ACLU San Francisco Chapter Reports Results of First Trial
Dublin Core
Title
ACLU San Francisco Chapter Reports Results of First Trial
Description
American Civil Liberties News (San Francisco), vol. XXX, no. 3, March 1965. Donald S. Lucas Papers.
Source
Repository: GLBT Historical Society
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Advised Verdict
Three Lawyers And Secretary Acquitted
San Francisco Municipal Court Judge Leo Friedman brought a sudden end to the trial of attorneys Evander Smith, Herbert Donaldson, and Elliot Leighton and secretary Nancy May for obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties when he advised the jury to bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty" on motion of defense counsel, Marshall W. Krause, at the close of the prosecution case. The jury dutifully retired to the jury room and in about ten minutes returned with their unanimous vote of "Not Guilty." Thus on the second day of testimony and the fourth day of the trial (the first two days were consumed in choosing the jury) the case ended without ever hearing from any of the approximately 30 witnesses who were lined up to testify for the defendants.
Police Witnesses
The testimony by the prosecution's police witnesses was that the three attorneys folded their arms, firmly planted their feet, and told the policemen that they could not go into the ballroom of a party sponsored by the Council on Religion and the Homosexual being held at California Hall, because it was a private one and admission was by invitation only. Other police testimony showed that when police officers gave a valid reason for entering, such as inspecting for fire regulation violations, they were allowed to enter and were given an escorted tour of the premises and could stay as long as they wished.
No Reason Given
The attorneys objected, however, when a large crowd of policemen attempted to enter without stating any reason on the basis that their presence was for the purpose of intimidation and harassment of the party guests rather than the performance of any police function. The secretary, Nancy May, was accused of saying the same words to a policeman and putting her hands on his shoulders, but she denied the latter action.
ACLU Position
The ACLU position is that the mere statement of words which do not amount to a threat of physical restraint or violence, can not, as a matter of law, be held as interfering with an officer in the course of his duties. Under questioning by defense counsel Krause and by Judge Friedman, the police officers admitted that they made no attempt to walk around the attorneys or get by them in the 16 foot wide corridor where the incidents took place. Instead, the police officers said that since the premises were crowded they felt hemmed in and did not wish to try to shove through other people. The police officers also admitted under cross-examination they they did not ask the attorneys or any of the other persons watching the incident to stand aside so that they could get through.
Judge's Opinion
Judge Friedman in granting the defense motion of an advised verdict told the jury that in his opinion the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of the complaint that the defendants willfully resisted and obstructed public officers, to wit: Rudolph J. Nieto and Richard Castro, qualified and acting police officers of the said city and county who were then and there in the performance of their duty as such officers in entering the premises commonly known and designated The California Hall harassment of them for having as clients an unpopular group of citizens, namely, homosexuals and persons who are attempting to work with homosexuals in order to integrate them into the community.
Harassment Intended
It was clear from the testimony that the police were interested in harassing and disturbing the party since the very idea that homosexuals might enlist the aid of religious leaders is obnoxious to the Department. The police testified that the presence of six uniformed police officers and nine plainclothes policemen at the party was necessary to enforce the alcoholic beverage control laws at the bar. The police insisted that this was their only purpose in coming to the party and that they did not intend to make any arrests in advance of coming. However, this testimony was considerably shaken when it was admitted on cross-examination that prior to leaving the Hall of Justice for the scene of the party, the officers had prepared 50 numbered cards which they intended to hold in front of a person after he was arrested so he could be identified.
Photographers
The alleged purpose of the police in enforcing the liquor law was also considerably shaken by testimony that two police photographers were present outside the hall, one taking flash still photographs and one having a motion picture camera with floodlights. These photographers took pictures of most of the people entering and leaving the party and the motion picture camera was used to illuminate and take pictures of the interior of cars delivering persons and picking up persons from the party.
Defense Witnesses
The defense witnesses who were scheduled to testify would have presented an extremely strong phalanx to oppose the police testimony. Several ministers and their wives witnessed the arrests and would have testified that at any time the police wanted to get into the ballroom they could have gone around the attorneys and done so without any difficulty. Also some of the private policemen who had been hired by the sponsors of the party were prepared to testify that the police version of the arrest was not accurate.
The facts of this case indicate that police power was used to make it embarrassing and dangerous to attend a perfectly lawful party sponsored by a group working with homosexuals. Unfortunately, trials like this can never really clear up the problem of lawless police activity, since the defendants and many other persons were considerably inconvenienced by the fact that there was a trial at all, and this seems to provide some satisfaction to the police department. It is hoped that negotiations will continue between the Police Department and the inter-faith group of ministers who support the Council on Religion and the Homosexual so that an understanding can be reached which will enable this group to go about its work in peace.
