were arrested in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building, Washington, D. C., while attempting to photograph documents and repair a surreptitious electronic listening device which had previously been placed in those offices unlawfully. 2. At all times material herein, the United Stutes Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and tha Federal Bureau of InVestigation were parts of the Department of Justice, a department and agency of the United Statea, and the Central Intelligence Agoncy was an agency of the United States. 3. Beginning on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing up to and including the date of the filing Ot this Tab 7 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion =4&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 3 of 3 Citation: Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichr Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stachan, C.R. 74-110, filed Man 1974; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the District Courts of the Un States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab? http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section-4&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 1 of 9 Trials and Tribulations > Documents Transcript of Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, Jo D. Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stacha (View Images) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. ERLICHMAN, CHARLES W. COLSON, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, and GORDON STRACHAN, Defendants. Criminal No. 74-110 Violation of 18 U.S.0 §§ 371, 1001, 1503, 1621, and 1623 (conspiracy, false statements to a government agency, obstruction of justice, perjury and false declarations. INDICTMENT Tab 7 http://www,ford,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergatefiles/content.php?section–4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 2 of 9 The Grand Jury charges: Introduction 1. On or about June 17, 1972, Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank L. Sturgis were arrested in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building, Washington, D. C., while attempting to photograph documents and repair a surreptitious electronic listening device which had previously been placed in those offices unlawfully. 2. At all times material herein, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice, a department and agency of t United States , and the Central Intelligence Agency was an agency of the United States . 3. Beginning on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing up to and including the date of the filing of thi indictment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District Columbia were conducting an investigation, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the Untied States Distr Court for the District of Columbia which had been duly empanelled and sworn on or about June 5, 972, determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511 and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 4. on or about September 15, 1972, in connection with the said investigation, the Grand Jury returned indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., G. Gordon Libby, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr., and Frank L. Sturgis with conspiracy, burglary and unlawful endeavor intercept wire communications. 5. From in or about January 1969, to on or about March 1, 1972 , JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT was Attorney General of the United States . From on or about April 9, 1972 , to on or about June 30, 1972 , he was Campaign Director of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 6. At all times material herein up to on or about April 30, 1973 , HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDAN was Assistant to the President of the United States . 7. At all times material herein up to on or about A 30, 1973 , JOHN D. ERLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, was Assistant for Domestic Affairs to the President the United States . 8. At all times material herein up to on or about March 10, 1973 , CHARLES W. COLSON, the DEFENDP was Special Counsel to the President of the United States . 9. At all times material herein, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, the DEFENDANT, was an official of the Committe, Re-Elect the President. 10. From on or about June 21, 1972 , and at all times material herein, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, the DEFENDANT, was an attorney representing the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 11. At all times material herein up to in or about November 1972, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDAr was a Staff Assistant to HARRY R. HALDEMAN at the White House. Thereafter he became General Cour to the United States Information Agency. Tab 7 http://www.ford ,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=48zpage=.. . 5/7/2008 . The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 3 of 9 -16-74-110 COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. From on or about June 17, 1972, up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN CHARLES W. COLSON, KENNETH W. PARKINSON and GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANTS, unlawfu willfully and knowingly did corruptly influence, obstruct and impede, and did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in connection with an investigation be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Distrii Columbia, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columl and in connection with the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, by making cash payments and offers of other benefits to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Column and to others, both prior to and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, fo the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of the persons who were responsi for, participated in, and had knowledge of the activities which were the subject of the investigation anc trial, and by other means. (Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1503 and 2.) – 17 – 74-110 COUNT THREE The Grand 3ury further charges: On or about July 5, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, did knowin and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Fede Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigatio into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Cc 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had been committed i the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify the individi or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations that he stated that he had no knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters other than what he had read in newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.) – 18 – 74-110 COUNT FOUR The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 1. On or about September 14, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, http://www.ford.utexas ,edu/museum/ethibits/watergate_files/content.php?section–4&page=… 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 4 of 9 having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before t June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United St District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States