THE COURT: What is the status of the matter as of this time?
MR. ALCOCK: The State, what the State is attempting to do is have Mr. Sciambra read the memorandum not to the Jury but to himself to, to review it to himself and when he came upon something he thought was an error that crept into the memorandum he can explain how the error came in the memorandum and I ask that Mr. Sciambra not relate to the Jury anything that Perry Russo told him.
THE COURT: You understand gentlemen, and you may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now I show you, Mr. Sciambra, a document which has been, an exhibit which has been marked as State and Defense 20 and ask you to read this and note any errors or omissions that you can see in that document that resulted from your own personal actions rather than what may or may not have been told you.
A: On my copy I had marked the errors or inconsistencies that Mr. Dymond pointed out yesterday.
Q: You have your copy with you?
A: I have it in my possession and I don't know if these are all but I have twenty-six but I think it would be a log easier to go down that memorandum and explain those inconsistencies.
Q: If it would be agreeable to the Court and Defense just let him look at the memorandum and see if it is the same memorandum and if it is his memorandum.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE WITNESS: First of all, Your Honor, to fully explain and for the Jury to understand the inconsistencies and the necessity of the statement I think they should first be told and I should go into the detail and circumstances under which I dictated this particular memorandum.
THE COURT: I thought you covered that before. You did -- you did dictate it intermittently, not at one time and is that what you are talking about?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: First thing, and it may not all be included and if you have a question, point it out. First of all I think it was -- may I read the parts -- "He said he went to Landry's house to try to locate him --"
THE COURT: What page is that on?
THE WITNESS: Here.
THE COURT: Okay. I see it.
THE WITNESS: He was told, and this is referring to Russo when he went to Landry's house to try to locate him, he was told at the time by Landry's mother that Ferrie had taken Landry out of the country and she didn't know where. I believe there was some objection or some inconsistency as to the reason why Perry went to Landry's home or where Ferrie had taken Landry out of the country but the essence is correct.
Perry went to Landry's house looking for Landry.
MR. DYMOND: We are getting into what Russo allegedly said.
THE WITNESS: I am pointing out the essence, I am pointing out how I described it in my own words as to what Perry told me.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, this is the very difficulty we anticipated in trying to do this and as I said before maybe he can do it but I frankly don't see how Mr. Sciambra can explain these inconsistencies without getting into what Perry Russo told to him and that was the basis of our initial objection.
THE COURT: I cannot by the highest stretch of legal imagination figure how he can explain these without referring to what he was told.
MR. DYMOND: I don't see how he can either, Judge.
THE COURT: The only purpose you used the memo exclusively, not exclusively but you did use it in your cross-examination of Russo.
MR. ALCOCK: If the Court please, I might also point out that Perry Russo has been on the stand and he testified to what he told Sciambra. Russo pointed out each one of these things that were in error in that memorandum.
THE COURT: Would not this
[text missing from transcript]
MR. ALCOCK: We have the situation where the man already testified, Your Honor, and that somebody told him something and that person is not in the courtroom and has been subjected to cross-examination, this person was already subjected to cross-examination.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court, had the authorities of our law intended for a situation such as this to constitute an exception to the hearsay rule it would certainly be right in the book where Your Honor was looking but you are unable [sic] read that exception.
[text missing]
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I'm just attempting to allow Mr. Sciambra to explain the nature of the errors that are in this record. I was not attempting to have him relate everything Russo told him. Russo has been subjected to cross-examination. As a result of this memo joined by Defense Counsel and us and it seems only fair and proper for this man to be allowed to explain to the Jury the nature of those errors.
MR. DYMOND: By way of objection, we have no objection to Mr. Sciambra going through this memo and referring to each error and saying that is not what Perry Russo told me. To do that we have no objection but for him to be following that with what Perry Russo told him -- Mr. Sciambra is not on trial and it is not so.
MR. ALCOCK: I don't quite understand that.
THE WITNESS: May I say something?
THE COURT: You keep quiet because you've said too much already.
