CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD W. JACKSON, TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
Afternoon, February 12, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
FEBRUARY 12, 1969
AFTERNOON SESSION
RICHARD W. JACKSON, a witness for the State, after the first being duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: State your full name and occupation, please?
A: Name: Richard W. Jackson, employed by the United States Post Office Department.
Q: How long have you been employed by the Post Office Department?
A: 26 years.
Q: And where, what building are you presently working at?
A: The Custom House Station, 126 Decatur Street.
Q: How long at that location?
A: 12 years.
Q: And what were your duties essentially at that location?
A: Carrier, business section serving the Maison Blanche Building, the commercial area.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we would like to ask that the original of these documents be used. We have never seen the originals.
THE COURT: What do you have there in front of you, do you have the originals?
MR. ALCOCK: No, we don't. Unfortunately, the gentleman that made the return did have the originals and I overlooked the fact and took the copies and returned the originals but I think this man can identify them but I will have the Post Office Department bring the originals if they want them but if this man can identify these I don't see no harm.
MR. DYMOND: We don't want to hold up the trial and as long as Mr. Alcock assures us these are faithful copies --
MR. ALCOCK: This is the gentleman that prepared them.
MR. DYMOND: As long as you know them, it is all right with us.
THE COURT: There's no objection, so you may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Jackson, I'm going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as State's Exhibits-27, 28 and 29 and ask you if you recognize these documents and the writing that appears on them?
A: Yes, sir, I do.
Q: Now would you tell the Court how you recognize these documents?
A: It is a change of address card that was entered in the Post Office for purposes of changing mail from one place to another and I changed the Post Office record.
Q: May I take it from your response that all the writing is your handwriting?
A: That is right.
Q: And you so identified -- so identify it at this time?
A: I am.
Q: Specifically referring you to State Exhibits-27 and 29, I ask you to tell the Court what these documents represent.
A: This document here --
Q: Speak louder.
A: This document represents a change of address for -- can I use the name?
Q: Yes.
A: From Clay Shaw from 1313 Dauphine, changing his mail to an address of 1414 Chartres Street. There is also a cancellation on this same address removing it back to 1313 Dauphine.
Q: And when did the, or when would the cancellation have taken effect according to the documents you have with you?
A: 9th month, 21st day, the year is not listed but I would have to say this was 1963.
Q: Sixty-what?
A: '66, I am sorry.
Q: I am -- I show you what I have marked for identification as State-28 and ask you what that document represents?
A: This is a change of address for Clay Shaw from 1313 Dauphine to 1414 Chartres Street. This was in 1966, 9/21.
Q: Does that have any relationship to the other exhibits here?
A: There is a discrepancy here in some way.
Q: Point it out.
A: The change of address listed in the book here lists 1313 Dauphine to 1414 Chartres. The change of address card here, which is the original change of address, canceling 1414 Chartres to -- back to 1313 Dauphine Street.
Q: What if anything is the significance of the line drawn through this notation, that is from 1313 to 1414, what is the significance of this line?
A: That means when this change canceling the address back from Chartres Street, this line was drawn through here and this no longer, it meant the address was no longer in use.
Q: The change of address from 1313 Dauphine to 1414 Chartres would have been canceled on 9/21?
A: 9/21/66, that is correct.
Q: Is that what document S-28 reflects?
A: That is what this one reflects.
Q: Did you deliver any mail in that area at that time?
A: I have never served in that area.
Q: Is there any reason why you personally would have prepared these forms?
A: At the times I was in the office working office duty because of an accident, on light or restricted duty and I was working in the office at the time.
Q: Now with reference to the document, again referring to the date of September 21, 1966 and prior to the cancellation, according to the documents, where would mail addressed to 1313 Dauphine be delivered to prior to the cancellation?
A: 1414 Chartres.
Q: Do you know or do you have any records, or have you made an attempt to locate any records, to reflect that the date for this request for change of address was made?
A: Have I made an attempt to do so?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: To your knowledge do you know if anyone has made an attempt?