Distract Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statues of ti United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and related activities. -20-74-110 COUNT FIVE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 20, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, havinc, duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of t United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildii in Washington, D. C., and related activities. -22-74-110 COUNT SIX The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museurn/exhibits/watergatefiles/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 • The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 5 of 9 1. On or about July 10 and July 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFEND, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to b administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursu to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. -25-74-110 COUNT SEVEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about July 30, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, havii duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaigr Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursu to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 28 – 74-110 COUNT EIGHT The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 1. On or about July 30 and July 31, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes C http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 6 of 9 oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath .1 material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the times and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, purs to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, oi extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 32 – 74-110 COUNT NINE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about August 1, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, ha’ duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaigr Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the times and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, purs to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, 01 extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 34 – 74-110 COUNT TEN The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 On or about July 21, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, a 22 D.C, Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had beE committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify th individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 . The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 7 of 9 violations, in that he stated that he had neither received nor was he in possession of any information relative to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on June 17, 1972, other ti what he had read in the way of newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.) MEMO FOR RECORD – MARCH 9 1974 Count 10 of the indictment was amended to reflect that the offense charged in this count was committ on or about July 21, 1972 ” instead of “on or about July 21, 1973 ” per a stipulation filed in open Cour this date during arraignment proceedings. JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk By [signed] James P Capitanio Deputy Clerk -35-74-110 COUNT ELEVEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 3, and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false materiE declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildil in Washington, D.C., and related activities. – 40 – 74-110 COUNT TWELVE The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 ht-tp://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section-4&page — … 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 8 of 9 1. On or about May 3, and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false materia declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s C for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buil& in Washington, D.C., and related activities. – 44 – 74-110 COUNT THIRTEEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANT, havir duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildir in Washington, D.C., and related activities. Tab 7 Citation: Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichr Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stachan, C.R. 74-110, filed Marc http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 9 of 9 1974; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the District Courts of the Un States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 7 http://www.for d.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 WATERGATE FUNNIES SEPT 27 3 DAYS BEEORE JURY SELECTION STARTS. MITCHELL’S ATTORNEY (HUNDLEY) AND I ARE GOING OVER SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN COURTROOM AND HE SAYS “I’D BETTER GET BACK TO THE OFFICE AND GET TO WORK THINKING UP SOME SORT OF !DEFENSE”. JURY SELECTION PROCESS JUROR WITH 9 KIDS WHO WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THEM FOR AWHILE JUROR WHOSE HUSBAND WOULDN’T MISS HER UNLESS SHE WAS GONE MORE THAN 4 MONTHS NERVOUS JUROR WHO HUNDIEY OFFERED SOME TRANQUILIZERS TO SAYING “YOU THINK YOU’RE NERVOUS!” JUROR WHO ONLY WATCHED WARNER WOLF JUROR WHO RETIRED AFTER 20 YEARS AS A COP BECAUSE HE FIGURED HE HAD ABOUT USED UP HIS. GOOD LUCK AND STILL HAD HIS HEALTH., JUDGE SIRICA GETTING ANGRY WITH ME BECAUSE; – RELEASING STATISTICS TO PRESS RE JURORS QUESTIONED AND EXCUSED – TELLING HOTEL TO RENT ROOMS TO SOMEONE rI’ sw CWER A WEEKEND – aiEWING GUM OCT 8 BEN VENISTE OFFERING JOHN WIISON AN EMPTY CHAIR AT PROSECUTORS TABLE WHEN WILSON UNEXPECTEDLY AGREED WITH THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS ARGUING A POINT WITH MITCHELL’S ATTORNEY DOONESBURY CARTOON IN WHINGION POST OFFERED AS EXHIBIT BY EHRLICHMAN. PROSECUTOR NEAL SAID NIXON WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID IN FEW MEWS hATERGATE WILL BE RELEGATED TO FUNNY PAPERS OCT 9 SKETCHERS SKETCHING CLEANING WOMEN AND GUARDS EHRLICHMAN SKETCHING EVERYONE NARDIAN ASKING IF I WAS GOING TO CONDUCT A TRAINING SESSION WHEN I AUGHT FIJPCHART INTO DEWEEDANT’S ROOM OCT 14 EHRLICHMAN CHARGING ME 254 FOR COFFEE OCT 15 MITCHELL’S CHAUFFEUR CAUGHT PARKING IN JUDGE HAZELON’S SPACE OCT 16 HAIR AN TO DAVEY – “THEY CAN SCREEN NE OUT OF THIS CASE ANYTIME” HUNDLEY TO DAVEY RE PICTURE IN MORNING POST OF STRICELER IDENTIFIED AS PARKINSON “STEIN HAS DONE BEST JOB OF ALL DEFEEDANIS’ COUNSEL – THEY (THE PRESS) DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO HIS CLIENT IS FLIPCHART IN DEFENDANTS’ ROOM WITH CARTOONS ABOUT BIASED JURY OCT 17 FIRST TAPE PLAYED – 9/15/72 MEETING WITH DEAN AND PRESIDENT. SIRICA PUT EARPHONES ON AND COULDN’T HEAR BEN VENISTE TRYING TO MARE A POINT (HAIDEMAN STARING DCWN DEAN) JOHN WILSON TO JUDGE mac& “THAT’S ANOTHER ONE TO PUT IN MY ERROR BAG.” Tab 8 comaGATE FUNNIES (Page 2) NOV 11 JOHNNY CASH AND WIFE ATTENDED – SIRICA’S STAFF MIFFED BECAUSE CASH DIDN’T STOP IN TO SEE JUDGE SIRICA. PLAYED TAPE 6/23/72 THAT LED TO NIXON ‘ S RESIGNATION AND EVERYONE WAS SKETCHING CASH NOV 21 VIDEOTAPE OF HALDEMAN’S TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATOR ERWIN’S COMMITTEE. CONTRASTING HAIRCUTS – CROMIADVERSUS LONG HAIR. JUDGE LET PRESS SIT IN JURY BOX ’10 VIEW VIDEOTAPE. JOHN WILSON – “I CHALLENGE THE ARRAY OF JURORS.” HUNDLEY “I LIKE THE OTHER JURY BETTER – THIS CNE LOOM TOO SMART.” DEC 10 DAY AFTER EHRLICHMAN LAID BLAME ON MITCHELL I WAS ASKED BY MITCHELL’S ATTORNEYS TO BREAK INTO pocnip FILE CABINET LABELED EHRLICBMAN TURNED DOWN SENATOR HUGH SCOTT’S BEQUEST FOR 2 WATERGATE TICKETS FOR PRESIDENT OF GETTYSBURG COLLEGE. FOUND OUT LATER JUDGE SIR1CA’S DAMES/ISOM TO GUITYSBURG. DEC 19 NEAL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT – MARDIAN AND MITCHELL COMPLAIN IT’S TOO HOT IN CCU OM. HWIICTURNTNG ON AIR CONDITIONING – NEAL “THE CC11EHUP IS CONTINUING.” DEC 4 EHRLICHMAN TO DAVEY “NEVER BELIEVED IN LETIERS TO THE EDITOR BEFORE.” (RE SEATS FOR THOSE TATTING IN LINE) DEC 6 DAUGHTER LYNN’S wets TO HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN AND MITCHELL AND THEIR REpLivs t ,„,-, 4.1—-,es.1)….0’ ■:,—– _,_….6e ,2 ,( ,.,” ,.CF-et -….