Mr. Alcock, I do not recall having this legal proposition presented to me before but from looking at the criminal law as being a search for truth and not a debating game among the lawyers I am going to allow Mr. Sciambra to explain and if it includes hearsay in the 26 errors then I will permit it and Counsel for the Defense can take his bill of exception each time he wants and I will rule that way, that Defense Counsel has opened the door by cross-examining Russo on the entire statement and it's only fair to take the author of the statement right on the law when he's on the witness stand and under oath to explain as to why those errors crept in that memorandum.
That is my ruling, and you can object each time.
MR. DYMOND: You Honor, I see no reason for objecting each time but I can object for the whole. Probably or possibly I will object each time but first of all we would like to object to the Court's ruling, reserving a bill of exception to it making the questions propounded by the State and the answers given by this witness, the ruling of the Court, and the Defense's reasons for the objections together with the rest of the record up to this time parts of the bill.
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Alcock.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Proceed, Mr. Sciambra.
A: Starting off this again, Your Honor, as I was saying before, where I say he came, Perry went to Landry's house to try to get him and he was told at the time by Landry's mother that Ferrie had taken Landry out of the country and -- I don't remember exactly what Perry said was inconsistent or left out but the essence of that sentence is correct 'cause in my own words I was trying to get across the fact that Perry went to Landry's house looking for Landry and that Landry's mother told him that Landry was not there.
If she said out of the country or not, I don't know.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: We are going to object to what she said.
THE COURT: I didn't hear.
THE WITNESS: The essence of that sentence is correct because the main point is that Perry --
MR. WEGMANN: We object to the witness saying what the main point is.
THE COURT: Just say correct and not correct and make a short explanation and go to the next one giving you impression of what somebody told you is not correct.
THE WITNESS: "After the demonstration Ferrie showed him and Landry five diplomas that --"
THE COURT: Would you mind referring to the page and paragraph you are testifying from, Mr. Sciambra?
THE WITNESS: Fine. The last line after the demonstration, showed him and Landry five diplomas and said that he had received his Ph.D in two of these subjects. That was also pointed out by Russo and I don't remember what the inconsistency was but I don't think it is important at any rate, anyway.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object.
THE WITNESS: I meant then the essence of that.
THE COURT: Do you find that is in error -- do you have it marked off as an error?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, we have checked it off as an error.
THE COURT: You see then how important it is --
MR. DYMOND: I agree with you.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I was explaining in my own notes the essence which was to show that Ferrie --
MR. DYMOND: We're going into the same thing again.
THE COURT: We don't want a blow by blow description but the essence is the way to get around it. I don't want the actual words that Perry said on that occasion.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He is interpreting the witness.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I am giving you what was in my mind.
THE COURT: Don't answer back, Mr. Sciambra, as now you are a witness and not an Assistant District Attorney. Gentlemen, I have ruled he can go in the statement and give his explanation, if any, give his explanation. He has to give an impression or how can he give his explanation without going into his mental faculties as to what his impression was. I don't think it is objectionable.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, you're going to permit him to interpret the statement and certainly that is not the function of a witness.
THE COURT: He is reading the statements and then is interpreting them.
MR. ALCOCK: He can interpret what he wrote. He is the author of the memorandum.
MR. DYMOND: The best evidence is what he wrote.
THE COURT: Yes, I agree with you, Mr. Alcock and I am going to permit him to interpret what he meant when he dictated it. If it is in error and if not he can go on to other matters marked off.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel for the Defense objects and reserves a bill of exception making the objection, the reasons stated, and the Court's ruling on the question of the testimony of this witness and all testimony up to now parts of the bill.
THE COURT: This is an unusual situation where an Assistant District Attorney is in court here and the way his memorandum is being used and then when he assumes the role of witness then he may explain. I had a job as an assistant district attorney and I think he should be allowed to explain his errors. I think the door was opened when you used it for cross-examination. I will permit it. You may proceed, Mr. Alcock.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Sciambra?
A: As I said before, Your Honor, on the top, I don't exactly remember what the inconsistency was but the purpose and essence of that is to show that Perry was --
MR. WEGMANN: Your Honor, I object again and if this witness is allowed --
THE COURT: I have ruled on it. How can he explain the inconsistencies if we don't know what the inconsistency is?
A: (Continued) Down here at the bottom of the page, the last paragraph, "He said that Landry had told him that Ferrie used to hypnotize him and give him post-hypnotic suggestions."
