Читать книгу History of the Trial of the Chicago 7 - Bruce A. Ragsdale - Страница 33

Table of Contents

Yes. The U.S. court of appeals determined that Judge Hoffman had erred in his decision to exclude certain evidence and witnesses for the defense.

The defense attorneys asked to submit various documents as evidence of their claim that the defendants had always intended to engage in peaceful demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention. Judge Hoffman excluded these memos and magazine interviews on the grounds that they were self-serving declarations of the defendants. The court of appeals rejected any blanket rule excluding allegedly self-serving evidence. According to the court of appeals, that standard for evidence was rooted in the long-abandoned rule that defendants in criminal trials could not testify on their own behalf. The court of appeals called special attention to the Lake Villa document drafted by Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis for an organizational meeting in March 1968. It was up to the jury, not the judge, to determine if the Lake Villa policy of nonviolence represented the intentions of the organizers.

The court of appeals also found that Judge Hoffman was wrong to sustain the prosecutors’ objection to all expert witnesses called by the defense. The court of appeals supported a trial judge’s broad discretion in determining the suitability of witnesses, but Hoffman had been mistaken to exclude the witnesses called to testify about crowd control and law enforcement. The court of appeals determined that these witnesses might have helped the jury assess the defense allegation that police had provoked the violence. The court of appeals upheld Judge Hoffman’s decision to exclude expert witnesses who would have testified about racism and social injustice.

The court of appeals found that Judge Hoffman should have allowed former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to testify before the jury. Clark’s testimony about a phone call to Mayor Daley in support of permits for the demonstrators would have provided important perspective on the defense claim that the defendants sincerely tried to obtain legal permits.