–.5_ . ‘ ..) 11- .: A-z) e_944.X; ck..4(c (..;”` ) to-0 v..6-0c-.44 ‘$- WWIERGATE FUNNIES SEPT 27 3 DAYS BEFORE .URY SELECTION STARTS. MITORFLL’S ATTORNEY (DUNDELY) AND I ARE GOING OVER SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN COURTROOM AND HE SAYS “I’D BETTER GET BACK TO THE OFFICE AND GET TO WORK THINKING UP SOME SORT OF DEFENSE”. JURY SELECTION PROCESS JUROR WITH 9 KIDS WHO 1 ,2,NTED TO GET AWAY FROM THEM FOR AWHILE JUROR WHOSE HUSBAND WOULDN’T MISS HER UNLESS SHE WAS GONE MORE THAN 4 MONTHS NERVOUS JUROR WHO HUNDLEY OFFERED SOME TRANQUILIZERS TO SAYING “YOU THINK YOU’RE NERVOUS!” JUROR WHO ONLY WATCHED WAINER WOLF JUROR WHO RETIRED AFTER 20 YEARS AS A COP BECAUSE HE FIGURED HE HAD ABOUT USED UP HIS GOOD LUCK AND STILL HAD HIS HEALTH JUDGE SIRICA GETTING ANGRY WITH ME BECAUSE: RELEASING STATISTICS TO PRESS RE JURORS QUESTIONED AND EXCUSED TELLING HOTEL TO RENT ROOMS TO SOMEONE ELSE CATER A W1 ND GUN OCT 8 BEN VENISTE OFFERING JOHN WILSON AN EMPTY CHAIR AT PROSECUTORS TABLE WHEN WILSON UNENRECTEDLY AGREED WITH THE PROSECJIORWHO WAS ARGUING A POINT WITH mawmu’s ATTORNEY DOONESBURY CARTOON IN WASHINGTON POST OFFERED AS EXHIBIT BY EHRLICHMAN. PROSECUTOR NEAL SAID NIXON WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID IN FEW MONTHS WATERGATE WILL BE RELEGATED TO FUNNY PAPERS OCT 9 SKETCHERS SKETCHING CLEANING WOMEN AND GUARDS EHRLICHMAN SKETCHING EVERYONE MARDIAN ASKING IF I WAS GOING TO CONDUCT A TRAINING SESSION WHEN I BROUGHT FLIPCHART INTO DEFENDANT’S ROOM OCT 14 EHRLICHMAN CHARGING ME 250 FOR COFFEE OCT 15 MITCHELL’S CHAUFFEUR CAUGHT PARKING IN JUDGE BAZELON’S SPACE OCT 16 HALDEMAN TO DAVEY – “THEY CAN SCREEN ME OUT OF THIS CASE ANYTIME” HUNDLEY TO DAVEY RE PICTURE IN MORNING POST OF STRICKLER IDENTIFIED AS PARKINSON “STEIN HAS DONE BST JOB OF ALL DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL – THEY (THE PRESS) DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO HIS CLIENT IS.” FLIPOBART IN DEFENDANTS’ ROOM WITH CARTOONS ABOUT BIASED JURY OCT 17 FIRST TAPE PLAYED – 9/15/72 MEETING WITH DEAN AND PRESIDENT. SIRICA PUT EARPHONES ON AND COULDN’T HEAR BEN VENISTE TRYING TO MAKE A POINT (HALDEMAN STARING DOWN DEAN) JOHN WILSON TO JUDGE SIRICA “THAT’S ANOTHER ONE TO PUT IN MY ERROR BAG.” Tab 8 WATERGNIE FUNW IRS (Page 2) ‘DEC DEC 10 DAY AFTER ERRLICHMAN LAID BLAME ON MTWILm7J, I HAS ASKED BY MITCHELL’S ATTORNEYS TO BREAK INTO LOCKED FILE CABINET LABELED EHRLICHMAN 11 JOHNNY CASH AND WIFE ATTENDED – SIRICA’S STAFF MIFFED BECAUSE CASH DIDN’T STOP IN TO SEE JUDGE SIRICA. PLAYED TAPE 6/23/72 THAT LED TO NIKON’S RESIGNATION AND EVERYONE WAS SKETCHING CASH 21 VIDEOTAPE OF HALDINEVE TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATOR. ERWIN’S commrprh. CONTRASTING HAIRCUTS – CREWCUT VERSUS LONG HAIR. JUDGE LET PRESS SIT IN JURY BOX TO VIEWVIDEOTAPE. JOHN WILSON– “I CHALLENGE THE ARRAY OF JURORS.” HUNDLEY “I LIKE THE OTHER JURY BETTER – THIS CNE LOOKS TOO SMART.” V I’ DEC 19 TURNED DOWN SENATOR HUGH SCOIT’S REQUEST FOR 2 WATERGATE TICRETS FOR PRESIDENT OF GETTYSBURG COLLEGE. FOUND OUT LATER JUDGE SIRICA’S DAUGHTER GOES TO GETTYSBURG. NEAL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT – MARDIAN AND MITCHELL COMPLAIN IT’S TOO DOT IN COURTROOM. BANGING TURNING ON AIR CONDITIONING – NEAL “THE COVERUP IS CONTINUING.” DEC 4 EHRLICHMAN ’10 DAVEY “NEVER BELIEVED IN :LETTERS TO THE EDITOR BEFORE.” (RE SEATS FOR THOSE WAITING IN LINE) DEC 6 DAUGHTER LYNN’S NOTES TO HALDEMAN, IIIRLICIEvAN AND MITCHELL AND THEIR REPLIES t_ Y–;” I”, n. A c, C‘2 Tab 8 .13Lmt– 18sto-A) ,24a Lxs, .4,-2, ,L.,-t4a4L /4.112 . * ..04r,…t., v .. 6\)•: :U)C_.,\c-., \.: ‘0)E.-.Z._\?A . -t.. StArt. il . 8‘.:.’::-C?;:f.;’,….:1.t.;*”.- .•-• ..: “, . .,.., ‘,..;…-i.:„.:-…w…..t…. …-:::;-.; 0 ‘N.- .’ -•,,.‘; ‘ .„.,..: __L…., ..t…,,,i….s.,.,..,4;:a.v.,,ii..:,.’_’.L………..,…… ……_„……………..,.,.., Tab 9 Tab 9 i3 Tet ‘6:;-,a .1 )trIrl w, t gv:idc tA3eafi- Wkjk \Auz caApe..) Was (“uN ytA) iL Cex,”,1/4. tseco- t)(■rI lk OCCILC Cc-2.LO_ .eX4.st-K ou4A AtLe ‘..■km- ukk vit.( iecit \A00-3e. vvk t.)eV5 74esbvob._ co140.4.. /airAr-ro-CIAAA, kr-c:?* irce-Ym-cL aC Vua. \ adv,A,N /d-Ca_Cc 0.Act. 6.J3 1 vt.cz alotk aCrfru‘ Weividt.nr%, V\cri>4-__ V4-…C4e (Aux. atmiAialAkekA. ‘:(15 Lkrak LA R4″1-4-4V-e r-a4ake :”7-1 e)%”- ‘64.”-‘ k*.kax- CoLuNTro-eskv, OK. . Tab 9 WAtS0.1,)a XJ M t-.1.%% C.> c –vt4Z V Lo.R,L1 k …,›‘,.,-,,,,..k i.L.i……—…th.. ry … A CO”..IL – k’:6.1.1.4%-p ..8-24t5A4-D-4- t3.10.),1 ►-D-A- 044 A-L–^1,4)Ak a. N.’ 1-1 – Pi IS IA_ Tab 10 (1 0 44,1+,•-ekAA– L.& \+.4)-0,-L 44-:491 C44. –,.0ameza6v,:t – va-41,4S2a, CArtti (24),,A.„.Q 0 LL Y4:41 Lj .31%,41 CA,'”-CO LVe4LA.A,’1,.,/ e? I, Jr rULQ LA÷ )2,1 b1,3,14422,, .-tts’6?. • L. .34 A.,,),..,24) -1,-12LE) (44, J22 i 4Ai r’ c,ttsx-613412Lel ,ar–ue-ca LA”L‘j” CIS-6-05-6′ V-11 (1-1,1,s2,0 iLLi2 — AZ, va,,,L4—eL L.Z.’V’-(4,1Le? Ct. 11#1’*A. 1 ” Lraf t.1,. L)C7-1- -4 • , • •-44-0 /3′ 9- t-G1J4+ ” J2-4-‘4-44NALO- C44)–‘) ‘444 ••\– AM-tkitca-” Tab 10 2 .; C. A GCS• 12/’,”[ .1(B’;, WI1 • sTATES OF A 7′.’.:,!:FCA No. 74-110 V. jOHN N. MITC7r”. Y., -1,, et al J Id.c:hard IA. Nixon, .::11(.2 White Xkrase, Washington, D. C. , or any or cF.21u2ce cuctody or conof,f ccscribcd on the schedu:!,. -Vol ore to rnp.7ar :n 1’r Unitcd f.; n1,0.; Court for the Distric.f. of Columbia the Y).;.E..t.rict of on the Coltl’abia 1 2.1 Etc case of UnitM States v. f.z. t Constitntion E John in the cit3rof day of 10 74 nt ten o’clock A. M. John N. Mitchell, ot al and bring with you the Cocuments or obj r2cts listee on the attached schedule. subpoena is issued upon application of the. 1United States . AD3:7.1-1- 19 7 41_. 1ft..7,4-izr the United States 1425 St. Washingt:on, D.C. JA7-75 7. DAVEY • Dairttp CIL rk. 1 1,1,,t.”1„Tnited States,” or “defendant” as the case may he. RETURN vd this subpoena at nd on at • nn. the within named it a copy to Is and tendering to h i by law.2 ): 19 on the !ea for one day’s attendance and the miteSi3rince3 …… to Vic 1′,”;t.. ,” anon Lurvic .2O l;a1hrrourrb. riffitfthh,m, r.7.z. .1.! JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk, Tab 11 1 L:chAle of Documents 01.)7to to 12oC.ucc.d Ly or or r-)7 • tans p.nd ot3= (.,t!1ec ; : t3nic ani1/.Dr mechan.1(;a1 nc=i;:: or , aYd .,:elating to: • 1 . Neticr on im 20, 1. 72, tho l’I-Llent End C!olscn 220 3::10 p.(r.t. in 0.ff.103 teafter. c1:5nver.:1Ln iand , 4 the ECYA); anf, .(c) J7).7!tT.7-. and t-)n . t71AD.1 . Y.), n72, to 12:05 a.m. o :.1 June 2J., 1912 (lacod •..orion of the 2. Tiree metjrgs on jun,2 27:1, 1972, br1Lwen the President H. .1. :.1v:1(-2 .To an t-) .:Vi to .f.:13 p .m., ape. 1 2:20 o 2:45 K.).