Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. (continues reading opening statements) Sometime later, as the trial was in progress Mr. McCord told me that he had been in contact with a man by the name of Caldwell, that's how I remember it as he told it to me. He specifically stated that he did not wish to tell me who this man was, or the subject matter of his conversation with him. In response, I told Mr. McCord that that was his prerogative. In this regard, I respectfully invite the attention of this committee to Mr. McCord's letter to Chief Judge Sirica of March 19, 1973 of which I had no prior knowledge. I respectfully refer to the next to last paragraph of page 2 of this letter, and I have provided copies of this letter to this honorable committee, where after alleging complaints about various topics including but not limited to an allegation that there was political pressure applied to the defendants to plead guilty and remain silent Mr. McCord in the second to last paragraph on page two stated (and this letter was written without my knowledge), and I quote "I have not discussed the above with my attorneys as a matter of protection for them." Mr. McCord has alleged that the subject of executive clemency was discussed on this day January 8, 1973 (pan of senate select committee members listening to Mr. Alch's statements) this is not true. In late 1972, during one of the pre-trial meetings of all defense lawyers in Washington I had an occasion to say to Mr. Bitman, "Bill, what do you think our clients will receive as a sentence should they be convicted?" Mr. Bitman responded in substance, as if he were theorizing "You never can tell, Christmas time roles around and there can be executive clemency." I scoffed at this notion and told Mr. Bitman that in my opinion the President would not touch this case with a ten foot pole, let alone exercise executive clemency. This subject had not been on any agenda, but arose as I characterize as lawyers talk. Subsequently, but not on that same day I mentioned this to Mr. McCord in a most skeptical matter and said to him "Jim, it could be Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving all rolled into one. But, in my opinion the President will not touch this case with a ten foot pole, so don't rely on any prospect of executive clemency." Mr. McCord laughed and agreed with me. That was the only occasion that the words executive clemency (Mr. James McCord seen walking into courtroom and sits down next to lawyer) were ever mentioned by me by my client. I have neither met John Dean nor spoken to him in my life. I have neither met John Caulfield nor spoken to him in my life.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. During the trial, I presented to Chief Judge Sirica my contemplated defense theory of duress supported by a memorandum of law. Several days later after receiving a written response from the government, the court ruled as a matter of law that this defense did not apply to this case thereby precluding me from presenting evidence in support thereof and from relying upon it in closing argument. After opening statement Mr. Hunt and the four other cuban american defendants pleaded guilty at which time I filed a motion for mistrial which was denied. When this happened, I explained to Mr. McCord the only possible remaining defense was the general defense of lack of criminal intent, but advised him that in my opinion it had little or no legal merit for it was asking the jury to believe that he did not know he was breaking the law when he broke into the Watergate complex and this to say the least was not very saleable. Mr. McCord indicated his understanding of our position told me that he was nevertheless most pleased with my exerting my best efforts with regards to the proposed theory of duress and asked whether or not the judges ruling could be a point of appeal in the event of conviction. I told him that it could and would be, that the record had been made in that regard and he indicated his complete satisfaction with the then existing situation. As the trial approached, the completion of the governments case, I conferred with Mr. McCord at one of our daily post trial meetings and told him that a decision would have to be made regarding whether or not he would take the stand. I explained to him that if he elected to testify it would be his obligation to answer any and all relevant questions. It was at this time that Mr. McCord told me that he had evidence to the effect that the Watergate Operation had been approved by John Mitchell. I asked him the nature of the evidence and he told me he had been so advised by Mr. Liddy. (James McCord seen speaking with lawyer Mr. Fensterwald, then gets up and leaves courtroom) I asked him if he had any other corroborative evidence and he told me he did not. I told him that although this was technically hearsay, it would be admissible as a declaration by one co-conspirator to another and told him to understand beyond any doubt, that should he take the stand that question would in my opinion be asked and an answer required. I told him that if he elected to take the stand full disclosure would be necessary, that I was with him all the way, but that this crucial decision of whether or not to testify could only be his."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
00.57.16 DO NOT USE - Robert MacNeil in studio
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. (continues reading opening statements) ....grounds of appeal would be in the event of conviction. I reviewed them with him, mentioning such things as the courts denial of my motions for mistrial based upon the timing of the change of plea by his five co-defendants, as well as the ruling by Chief Judge Sirica precluding the defense of duress. He told me that he had decided not to testify. I asked him if he had any reservations regarding that decision and he said he did not. As the jury announced it's verdict I immediately asked the chief judge to be heard on the matter of bail, which request was denied. The court advised that the motion be put in writing so as to allow the government to respond. I immediately set to work on this, urged the prosecution to respond as quickly as possible and several days later a hearing was held at which time bail was set in the amount of 100,000 dollars. What I am now about to relate is not for the purpose of self commendation, but is stated to show and emphasize the relationship that existed between Mr. McCord and I from the beginning to the end of trial. There was not a day of trial that passed without Mr. McCord shaking my hand at the end of each day and telling me what a superlative job I had done. He used adjectives such as terrific, outstanding and expressed his total and unequivocal satisfaction and appreciation for my efforts. I remember the day of final argument, when present in the courtroom was Mr. McCord's wife, his son, his daughter and his parents. After my final argument, they all came up to me and profusely thanked me for the word's I had uttered on Mr. McCord's behalf. They said they were proud of my description of Mr. McCord and that they were thrilled to sit there and hear it. Mrs. McCord had previously told me of her anxiety at what the effects of the trial might have on her son, who was a student at the air force academy. On the day of the final argument she asked if I could maintain for her a copy of the argument so that she could give it to her son ...... Tape Ends abruptly