BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, did Mr. Clay Shaw make any statements to you before you took him over to
the Central Lockup and delivered him there?
A: Answers to questions I may have asked him?
Q: That is correct.
A: No.
Q: Did you ever examine the original Arrest Register in connection with his arrest?
A: Have I examined it?
Q: That is correct.
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: Did you ever look at it and read it over?
A: I may have.
Q: Do you know what an Arrest Register Sheet looks like?
A: Is that what you just showed me?
Q: No, it is not.
A: Probably I have seen them, I may have even filled some out.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which we have marked for identification "D-17," purporting to be an original Arrest Register Sheet, and I ask you if you are familiar with that form?
A: I have seen them before.
(Whereupon, the document referred to be Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-17.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you examine the original Arrest Register Sheet on Clay Shaw at any time?
A: I don't know if I did.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I now show you an exhibit marked for identification "D-15," being the Field Arrest Report on Clay Shaw, which purports to bear your signature, and I ask you whether or not that is your signature on the document.
A: It is.
Q: Now, in view of your previous testimony that you did not know whether you had ever filled out one of these forms and were not familiar with the form, do you now recall having filled out this form?
A: Yes, I filled it out, it is in my handwriting.
Q: When did you fill that out?
A: The night of the arrest.
Q: Before or after you delivered him to Central Lockup?
A: This was after I delivered him to Central Lockup. I believe I got the form from Central Lockup.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if this was after Central Lockup delivery, this is on a predi- cate, this isn't relevant.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you remember where you went --
MR. ALCOCK: I made an objection, Mr. Dymond.
THE COURT: Let me see if I understand your objection. Would you repeat it, please?
MR. ALCOCK: The objection is, No. 1, whether he filled these out or not is really irrelevant to the predicate on freeness and voluntariness of any inculpatory statement, especially as he has just testified he probably filled it out after the booking procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, he said he didn't know when he filled it out, whether before or after. The only way to find out is to pursue it.
THE COURT: I remember Officer Ivon stated -- this is out of the presence of the Jury -- the only reason he hung around, to use the vernacular, in Central Lockup was to fill out reports after -- this report after he had been turned over to the Police.
MR. DYMOND: He didn't even know what this document --
MR. ALCOCK: That is irrelevant to the predicate, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you alleging certain information made and information filled out prior to him being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department?
MR. DYMOND: I am not alleging anything, Your Honor, I am just examining the witness.
THE COURT: The kind of predicate they are laying, or attempting to lay, as I understand at this moment occurred prior to the time Mr. Shaw was physically turned over to the New Orleans Police Department.
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: If you are questioning the witness about some events which occurred after Mr. Shaw being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department, it is immaterial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the predicate.
Is that your objection?
MR. ALCOCK: No, Your Honor, I would like to clarify for the Court, if I may. As the Court knows, the law has been changed and of course you cannot mention any confession or inculpatory statement in the opening statement. If the State could put that in, the Court would be more oriented as to the time the State is alleging the statement was made. This alleged statement was made during the fingerprinting procedure of the Defendant, so he had been turned over, as I appreciate Officer Ivon's testimony, to the New Orleans Police Department, the alleged statement being made to Habighorst, not to Ivon. My objection is to the relevancy of how he filled out forms when that forms no basis or gives this Court no indication of whether or not the Defendant made the alleged statement freely and voluntarily and after having been advised of his Constitutional rights, which is the sole purpose for the laying of a predicate.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we have no way of knowing as of right now when the form was filled out. That is what we are trying to find out. The Officer has stated in his testimony that probably it was after Mr. Shaw was turned over to Central Lockup. He has not been positive in it, and I think we are entitled to inquire into it.
THE COURT: Let me ask the witness one or two questions that may clarify the situation.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Officer Ivon, since you have been attached to the District Attorney's Office, you do
not act -- normally or ordinarily the scope of your business affairs is not the same as ordinary police officers, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: So that you would not have the opportunity, as other officers do, to fill out these forms?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, this particular night in question of March 1, 1967, were you present when Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting Mr. Shaw?
A: No, I was not.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Alcock, why, except out of an abundance of precaution, why are you using this witness on a predicate if he wasn't there when the statement was made?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am simply using this witness to show the presence of counsel throughout any questioning that might have taken place, to destroy any possible taint that might creep into the alleged statement because of prior abuse or coercion. I am merely attempting to give this Court a complete picture of what transpired on that night, to show the Court that any statement that might have been made was made freely and voluntarily and after the man had been duly advised of his Constitutional rights.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, if the State is going to give the Court a complete picture, we are certainly entitled to cross-examine on that complete picture.