% q . PcooCIrg to 7X-tit(„! Honse, L* . 1 f.;.rst cetincjo.nrr .?.(1 j- L-.71 3 (; —al t.h,! third, in ▪ rOD, d :5_E-(1.(Ir in b) ::1 1 casos ices-.Ent 13-Irt of 1″,-Ac: ti . A..r..(lot/’tng to Zr. Ifalde,nan’s logs, th second x.eltiny occlrrnd :.n 1:110 Oval Office. 3. 2:oeting on the mo l:n ing ,r):1 Nc7aff-)er 15, 1972, among or •rietween N.!5srs. JcLn Elmlicl, mn, and John W. Dean, III in the P:cisjdent’s office at Camp David. 4.Uaeting and Le1s. p11,ne cnrveration on Janiaa ‘ 7 5, 1972, hetween t1n Pr-3s13 =..cit arc”, Mr. Colson fron 12:02 to 1:02 -p .m. in the no73 an’. f.from 70 to 7:53 p.m. (placed from camp Davie.) r,-,c)::11.72ly. J. Meeting or telphofte cOnvation in or abollt late January 1973 between the President and. Mr. Colson in which E. Loward Hunt, Jr. was dissed… 6. Leetings between the President and Hr. Colson in the Oval Office onPohy ual– 13, 1973, from 9: 0 2 to 10.52 a.m. 16 on February 14, 1973, fr e)A /0:13 to 10:49 a. , n. 2eFreo-i_vely. Tab 11 Anita *vats *strict court ,Ifor the ,ilistrict of golunthin Wirt at Ike Cork 3rb wet Constitution jkfterult, pkim_ nohington, (6_ Min Inuits ff. be August 27, 1974 erit RE HISTORIC SUBPCIENAS ISSUED TO PRESIDENT NIXON DIRECTING HIM 10 GIVE TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE DCMIENTS AND OTHER PE CCaDS (INCLUDING TAPES) FOR USE IN ACRIMINAL PROSECOTDCW As everyone knows, the breakin of the Democratie National Cczmittee Headquarters at the “Watergate” on June 17, 1972 eventually led to President Nixon’s resignation on August 8, 1974, During this period a massive amount of Watergate related civil and criminal litigation was brought in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colannia. Over 30 criminal cases and over 25 civil cases) The Clerk’s Office was, of course, directly involved in processing the litigation. Asunuary of that “involvement” is contained in a separate document. Fran a historic standpoint, perhaps the most significant actions we took were to issue three subpoenas commanding President Nixon to produce documents, tapes and other records and to give testimony in connection with criminal proceedings pending in our Court. The first subpoena was issued on July 23, 1973 at the request of Special Prosecutor cox for use by the Grand Jury which was investigating the Watergate breakin and subsequent coverup. (Only once before in our Nation’s history had the judicial Branch issued a subpoena to a President. That was in 1807 when Chief Justice Marshall, performing Tab 12 -this collateral role as a district court judge in Richmond, was trying Aaron Burr for treason. Burr wanted President Jefferson to produce letters written to him by one of the prosecution witnesses. Jefferson denied the court had a right to subpoena his papers but went ahead and produced the letters anyhow. Thus, the issue was never forced to a final test.) The President refused to produce the subpoenaed tapes and, subsequently, on August 29, 1973, Judge Sirica ordered then produced for his in camera inspection. (Purpose of in camera inspection was to screen out irrelevant and/or privileged material and forward only relevant and material portions to the Special Prosecutor.) The President appealed. On October 12, 1973 the U. S. Court of Appeals upheld Judge Sirica and ordered the President to produce the tapes for Judge Sirida’s inspection. President Nixon tried to work out a compromise that would net involve giving Judge Sirica the original tapes. When Special Prosecutor Cox refused to accept the compromise, the famed “Saturday Night Massacre” occurred in which Cox was fired and Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus resigned rather than fire Cox. The firing of Cox on October 20, 1973 created a “fire storm” of public reaction and one result was for the House Judiciary Cdmmittee to begin impeachment proceedings. Another result was that the President eventually turned over the tapes to Judge Striae. One of these tapes – ofaa meeting the President had with his principal advisors, Ehrlichtan and Haldeman, on June 20, 1972, just three days after the breakin – became famous because an lah minute portion of it (the only portion of the tape that dealt with Watergate) was deliberately erased. (As of August 1974 a Grand Jury was Tab 12 -3- still investigating this incident in an attempt to fix responsibility for the erasure.) The second subpoena was issued in April 1974 at the request of Special Prosecutor Jaworski for 64 tapes and other documents required for the Watergate Coverup trial, U. S. v. John Mitchell at al Oat 74-110), scheduled ,to begin September 30, 1974 before Judge Sirica. The President_ . moved to quash the subpoena. In May 1974 Judge Sirica ordered the materials produced for his in camera inspection. The President appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals. On the same day the Special Prosecutor, seeking a speedy resolution of the issue, applied to the U. S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. This Writ was subsequently granted. After hearing oral arguments on July 8, the Supreme Court on July 24, 1974 handed down its historic and unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Rehnquist did not participate) ordering the President to damply with Judge Sirica’s order by turning the tapes over to Judge Sirica for his in camera inspection. The Supreme Court held that a President’s general claim of “Executive Privilege” must yield to the demonstrated, bpecific need for evidenCe in a pending criminal trial. One of the subpoenaed tapes was of a conversation President Nixon had with Mr. Hallman on JUne 23, 1972, one week after the Watergate breakin. On August 5, 1974 the President revealed that this tape showed that he had personally directed a coverup of the facts of Watergate six days after the breakin, contrary to all his previous public declarations over the past two years that he knew nothing about the “Watergate Oovarup” until advised by John Dean on March 21, 1973. Disclosure of this fact almost completely eroded any remaining Congressional support for the President. (All. the Tab 12 -4- Republiminenteis of the House JUdiciary Committee who previously voted against I eachxt announced that based on this direct evidence of the President’s involvement in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, which constituted an impeachable offense, they would switch and vote for impeachment when the matter came to a vote before the full House of Representatives.) Rather theockris==irt and which appeared almost certain, the President.cesignelApn August 0, 1.974 41.” 1124.44….-4-4-faxe-fku-sa- 016’°00″Ig1′ The third subpoena was issued an August 15, 1974 to former President Nixon at the request of Ehrlich man’s attorney commmidim Nixon to appear in our Court on September 9, 1974 to give testimony an Ehrlichmen’s behalf in the Watergate covestiral (CR 74-110). The ehree sUbpaeneS a attached. w-cmgh -21C(bAlsuh Fi%ismt EXHIBIT NUMBER – . J AND REMARKS ; MARKED FOR MENUFItATION RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS GX Panoramic View of Watergate & Howard Johnson (Photo) … … . 1-/6-73 . /-1/-73 GX 2 , Overhead view of Watergate East, Office Building, Watergate WeSt6hbitilW ! i” . ._ . 40-73 /-//-75 — 4 X 3 Closeup view of Watergate Office Building / – /6 -73 /7/, – 73 X 4 761:t 112riec; – Watergate ()fa. Bldg. – 6th Floor & Howard Johnson. I -A., -73 /-/7- 7. 