A: To my knowledge anyone else made an attempt to secure the correct date?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Yes, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: To your knowledge has anyone obtained the record of the original change of address which would contain the date that the request was made to change the mail delivery from 1313 Dauphine to 1414 Chartres Street?
A: To the best of my knowledge those records were not located, not able to find.
Q: These records only reflect the cancellation date?
A: That is all.
Q: And that would be September 21, 1966?
A: That is right.
Q: To your knowledge do you know who was delivering mail at 1414 Chartres Street at this time?
A: No, I don't and cannot say.
MR. ALCOCK: I tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Jackson, you mentioned earlier in your testimony there is a discrepancy in those
records that Mr. Alcock furnished you.
A: Yes.
Q: Is there still a discrepancy or were you able to figure it out?
A: No, I have not been able to 'cause, 'cause the forms are not filled out the way they should have been.
A: I will confess I don't quite understand what the discrepancy was and I would appreciate your showing it to me.
Q: Well, now, this is a change or address card. The purpose of this card is to change mail from one address to a new address.
Q: Yes, I see.
A: The original address being 1313 Dauphine and the new address also is listed as 1313 Dauphine Street. This is the address up here -- should have changed the mail from this address to the address down here but the two are identical and it say cancel the mail being forwarded to 1414 Chartres. If this was a change of address it should have been different but if it was a cancellation it would be correct. This 1313 Dauphine should have been up here in other words.
Q: This exhibit, State-27, does it have any date?
A: Yes, this would be the back section of this card.
Q: What would it, or what date does it reflect?
A: 9/21.
Q: 9/21?
A: Yes, in '66.
Q: Mr. Jackson, I am referring you to the exhibit State-28 and directing your attention to the date 1966 which is written at the top.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was that date written there in the course of keeping these records or has it been added later?
A: Now this page represents a section of a Removal Book and at the top the year the entries are made are put up here, and then as you get entries you enter them below as you go along. This was in the process of changing a carrier book, his book either weren't in the shape it should have been and it was either renewed or made over and all of this was my handwriting being copies from an old book to a new book.
Q: It was in the process of making a new book and that is why '66 is reflected there?
A: Every change of address that came in in '66 is there.
Q: When was 9166 written on here?
A: At the time of the first removal in '66 was received and this started on the 8th month, so 1966 should have been the answer on the other side the first time.
Q: I am talking about the particular notation on this sheet of paper.
A: It was on there the day I filled in this slip of paper but I don't know what day I filled the paper in.
Q: Did you write 1966 on there?
A: Yes, I did.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: One question, Mr. Jackson. As a carrier, and if your book reflected what it reflected in State's Exhibit S-28 --
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor, because this is not a proper redirect examination. Counsel is now trying to get in the practice of the Post Office Department and none of which was covered on Cross-Examination.
THE COURT: It is within my discretion whether I will permit something on redirect that was not brought out on cross-examination. The objection is overruled.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we reserve a bill of exception making the entire record including this question, the objection, the reason for it, the testimony of the witness, the Court's ruling and the entire record part of the bill of exception.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Jackson, I am trying to better understand your testimony to the effect that you
mentioned a carrier book. Would you explain what you mean by that?
A: Each carrier has a change of address book. This book is for the purpose of listing any redirection of mail he may have on his route. If a person moves off his route he enters it in his ledger and that give him a record that he could follow in forwarding mail, is this purpose of the book.
Q: As a carrier if your book reflected what State-28 reflects, that is this line drawn through here, where would you deliver the mail directed to 1313 Dauphine Street.
A: That would have been, that would be a reason for drawing the line through 1313 Dauphine Street and the only reason would be if you received another address, another change of address, then you would list the new address. You cancel this one out and list another one knowing this is no more good and that is the purpose for drawing the line through it.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
MR. DYMOND: I have no questions.
THE COURT: The witness is excused from the effects of the subpoena. You may go, Mr. Jackson.
(Witness excused.)