MR. ALCOCK: Not unless it deals with relevancy to the predicate, and not unless it deals with whether or not he gave the statement freely and voluntarily after being duly advised of his rights. That is the only issue before the Court at this time.
THE COURT: There is no question about that, I think we all agree.
MR. DYMOND: There is no argument about that, we all know that.
THE COURT: Are you seeking, Mr. Dymond, to find out when the Officer filled out the report?
MR. DYMOND: Correct.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Can you come up with an answer? I am not trying to force you, but can you tell us
when you made this report out?
A: I made it out on March 1.
Q: That is a whole day; we want to know the hour and minute if possible.
A: No, I can't remember.
Q: Well, how would you have gotten the information that was on that report unless you had to speak to somebody to get it? Right?
A: No, not necessarily. I had enough information about Mr. Shaw I believe to fill out a form, get it from the Booking Sergeant at the Central Lockup.
Q: Wouldn't you have filled out this report prior to you turning Mr. Shaw over physically to the New Orleans Police Department?
A: No, it was after I turned him over to Central Lockup.
Q: That is what I have been trying to get you to say, was it before or after.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, isn't it a fact that a prisoner isn't booked until you fill out this
Field Arrest form?
A: I don't know the procedure back there -- they gave me that form that night to fill out -- I don't know what procedure they have back in Central Lockup.
Q: Did you also sign the affidavit for a search warrant in this case?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will permit it at this time, out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: It is outside of the scope of the predicate also.
THE COURT: I know it is. What does the search warrant have to do with a free and voluntary --
MR. DYMOND: Are you going to permit it? You said you would permit it.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you also make the affidavit for the search warrant in connection with this
case?
A: For Mr. Shaw's house?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't remember if I did or not.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object to any questions relative to this document. An application for a search warrant has no relevancy in the matter before the Court at this time.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor --
MR. ALCOCK: -- unless they can establish that it was made out at approximately the same time that Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting the Defendant.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please --
THE COURT: What is the purpose of going into the search warrant at this time?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor said he would permit the question as to whether he made the search warrant out. He answered that, said he didn't know whether he had or not. I want to now submit the warrant to him and ask him whether his signature is on it.
THE COURT: I will permit that, but I am not going to permit you to go into details of the application.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for
identification "D-18," purporting to be an application for a search warrant to search the home of the Defendant, being under date of March 1, 1967, and I refer you to the last page of this document and ask you whether you executed that.
A: Yes, that is my signature.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-18.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, was this search warrant executed -- at what time on March 1?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, unless this man was present when it was executed. You mean exe- cution of the search or --
MR. DYMOND: No, the affidavit.
THE COURT: What time of day was the application signed?
MR. DYMOND: By this witness?
THE COURT: When did you sign that?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember what time it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was it before or after Mr. Shaw was delivered to Central Lockup?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Was it in the daytime or nighttime?
A: I believe it would have to be in the afternoon, I am not sure.
Q: Mr. Ivon, you say you were in and out of the B of I room while the fingerprinting and the mugging was taking place, is that right, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Mr. Edward Wegmann present in the Bureau of Identification room during this procedure?
A: I seen him by the door; I don't know if he was in the room himself.
Q: Was Mr. Panzeca in the Bureau of Identification room at this time?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know of any of Mr. Clay Shaw's attorneys who were present in the B of I room when he was being printed and mugged?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down. Call your next witness.
(Witness excused.)
MR. ALCOCK: Call Officer Habighorst.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we would ask that Mr. Ivon remain under the subpoena.
THE COURT: You are still under the subpoena.
MR. ALCOCK: We have to put him back on before the Jury anyway.
MR. DYMOND: As long as that is going to be done, it is all right.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Judge, at this time we would move for an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III, V-o-g-t.
THE COURT: Draw up an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III. Let the Sheriff call the Personnel Office of the New Orleans Police Department. I think they can do it by telephone quicker than running him down.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I agree with you. He may be over in Central Lockup.
THE COURT: Put down on the instanter subpoena the address of the person as possibly or probably the Central Lockup. Are you ready to proceed with this witness?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
To Aloysius Habighorst testimony
Back to previous Louis Ivon testimony
Back to previous Louis Curole testimony
Search trial database chronologically
Additional resources on the trial of Clay Shaw