9 7:771110 ram “Floor Plan” Democratic National. Comm. HQ – 6th Floor (Visual Atd / – /6 -13 / -//773 “Elevation Plan” of Water:ate and Howard Johnson Visual Aid : /-•o– 73 /-//-73 ___ EMI! Photo of the Platform Committee Room Morning of June 17, 1972 1 – /n/6-73 ei51 4, ,t)-fr-7- – r Photo of Waiting Room – ANC – 6th Floor -Morning, June 17, 1971: ‘ NM 777M1 Photo of Secrete ,1 8 Ofc. outside Conference Room – Morning, Juri tit.1 i0i FAIIIIIII/-/d-x3 ’44-1-‘4’/’4 • /-4-71 .:6″),V:er-7– IOW /-16–’73 er)/Zif..E_ 7-7 GX 10A Handi-Talkie Bell Howell #4971 Serial No. MOM / -it -7– 641 /: -7-7- MC 10B Flashlight /-/4-73 /–, 4 -7 , gAl,c,;/,;,57-7- GX110C /7/4-73 / – /’‘ -73 ,- 0,1 ,<‘,<‘4-‘7″7″ GX 10C CUrrenevi$234.00. • $100 bill Serial Ni). F02457431A I; /-/4– 73 . -/4- “7 .-‘/’ /4,5) .,-;.; ;1-: I-7- GX 10C % $100 bill Serial No. F02457432A j / -A-73 /–/4’7 3 6’4 Asx’ —- I-:- GX 10D White Surgical Gloves . / -A-73 ./-./(; – 7 6/; “:,. <i=7-7- GX 10 Room Key Watergate Hotel – Room 214 GX 10 Phota – Property Seized from Carter /-16 -7 3 /-1 . — 7 L3 % /- ` `• /I ‘::%. ,… : /’ :! i g . . • ! : 1-.4.! J!.! e1 ; g ; . iolirrvi I:! : , i ‘, i r i.. I !1!, 1 ; ! i1, ‘ill I :.: gl; „). I. .; , CIVIL :1’-• CRIMINAL Na 1827’72 1 offriirTT NUMBER .. 1 . DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS t E . I .. NVED *OW ENV- , ‘;Fl-CATION RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS GX N i; Black Leather Case Containing 10 Lock-Picks; 3 pieces of metal 45-iV4: .73 /- 14-73 6. /),e A; t-: -/– —. ME Pair OW of Vise Gri.s Peterson Co ‘rr: . 11 4h10 3 – /-/G-73 4 X6A7) ….. IA , ./ 1/ IN ME 1111111 111111111.111111111111111111111111111 .9 Blue Surical Gloves ,’71fP “f;- 111111111111111111101 ,y , III i ME 4/ rigig NM Mtn ME r ‘ • Photo of Pro.ert seized from Godo – – il: d 0, ii,-4J 4:Mfia /-4;-73 / IL 215.00 in current o – . 4.1 ..,,, ,477i :4 ,r770 WM ,yi : .4•[4 ii $100 bill serial no. F 0245750IA -,iii :1 l?. 121211111312111110 / $100 bill serial no. F 02457502A ‘ii !!!, ,i;.’ 1.: , ‘ V , MEM 4/6 -73 •’I p t ii ME . GX 12D II r.73 Vf /-4 -73 // Wallet (Brown Leather) // , 11,1’• !’ i 1 f 4i,i:! :’f !I ! t.;, .V1′ – . V .—1 CIVIL . CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 – EXHIBIT NUMBE D \ AND REMARKS . . ., MARICED FORIDENTIFICATION RECEIVED Irfto EVIDENCE WITNESS GX da Mt Birth Certificate (Edward J. Hamilton) , !/4}i- 73 /-/G-73 6/),(074-“‘-1- Social Security (Edward J. Hamilton) ! i I:”!r l “k-7-3 /-/d-75 ,1 111151 Hertz Courtes Card’ .1,.,,’ /-/e-?3 g h, E11.1111111111111111 rtill.11111111111M111M1111 ., Pftimm ,” Fla Driver’s License. E J H Permanent & Tem.orar, irat-o li :- 1 : !•.. mmum 1 ,A 1 W griagriEna // WgbZO1 IM111lIlII I VA:5GO= it /e 1,100m4 r- Photo of Pro.ert Seized from . E J H ICe . .411Pi D , – I Ell // (4IgfrA Black Handled Screen: Driver. i 1 prAIINIMEMINIIMIMI ‘); i 1 1 Y’ :[. L73 BEM i 11 Ull1111111 * 111111III 1 / GX CP • – – 4.. ; es . -4- ., 1 / 2 Page – Memorandum to Campus Press – Philip Seib ,-. , ,,i ‘i – ; 4 7,3 /-/G- 73 t( &xi., A a.42–11 x.G.L.1 17 – CIVIL . CRIMINAL NO. 1897-79 GOV’ EXHIBI T T NUMBER WITNESS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS MARKED!. p.FOR 1DENTI- . T , I FICATICH, RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE G 13G Memo to Campus Press – Campus Arrangements – Phillip Seib /;) GX 3G Memo to DNC & Convention Staff from O’Brien (2 Pages) G ` li Photo of Pro ert Seized from – Warren GX 4Ak Pen Flashlight (Valdez) • Pen Flashlight {Valdez} 0: :411’N Blue Surgical Gloves x-73 /I GX 14C 4, / —/e-73 Can of Mace /-vz -73 /-/C-73 /, -73 / -1’4′ -73 /1 GX 14E X $100 Bill serial no. F 02457412A. -73 /-/6-73 GX 14E $100 Bill serial No. F 02457414A 4.: 73 Photo of Prop ertySeized from Valdez :!1:t/C:7.3 Photo of Gym Bag and Contents // One Telephone Interception Device lc • – /4- 73 /1 GX 16: One Telephone Interception Device GXA10.1* One Telephone interception Device —/C -73 C-73 / —/‘ —73 GX GX and’ -Wa k’ – 773 Transistor Radio 1—/4 -73 /–/e -73 /-/g-7.3 J-& —72 /-14–73 /-//-73 CIVIL CRIMINAL No, 1827-72 4( GOOVT MARKED . RECEIVED EXHIBIT \ 11 FOR IDENTI- Into WITNESS NUMBER ‘ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS FICATION; EVIDENCE GX firS ART “Smoke Detector” ..'” .-1/4— 73. /”-/6-7 3 8/i,e,cer 7 G 19j 6 Batteries . ” . . r• 4473′ `–/6 -9 3 4/ v:0L-2, 4.. ;. GX 190 Miniature Transmitter – with Microphone 77’,4 -73: ../6 -73 …, G 0 Strip of Wire with 2 nails • de v;; /i-/C., 473, /-14-73 .63MWEY-T GX Watch F9 1 ,. : , :..” ‘ i’–14′ ”’ 73 i —A —73 ,,,, GX 2 39 Rolls of Tri-x Film i + . :’.1!I ., )4/6 -., 73 /.–A — 73 4/ . . .. GX . 23 Box Containing of Tri-X Film /— ., . ‘. ..;”. 4/- 4.-+ 73. /4 —73 /1 Gx41110 1 35mm Minolta Camera – with Blue Clamps . – ‘-÷/4. 773 /-/Z-73 bo ‘GX 24B 1 35mm Minolta Camera – with Gre clam•a ‘ . . . , :. . , .’r://4H.73/-A.-7.3 ./1 • .:- , MP Ell j-/c–73 if i -/6 -73 ,’ it: – pA o /_../e -73 le / – • / 4 -•-3 Ii Ilia /-A –73 it . s I -W Li – • 1 . – • – – – : . • / -4 – 73 i ■ • y -It 1773 IF ,./ GX 0 All, e – 4 J /–it -73 ii • ,.. 4 Stanley Phillip I s ScrewDriver • , “_ 73 , —.:‘-7-3 ny A . qyAnlrm cferawdriunr q.’ I ” 1/ -49 /–//-73 WITNESS /1 .7 ri es al 6 cA.,441. q)! • GOV , 7 EXHIBIT NUMBER 13 .0 A; Af.if ,c 141. i. ‘,11]. ‘MARKED FOR IDENTII FICATION 11–/-73 RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE CIVIL CRIMINAL NO, 1827-72 . DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Needlenose Pliers One Piece White Plastic Four Pieces . Foam Rubber pdyor6e-/gp/./ /9,q6-/p. wAi444– ,(24,c rs ,9 pp ,Q44:4frtiot:e.” .1. • 1-, e73 /-/G73 ,GXC5ife GX(0) NO. 1827-72 DESCRIPTION AND \- – Room 21! r/ PrICJ .• • rde-e4 00,40 c.1 A” C-0)/)” 474 .37= 4 • –• – Room 214 1,, ‘ Watergata:- ;loom 214 • Ces .a, col:Ixstr.o.rie, 6 ?..raidit cards,. Fia. Driver t s License, Socie – C:C.;32‘ ..,6.2264.A and sinothlts oi’…mon.oy by I-4ms- – -7 : • • _ – -6 -5: 44g jgr 3/A .• • WM* VP17141- C1-11:3 Ecaternt-Int • . c11..6 N ,014.11kED Inza I 731 j—/7-73 p EA/4/.6,- c z. • / 73t ‘1 -.731-17-731 /-/ /-/7-7.3 ! 1-Ler 7’73 E/- /73 – 73 //-/7′-7 3’ •• Pr:777 ?-/7- 7 1• 73 ;)-/7– 7 44141 ;77,3 !IA./7-7 3 F-77-79-3 • ..;i r,t1t7 3 ;1-/7-73 4’737 /7,47- 44,-;/74 / 7 7.31 /-/7-71 fi L4: 6 731 /”. /713 4-N racers 1707 W ein GP. 4n4Av eel d ent ‘flea tio C; rd- ev Dr ank ur ‘ :7- ;/.773 %-/7`73 11.1.1. // CD Ecclesiastical I•entification Card – Rev Fran Sturl is .1H III i/ /1 Customer Ident,. Card Cit National Bank <^„1( ii^r,„?.t’E SDII 1111.111111111111111.111111111.1. 1111111111 I/ Black Attach& Case (Martinez) 4A&O 2 Pictures of Martinexz 7-73 1-/7-73 wrimmerwor,..:74 el451.1. CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 r: GOV’T. I thARKED RECEIVED EXHIBIT i FOR IDENTI- Into WITNESS NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS FICATION EVIDENCE ‘ ;111 /7/q-73 • /7-.73 OA 2 Social Security Cards in Black Folder 1-17-73 49 Battery Charge – Room 214 50 Brown Wallet (Sturgis) .DEW/Viaa. // dl$1.11 , IVO • .11 18’7772 CRIMI – NAL NO. “. T – .::–, -:” • . . DESCRIPTION ‘ AND REMARKS’ . ‘ • • . . MARKED FC.- ‘MENTZ- .:r.t:! 1.-P7-73 i-/7-73 RE:CI:WED azo EI=NCE I r . 1– . • . .3 . B.usinese Cards.(ertinez) ..• . _ . . , . . , . /” 17-Z3 /’-17-7i “‘A/Ale-44 ., , OP • ! ‘t.r..,:r.,71. 7..7z1.1:it • . • I • – , . talb . Social §aeuritv Card (Wrtinez) • . . ‘ • . . . ‘ • .’