Three Lawyers And Secretary Acquitted
San Francisco Municipal Court Judge Leo Friedman brought a sudden end to the trial of attorneys Evander Smith, Herbert Donaldson, and Elliot Leighton and secretary Nancy May for obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties when he advised the jury to bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty" on motion of defense counsel, Marshall W. Krause, at the close of the prosecution case. The jury dutifully retired to the jury room and in about ten minutes returned with their unanimous vote of "Not Guilty." Thus on the second day of testimony and the fourth day of the trial (the first two days were consumed in choosing the jury) the case ended without ever hearing from any of the approximately 30 witnesses who were lined up to testify for the defendants.
Police Witnesses
The testimony by the prosecution's police witnesses was that the three attorneys folded their arms, firmly planted their feet, and told the policemen that they could not go into the ballroom of a party sponsored by the Council on Religion and the Homosexual being held at California Hall, because it was a private one and admission was by invitation only. Other police testimony showed that when police officers gave a valid reason for entering, such as inspecting for fire regulation violations, they were allowed to enter and were given an escorted tour of the premises and could stay as long as they wished.
No Reason Given
The attorneys objected, however, when a large crowd of policemen attempted to enter without stating any reason on the basis that their presence was for the purpose of intimidation and harassment of the party guests rather than the performance of any police function. The secretary, Nancy May, was accused of saying the same words to a policeman and putting her hands on his shoulders, but she denied the latter action.
ACLU Position
The ACLU position is that the mere statement of words which do not amount to a threat of physical restraint or violence, can not, as a matter of law, be held as interfering with an officer in the course of his duties. Under questioning by defense counsel Krause and by Judge Friedman, the police officers admitted that they made no attempt to walk around the attorneys or get by them in the 16 foot wide corridor where the incidents took place. Instead, the police officers said that since the premises were crowded they felt hemmed in and did not wish to try to shove through other people. The police officers also admitted under cross-examination they they did not ask the attorneys or any of the other persons watching the incident to stand aside so that they could get through.
Judge's Opinion
Judge Friedman in granting the defense motion of an advised verdict told the jury that in his opinion the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of the complaint that the defendants willfully resisted and obstructed public officers, to wit: Rudolph J. Nieto and Richard Castro, qualified and acting police officers of the said city and county who were then and there in the performance of their duty as such officers in entering the premises commonly known and designated The California Hall harassment of them for having as clients an unpopular group of citizens, namely, homosexuals and persons who are attempting to work with homosexuals in order to integrate them into the community.
Harassment Intended
It was clear from the testimony that the police were interested in harassing and disturbing the party since the very idea that homosexuals might enlist the aid of religious leaders is obnoxious to the Department. The police testified that the presence of six uniformed police officers and nine plainclothes policemen at the party was necessary to enforce the alcoholic beverage control laws at the bar. The police insisted that this was their only purpose in coming to the party and that they did not intend to make any arrests in advance of coming. However, this testimony was considerably shaken when it was admitted on cross-examination that prior to leaving the Hall of Justice for the scene of the party, the officers had prepared 50 numbered cards which they intended to hold in front of a person after he was arrested so he could be identified.
Photographers
The alleged purpose of the police in enforcing the liquor law was also considerably shaken by testimony that two police photographers were present outside the hall, one taking flash still photographs and one having a motion picture camera with floodlights. These photographers took pictures of most of the people entering and leaving the party and the motion picture camera was used to illuminate and take pictures of the interior of cars delivering persons and picking up persons from the party.
Defense Witnesses
The defense witnesses who were scheduled to testify would have presented an extremely strong phalanx to oppose the police testimony. Several ministers and their wives witnessed the arrests and would have testified that at any time the police wanted to get into the ballroom they could have gone around the attorneys and done so without any difficulty. Also some of the private policemen who had been hired by the sponsors of the party were prepared to testify that the police version of the arrest was not accurate.
The facts of this case indicate that police power was used to make it embarrassing and dangerous to attend a perfectly lawful party sponsored by a group working with homosexuals. Unfortunately, trials like this can never really clear up the problem of lawless police activity, since the defendants and many other persons were considerably inconvenienced by the fact that there was a trial at all, and this seems to provide some satisfaction to the police department. It is hoped that negotiations will continue between the Police Department and the inter-faith group of ministers who support the Council on Religion and the Homosexual so that an understanding can be reached which will enable this group to go about its work in peace.
Citation
“ACLU San Francisco Chapter Reports Results of First Trial”, The Council on Religion and the Homosexual, LGBTQ Religious Archives Network, accessed May 18, 2024, https://exhibits.lgbtran.org/exhibits/show/crh/item/1793.