. /-/7-7.3 i-17-73 L__. ri p.. dnnl:cat Oberatorla Lie; (ertinez)’ . .A90 . . . . /-1.7-73 /-‘/7-7.3 • “, 13.:::::’eiv,z business, card’ • .. . . . , t- /-/7-7.3117/7-73 – # -….,.. i 4ing■ ; :31.13’s slip 5/16/72 Rich’s Photo .. • • • / – /7-73117-17-73 far r Handi-Telkie Booklet . (Bell & Nowel) – . • • . .’ . . 1I773 yP-17-7.31F/Aq d . :. • OP i 6 l’–1.Lcas cl Papnr – Receipts re”Shapping List” : • . . .. – . ‘ – // Yi r ..!it 1.3%.,ir Corp. Receipz. , , . . . . .. . • .- 1-17-73 /–/7-75 1 ePv [ HoPPiPS Litt’ – . ‘ • – . • • /47-7,3 kr47-73 .• ../ ._. . v4 ;:= RIntlecttin;4. arzinca Eornine (Barker)’ ‘ /-/7-X3 ‘1/7 .–7 It OP vr. T:-.stern AiTline Ticket.- Vald,…-1: . . , . .• . . 1-17-73 /-/7-73 • •1) . OPP -1 2 Eastern• Airline Tickets— Carper’fgGodoy, . • . . . /-• 1 77 :73 : /—17*-73 f ro! “n2rtfiles.ntoi Ve7alcle TItie ..- . ‘ . • – /-q177.74.1-1743: /V. i— ‘we . neckbook with Checks’ – Martinez. .,: /– 177-7.4117-73 • -1 SE-Ivin g o Acecunt – Martinez . . /—/7-73 1-17-73 diND u’l* ‘-..,.:ik Tieshone Director7 – ?I’l:tfr,L12, . • .. ‘ •1-:/7-7-5 -t-17-7.3 ri • dip I Ezsza= ztirlinas ” ttekat – IVAratirti. i ! • . . • . /-/7- v /- a- 7,1 • 1-17-73 /-47-95 -/-/773 , . col/A6dvedow – i Q5,ti-Visor /fy.96y r . . . . Lcck Picks ‘ . • . , ‘ . -I-I1:13 fr./7-73 • Phillips Screw Driver Screw Driver Hex Wrench Tool Fine. File (Round) ✓ 7 4, 73 ■ • – L. CIVIL CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS GOVT T EXHIBIT NUMBER M4RKED iTpR:IDENTIFICATIO,X RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS 417`73 7 Z3 7-73 7-73 1-17 – 1-17- 73 t-71,71/6 -/7-73 .// // Flat File L ff 63 r White Metal Vice. Grips – P7-73 /-“7- 73 1- /7-73 fj • ✓ 6 Segal Lock with Kev ’73 73 73 65 ILCO Lock & Key /-/7-73 Box of Blank Auto Keys -73 7r7 /47-7.3 /-17-73 /-/7-73 /1 /I 2 Duracell-Batteries • 47 7,73 1– /7-73 /0 Watergate Reservation Request (Photocopy) de Watergate Reservation Re uast PV; /-1 7-73 ii/.5,9 /–/7-73 .14 Ltr. to Watergate on Ameritas Ltr. to Watergate on Ameritas (Photocopy) Guest Registration-Carter 5/26 – Watergate Photocopy Guest Registration – Carter 5/26 – Watergate Guest Registration Valdez – Watergate Guest Registration Valdex – Watergate- Photocopy /77-73 H,7-73 !:4747.3 .1-17-73 /-/7-73 1-17-73 /1 /-17-73 // /-17-73 // : 1 • CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 GOVT EXHIBIT NUMBER ;’,1.’;: ‘ ‘1; i I I’ ; . ‘ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS • 1 , ; :•:’ mAracEb,. P, OR a.DFNTI: i ; ‘ FICATION . ‘RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS ry Guest Registration Godoy – Watergate , . :::.7… :7.3 r y-/7-7.3 A/J5e. i… 74 • ,• Guest Registration Godoy – Watergate – Photocopy . . • 177-31/-P7-73 ../ Guest Registration Piedra – Watergate • ;:. 3 .1., Guest Rgsati eitron. Piedra. – Wat -Watergate t -Photocopy oocop!,: ,;.:,,.„: r , 73 -,’ – 17-7 3 1/ I,’ Guest Registration DiAlberti – Watergate . . ,. ] 7i (7,7,3. 1 -/ 7-73 4,, 6 Id” Guest Registration DiAlberti – Watergate – Photocopy !I .: ii ‘,- . , . ,–4?-:;. 7 3 / –PM 3 1/ 7 …. Guest Registration Grand – Watergate ‘ z, -t. .2.:5 i -17-73 / 77 Guest Registration Grand – Watergate – Photocopy , … . . ‘./7 t1:3 1-17-73 i Guest Registration. Card – Leonard – Watergate • … F2L… ‘ .7. ,’-3 11-17-73 , Guest Registration Card. – Leonard – Watergate. -Photocopy •. ., ,0.- -/7-7Y i ;, Guest Registration Re: E.’ Warren. at Watergate ; .’i’i:-7,3 . 1-/7-73 Gue t Re istr tion Warren at Wat r at hot 1.’ ; , :,/::ie .e.7-! b /-.7-7J – i, / .i..1:;,,i.:41::A7V,V3 ;(1–/7-7:5 B 0 ” Folio Card Re* Carter at Water . gate 5/26 – 5/30 Photocopy 1:.,’ I .4iit74 Z3 (-/7- 73 P Folio Card Re: Valdez at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 ‘ ri14417:7:.1 i’-/ 7- 73 ti 1 Folio Card Re: Valdez at Watergate 5/26t – 5/30 Photocopy fa’ ‘ ‘. : -.. . I /7-73 /1 Folio Card Re: Godoy at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 r ‘ . 0 : A! ” V7-2 82 ✓ I • ■ , Folio Card Re; Godoy at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 Photocopy ‘ •7-• 73 f.’ 8- 1../ 85 1 , Folio Card Re- Piedra at Warergsrp 9/26 – 5/10 4 / . ‘.Xi /-i7-73 6• ‘Folio Card Re: Piedra at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 Phctocopy .’-Z-3, 1-.17-73 ,7 , I ,- . . . ., , 1 . . . ,. ; I I : etint2 r i . ;1 . CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 GOV’T EXHIBIT NUMBER . ‘ ■ r \ . DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS . . . – irl. . , . l .1 ‘ r1 WITNESS dlo Folio Card Re! D’Alberto at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 r .. r I d • r . iv EA) 4. . 84.1 i Folio Card Re • D’Alberto at Water:ate 5 26 – 5 30 Photoco.. . , • 6175 ,ei (iiD r III 4 86 1./ I 40, :1 g 1MM /-/’7-7 // 1 gm MN Folio Card Re: Warren at Watergate 5/26 – 5/30 Photocopy , ‘ , I, ,’: . !1:.! i Guest Registration Card Re: F. Carter Watergate 6/16 ,- .. 1?”: MEMili 1 ‘ i 7.7-. ‘ ‘ ,,, 419 ✓ P IIIIII IIMMIIIIIEIIIIIIEFIJIII p 01) ✓ ra 4i 1011111 CP Pilii`•6 ; ,,… +.; 73 .1 -/7- Z5 40 ONOFol il io Water:.ate Re: Carter ,.::1]i. . Folio (Water:ate) Re: Valdez ! , :’J; ,i’i , ,e.’ , 7t . . 7 3 NM ,,,,, Folio Water g ate Re: D’Alberto ! – 4.:1’V i141 11 17 ! 1417 3 i -/i- ;.’3 0 Folio (Watergate) Re: Godoy r I q.trtii,PM:I:j MENA /-/7- 7′ & – / (07 Folio Howard Johnson Re: McCord 5/11 – 5/18 Photocopy .r i ; r, . ,ILH .i : ‘ ,A.7 41/3 / – i .7-7 3 // enilt CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 • GOV’T EXHIBIT NUMBER \ t DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS i . i• 1.1.-6 ,i, ;; • MARKED! FORDDEITITi PICATION RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS gip’ Folio Howard Johnson Re: McCord 5/18 . – 5/24 . :..1i e,-. /7-73 1- 17-73 ,4:-/kx; ./…,,t,./ 4, 9′ Folio Howard Johnson Re: McCord 5/24′ .. 3/26 . ? 7 – .73 I- /7-73 ../ 9′ • Folio Howard Johnson.Re: McCord 5/24 – 5/26 . – Photocopy . , ,-,’1 7:-13 1- 17-73 .., Il i Folio Howard Johnson Re: McCord 5/26 – 5/30, 1 11 – – /-i7-73 d . i fil) se Folio Howard Johnson Re:. McCord 5/31 – 6/5…. ! ! / –/7- 73 ,„, grir . ., Folio Howard Johndon Re: McCord 6/6/ – 6/9 i i: /-/7-73 ,,.. Fdio Howard,Johnson Re .McCord 6/10 – 6/17 ‘ li i hi 1 r – ,wii G t – 17-73 104 1/ Baldwin’s Diar •_.,” . • . • ! i’ :’t .1 /-17-73 N al 4341′ 1.;: i;1): r 1 t. I ,,,i. . – t ; – • .7 : :,.. 1 14i’ff-…; ,, 43 / – / 7-7 -75 t:.-ie._ vi., i/i/le’ ‘w•• ! CEI Receiver ti • ‘ e.,-, 4_.z /..4.!.1,4 )– . • 11. 7 1:1 -;:7- : 0 • -..2.3-./3 le. ;4-7 1 –,.-i- 2: Pr’ IlMil Telephone toll records 202-293-2746 billing date 2/22/72 MI ,-. 11101111E1 ‘ilOk’T ‘y hry … – ? …. 4 anto _.,,!,#…. W 04we Summary ryof Monies: Paid to McCord by Comm.Re-Elect President ” , : tl . iii ‘ !■:164,7.., : _ ….., …..-, le” r , . :.z..3. 7=f, WM nig – Co. _ .exicanicheck 15 000 dated Aril 4 1972 Pa ee 0•arri :.::.;14: 1(4, ‘ :, ;4-..A3 ?:’ Copy – Mexican check fOr $18,000 dated April 4, 1972, Payee ogarri . .. :,,tp it3 , . . – _” „-;–; : // i:..:v.,.4i..;,. .i: . ‘ • 7.1A-441; GOV’ T EXHIBIT NU R :i .1 ‘ t! : ‘ N. – ) – DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ; -: MARKED , ‘ IDENTI-i CATION:, I RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS • Copy – Mexican check for $24,000, dated April 4, 1972, Payee Ogarrid!;.;, 1 ! , : 23 – 7 71 • ‘ /- 2 ‘ -;’ :-f’ .: := ”” ‘./ I. D , Copy – Mexican check for $32,000, dated April 4, 1972, Payee Ogarriol=;. 1 ‘ ‘ i. L’ …3 , –.1 -7.-7. ‘ w triW Customer. Information Card, Barker Associates Checking & Trust Accounti;: :0,-)1 ,:ij:..q3; : – • ■ 1 z • 4 .-R, : , I-2.3-73 R E • 7:144.,_.,rie; WSRgictimagaIngaarporate Resolution, Trust Account, Barker Asara# X Republic Rank . . !..N? if I i WO” ‘EV I 1 • II MI H 1/ • 4/ h dgir BanicH’ .- 1 V t , April 1 ‘ 11411 ink 1-..- aP.–oI• _. V- _ 9- ;. . _ 4 .6 t-. . 1Z, 1=4, ‘ 444 4 ,, rillffl 41IM WM hiedil 118iii ,,, IIMIIMPIIMMINFIRMIIM: :. l i t Gm /41 • if6i* 7r,. ! i /..- 23-7 3 ii • • ZUMMIlig ; 7,:;’,1 -) i ff. ‘ 1 ! ‘•2[ v 1. ‘ . . _. _773 i”'” 1/ // ec on. Bar er. ‘ssociates, Payav e to ‘o an • o Mart nez, •ate• January. • „. io. 1972 – 60 00 • .N. N : L 1:” 1 . ,^’^Republic National Bank Receipt of $100 bills from Miami Branch Fed. . ‘l;te^ e 1 Copy-3]eposit to Account t James 11 Ruth McCord, A 1.1 LC i9/1 414.I qyu Y 1…, ‘ •_:.. 7- Deposit to Account of McCord Associates, April 21, 1972, $10,000, 1 , opy-leposit to • ccoun 0 . 0 or . • ssocia es, ‘ay , , iii 4 Maryland- National Bank- alt •’j’ .. ei. i t.’.’i7iiiiiiii= Deposit to Account o McCor•Associates, June 12, 1972, 10,000, : i. : ,1 Maryland National Bank ‘ i 1.;4 ‘ ..? W.i. :i.,.t• / _ 7 / 74 _7 i ,,, ,.., I, A, 11 i:i: •, “:-Ifj:, CIVIL CRIMINAL NO. 1827-72 I GOVT .:1-11BIT • NUMI5F4i. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS I t + ‘; ‘ 1 !II g ARKED – 1 j ! PpR rDENTIEIC4TION., RECEIVED into EVIDENCE WITNESS 12 lot McCord Associates business card, CEI’receipt . on reverse side ”•’ ‘ I. !..04 P, : k , , • • /7 7′ A54t. /3 / ” 2 V- 7 . 3 f.,’,. N /5 A,31,’I,Li Vi 2 ‘1 j 126 ../ Watkins-Johnson CEI Division Delivery Ticket No. 63378, dated 12 May +I , i //::::;;32i :::::::: [ 11 Watkins-Johnson Invoice No. 22.003. dated May 15, 1972 ! 11 I i_ 74,t3. .. . Manual for Bell & Howell Kelcom. Transceiver :- 4 e.:: ‘ 1 v/ 26 . – . Manual for Bell & Howell Kelcom Transceiver . .. 4 ; 47-4, Manual for Bell 4 Howell Kelcom Transceiver .1 Manual for Bell & Howell Kelcom Transceiver I. 1 261 _ Handi-Talkie Booklet (Bell & Howell) ‘r .t•I ! 1 11 .-:121 ;=.7.,..,.42; Handi-Talkie Booklet (Bell & Howell) ;,’ I ., 0, ”’ , i ‘rri! -! ji ti_ : .a.iUH. ‘-‘ Lre4____ :77.— IPY 40 4 MO 100- – ) Handi-Talkie 8— – :- . •17 – /. ,• ,d. ”’. 4–,‘ all; . ‘ :F’Cillingli Kelcom Transceiver Belt Clip with Cord Attached Relearn Transceiver Belt Clip with Cord Attached. ‘ i i Kelcom, Transceiver Belt. Clip with Cord Attached 0 , i i k l, . 1,11 ‘ .. 1, ‘ . L. mArii7.3-. 4.—….— Kelcom. Transceiver Belt Cli o Co d , ,-. ..– ,..- l ; ‘%:. •.i=., ..- ” :fi ‘ … ‘ ).-. ‘.; 111N ii • 40, _ al Kelcom Transceiver A-7 Antenna with Co-axle cable attached i’ 1 : N Io i i : . , ,,, ‘ .- Kelcom Transceiver A-7 Antenna with Co-axle attached ‘ .-.. 1 1 1 1 ;: i ,n ,I;r ::!. rii: I .1. 2 Bell & Howell Model 98 Earphones • …,: , iel 1 Bell & Howell Standard Induction. Loop with Plastic Case , I!An lei. AM. ilii, , , :• ; 2 Bell & Howell Model H-10C Microphones contained in Chap Stick ccn ! , ai . .qF 1, r !..i 3 4 :1 -, :041.41′:” , 1. : i . :/.49 : 4..Ii 0 i .!1 I’ . , i, TGOV 1 T i0=IM1T NuiIbER T , \ DESCRIPTION AND • REMARKS ? , .T . , , j ! , f.’,EICATIOti .: MARKED FOR limit’. RECEIVED Into EVIDENCE WITNESS 134 i 2 Bell & Hotell Model. H-10 Microphones o’ , ‘ M. ✓ 1 Bell & Howell C-10 Shoulder Harness ‘ tl , , 1 d • ‘ – 1, ;I’ , adrar…… …._ 1 Bell & Howell C-10 Shoulder Harness 1 •q,, 1.4.44.9.Xy ) 1 5; 411, 1 Bell &HowelI.C-10: Shoulder Harness . _ .t….va, 13 of 1 7 4 Bell & Howell A-5 Flex Antennas 1 ‘ 1 ) ……–, – 2 Sets Bl Nicad.Batteries . r ., , 4 : Pi WI ‘ ”1 ,11: .f.. Ar 13 6 Cables for Bell & Howell B-3 Six.Unit Bette ,1__: Au…..4 4 ii 139 1 Mace Container …, 14 Black Attaché Case : ` ), :. ;• , :24-13 / -.2 i:74 –….-4…1•C’t, ap ✓ 40 Bell & Howell Purchase. Order from McCord Associates Ne. 1326 . : p )–.e4-7.1 Bell & Howell shipment order re Purchase Order No. 1326 IMMINMEI {-. .7 f –73 4 …… P.” .— 45 ✓ REA A it_ExpieguLaili—Kg__71L-13=67 ; ‘ n 1i ”’. Lid..7 . 72..; -‘,. ____Copy_of…xioac • Photo of Smoke Detector Upright-back yiew • ,, M :’, k111:: ..!i l .. 4 =Ea -_,?47- 7 1./ 4-73- e,:r…::, Photo of Smoke Detector Lying down-backyiew /-j4 -73 /,-?,’-‘t7.- ,4$./.- 147 • Copy of Articles of Incor.oration o :- .,-.. – MIR 67— letter to him from Secretary of State lb ! •O r-)-41. i, Watergate Menu for Dinner Party 5/26 , !!’ 4 : , :••■.1 4 __ 7 _3 ….,4741-7 3 4 Check for 5/26 dinner party (Watergate) .+ ‘. ;-,. – 4. ‘ . ‘ N Pi ; 0.1’ 1,, . ”r :” -:- • 1 114-4C-F i – 1 . 1 ‘ :’• . , -26.- 73 150A-0 7 Photo-display including Hunt’s Photo F.j……..v….. • • [..e:1;. 1 ir iir A . 7,4-.cLa of F.. Foward Hunt V’ • . i Ph’GrO 7/571i KW- 4.-P 1V-/ .07- z. 0/-1 (14; P 7- 0 r ErP Ai 0 ?I • / IW:U – 17 – 7 7 • •.. tt. • 1- a Re ete •- j 70 ^ ‘••• ‘ . • . • • 1 TThocO . . Gz1 id Stur.7.1.3 phr3tt:::. ! 2 ?assaa7ar letters (Hamilton an0 Lz.:!zitar) .15. .ci of end Earah MoCOrd. i 1 t.Vi 54″- 7.3 11- – . V4 Ca%r! 7.11com.: TeN. naturn of Sar=ard aid Cla-za Bnrkar 51-73 L/-2471- ?3i … • •, • … . . kralucLA •;•; !ioI 1 von V r: ‘ : • .111.;Cr’Vr”’C’,N; ‘Tr( -• • • . • ‘ • I ‘ • -1’ • • 1 ‘” • ‘I. : . ;If • • 1.1i r,„ n ,•t • 7.”‘.„)–Wr..n.1 – First National tank of Washington checks (5 ch. .1L;., I Ii crr!7-r) al – tronertv -4. ./401 1-24 /,-/e- return 11 71, !!L 4/A 7,3 7 3; – 73, ,/).– 731 ‘1 I/ A EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 ,, \ • . DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS , :MAR ,. .’1%/14.R.KE4, 11’Oft;•IDEN17- . VICATION RECEIVED ‘ Into EVIDENCE WITNESS • )” ttdke •81 P/10 T 0 i•• : 773. ..•……,:,.. „ ,,., .0.,.– . (/ 7 1,/-3//c1To i .-. ip -z…, 7.• p/vo re • :/ ” ‘ ‘ 41- 73.: . /4’2-4:7 f’!/ 0 7-6 7:/4.7 – _ 7′ , ,1-’10r- 6 (4′.;(41’7:3 zf .• f /7′ or 0 .44-(5,- -m—F-At i :I ,: : ,yr,.7. PH or o 11.44 7J • i. pbe 6 7-6 • il . iii ” ,y.ir* .ai:r i :. – /’HG 7- – 6 7. 3: Icy/ O ro 7 L,9ec,…E.-) 0 1: viRc., ,L/e) -co Al✓•z./9Z.: eZ , ., 1.. • i ‘. :A1,5= 7. 6:Re cc A7 F/`} Oro ( // 4 <- -1ff -*EC_ A . S TO /C-/ S .: . lr :17/S– 73 olgec,’-o A7: Prl or-o ( ” ) O 66RA/A WI )6 /M,Ke4 L Press Releases Page 1 of 1 HOME LEGISLATIVE INFO-HOUSE-SENATE NEWS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES News: Recent Press Releases Op-Ed Publications About the Legislative Press Bureau Press Releases 1/19/05 Rep. Davey appointed to Separation of Powers, House Judiciary committees STATE HOUSE — Rep. James F. Davey (R-Dist. 15) of Cranston has been appointed to serve on the Separation of Powers Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, House Speaker William J. Murphy has announced. “I’m eager to begin working on such significant committees,” said Representative Davey, who is serving his first term in the House of Representatives. “I have been committed to the separation of powers issue for quite some time, and look forward to taking part in discussions and votes that will help shape the future of Rhode Island. “The Judiciary Committee will be a good fit as well, considering my background and interest in judicial administration.” As a member of Common Cause of Rhode Island, Representative Davey served on Its Separation of Powers Task Force. From 1970 to 1991 he served as Clerk of the U.S, District Court for the District of Columbia, and during his retirement helped the republics of Estonia and Macedonia establish new court systems. The Separation of Powers Committee, a relatively new House committee, handles all bilis stemming from and regarding implementation of the Separation of Powers constitutional amendment approved by voters last November. The House Judiciary Committee handles matters dealing with criminal and civil law and procedure, measures Involving the Rhode Island Constitution and other laws, and legislation pertaining to election laws, the penal code and the judicial system. For more information, contact: Dana Rae Laverty, Publicist State House Room 20 Providence, RI 02903 (401) 222-2457 Printer Friendly View II: Provided k The LegisWive Press Legislative Press & Information Bureau, R.I. State House, Room 20 RI.govI State Agencies I Contact the Web Team Tab 17 http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/News/prl.asp?prid=1667 3/7/2005 Rhode Island General Assembly > Print Page 1 of 2 CLOSE [x] Press Releases 2/17/05 Legislators introduce Taxpayers Relief Act of 2005 STATE HOUSE – Legislators today unveiled the Taxpayers Relief Act of 2005, a bill designed to provide significant property tax relief for all Rhode Islanders. “It is a well known fact that Rhode Island’s property tax burden is oppressive. We are currently ranked sixth in the nation in this category,” said Rep. James F. Davey (R-Dist. 15) of Cranston, the bill’s main sponsor. “Our bill is designed to reduce the costs driving up property taxes rather than merely shifting how these costs are paid (from property taxes to sales taxes, income taxes or lottery revenues). Many of its provisions are not new. They have been introduced in the General Assembly before but this is the first time they have been bundled together as part of a comprehensive package designed to reduce property taxes.” The bill has five main categories – pension reform, relief from unfunded mandates, education accountability, management rights and health care reform. The pension reform provisions would apply to all teachers, municipal employees, fire fighters and police in the state system who have less than 20 years service. (This covers 81 percent of existing employees.) In its report entitled “State Pension Reform In RI” released earlier this week, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council said: “The increasing costs of the state and teacher pension systems are major drivers of the growth in state spending. The immediate fiscal impact of the growth In the state and local contribution to these funds will make it increasingly difficult to control costs and target resources to other priorities. “In FY 2006 the taxpayers will have to increase their payment for teachers’ pensions from $128.5 million to $179.7 million – an increase of $51.2 million. 60 percent of that increase will have to be paid by cities and towns.” If nothing is done to reform the teachers’ pension system, RIPEC projects the taxpayers contribution will rise from $128.5 million this year to $400 million in 2022. Under the bill, teachers and municipal employees will be eligible to retire at 55 with 30 years service. maximum pension 75 percent of average high 3 years. (Currently 28 years of service at any age and pension at 80 percent for teachers and 30 years at any age and pension at 75 percent for municipal employees.) Police and fire fighters will continue to be able to retire at 55 with 10 years of service or 50 with at least 20 years of service. However, the current provision of retirement at any age with 25 years of service would be eliminated. The earliest age you could start receiving a pension would be 50. For Cranston police and firefighters, longevity pay and legal holiday pay would no longer be included in their pensions and their pensions would be based on the average of their highest three years rather than their final pay check. COLAs would be limited to the consumer price index and capped at 3 percent. Tab 18 http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/News/pr_print.asp?prid=1807 3/7/2005 Rhode Island General Assembly > Print Page 2 of 2 For teachers alone, we believe savings will significantly exceed the FY 2006 savings of $35.8 million estimated under Governor Carcieri’s proposal. (Although our proposal enables teachers to retire at age 55 with 30 years of service compared to the Governor’s proposal for age 60, our proposal covers more employees – 11,000 – than the Governor’s – 7000.) There will be millions of dollars of additional savings when the proposed pension reforms are implemented for municipal employees and police and firemen, said Representative Davey. The bill’s cosponsors include Rep. Nicholas Gorham (R-Dlst. 40, Foster, Coventry, Glocester), Rep. Matthew J. McHugh (D-Dist. 36, South Kingstown, Charlestown, New Shoreham, Westerly), Rep. Laurence W. Ehrhardt (R-Dist. 32, North Kingstown) and Rep. Richard W. Singleton (R-Dist. 52, Cumberland). For more information, contact: Dana Rae Laverty, Publicist dlaverty@rilin.state.d.us State House Room 20 Providence, RI 02903 (401) 222-2457 Legislative Press & Information Bureau, R.I. State House, Room 20 Tab 18 http://VVVVVV.rilin.state.ri.us/News/pr_print.asp?prid=1807 3/7/2005 Rhode Island General Assembly > Press Releases HOME LEGISLATIVE INFO HOUSF ENATE NEWS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES_ News: Recent Press Releases Op-Ed Publications About the Legislative Press Bureau Press Releases 3/1/05 Rep. Davey introduces package of open government bills STATE HOUSE — Rep. James F. Davey (R-Dist. 15) has introduced several bills dealing with open government. “I’ve been a strong proponent of open government for many years,” said Representative Davey, who represents part of Cranston. “Citizens should be able to thoroughly examine and hold up to the light any true democratic Institution. It’s the only way to ensure a fair and honest government.” Two bills address the Joint Committee on Legislative Services (JCLS), the administrative arm of the General Assembly. The measures (2005 – H5172, (2005 – H5174) would require JCLS to undergo an annual audit by an independent auditor chosen by the auditor general. It would also require JCLS to provide an expenditure report to the General Assembly on a quarterly basis. The report would also be posted on the General Assembly’s Web site and available to the public free of charge. Another bill (2005 – HSO28), sponsored by Rep. Nicholas Gorham (R-Dist. 40, Coventry, Foster, Glocester) and cosponsored by Representative Davey, would require that all legislative grants awarded by the General Assembly be listed in the state budget. A separate bill (2005 – H5196) sponsored by Representative Davey would require all public bodies, such as boards, offices, school committees and fire districts, to post their collective bargaining agreements relating to their public employees on either their Web site or on the Department of Labor and Training’s Web site. “Contracts such as these should be clearly posted and easily accessible to the public,” said Representative Davey, who serves on the House Separation of Powers and the House Judiciary committees. “After all, taxpayers fund these jobs and deserve to know how their hard-earned dollars are being used.” Another measure (2005 – HSO10) sponsored by Rep. Carol A. Mumford (RDist. 41, Cranston, Scituate) and cosponsored by Representative Davey would repeal the inheritance tax in Rhode Island. A member of Common Cause of Rhode Island, Representative Davey has served on its Separation of Powers Task Force. For more information, contact: Dana Rae Laverty, Publicist State House Room 20 Providence, RI 02903 (401) 222-2457 Printer Friendly View Ike Propidei 4A-• The Leoislative Press Tab 19 http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/News/prl.asp?prid=1825 3/7/2005