THE COURT: Where is that located?
THE WITNESS: At the bottom of the page.
THE COURT: I have it. I see it.
A: (Continued) Now, if I remember correctly, Perry said that Landry didn't tell him that. I remember that Perry had told me that Landry had said that Ferrie had hypnotized some of them so actually the essence of that is correct if, if not a word by word description of what Perry told me. "Ferrie eventually confessed to him that he used hypnosis for sexual purposes. Perry said he never used hypnosis for sexual purposes but my impression is that Ferrie had used hypnosis for sexual purposes and whether or not on him and whether or not I assumed it, the essence of that sentence is that Ferrie used hypnosis on certain individuals and therefore the essence if not word by word description is correct.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Proceed.
A: Also he said -- this is at the top of Page 3 -- he said, he meaning Perry, "was driving his car on the Veterans Highway and he noticed that he was starting to get a flat tire." The inconsistency there was he said that it wasn't a flat tire, but that it was battery trouble.
The essence was that he had automobile trouble on the Veterans Highway, Perry said battery trouble, but the essence of that is that he was having automobile trouble and it doesn't make any difference.
THE COURT: If it was automobile trouble.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
A: (Continued) In the middle of the page, Page 3, talking about the pornographic film, "He said that he would have to get $150.00 a roll for the film because it was pretty risky going in and out of Cuba." I think there was some discrepancy in the price and I remember it as $150.00 and it may have been 149 or 100 or 125 but the discrepancy is in the price. The essence --
THE COURT: Don't go into that.
A: (Continued) Then Russo said that "He took this film and sold it to someone who he believes eventually sold it to a Seaman" The essence was that it was actually sold by Perry Russo. Perry admitted that and I have it down as an inconsistency on the sheet but it doesn't matter who brought -- who bought and who sold the film but the essence was that the film was sold and that is the essence of that sentence or sentences.
Further down on the page, Page 3, "He also admitted to Russo for the first time that he was a homosexual and he wanted to know if Russo would be willing to take the drug. Russo said that he did not care to take the drug."
Perry said that Ferrie never admitted he was a homosexual. The reason I may have gotten it in there in my own words is that at all times Perry was perfectly aware that Ferrie was a homosexual, and because he told me that I may have put it down that he admitted it to him and I don't know if he ever admitted it to him but the essence was that Ferry was aware that Ferrie was a homosexual and then further that Russo said that he did not care to take the drug. I think Perry said that Ferrie never bugged him to take the drug. The essence of that sentence is that Ferrie did at least have some interest in other people taking drugs.
Further on down, "One day he and Kenny Carter, a colored boy who used to attend Loyola University and who he believes attends LSUNO, were in his apartment on Elysian Fields when Ferrie came in with two Cubans who were dressed in green fatigues." Perry said that I may have been Kenny Carter or someone else but the essence of that sentence is correct. Ferrie came to his apartment with two Cubans to visit with him while Perry was with someone else.
Turning to Page 4, "Russo said --" the second paragraph -- "Russo said that he did not see Ferrie again until he went to his Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment with Kenny Carter looking for him." I believe the inconsistency was that Perry said he didn't know if it was Kenny Carter, and 'cause he mentioned Kenny Carter I assumed it was Kenny Carter. At any rate the essence is that he didn't see Ferrie again until he went to Ferrie's apartment looking for him with whomever he was with.
Then he said, the next inconsistency which is a couple of lines further on down, "He," -- meaning Russo -- "He said Ferrie mentioned his name, but he can't remember it right now." Now there he was referring to the name of the roommate which was Leon, obvious- ly Perry had to hear the name --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this as argumentative.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
A: (Continued) If you turn to Page 7 you can see on the third line referring to Perry that the "name Leon really rings a bell," and if the name Leon really rings a bell then he must have --
MR. DYMOND: I object again.
A: (Continued) The essence of that is correct; that Perry was aware of the name Leon.
MR. DYMOND: We object to that again.
THE COURT: Strike that.
MR. DYMOND: I ask the Jury be instructed to disregard the statement just made by the witness.
A: (Continued) He said, still on Page 4, "He said the roommate" -- referring to Perry -- "He said the roommate had some sort of dirty blond hair and a husky beard which appeared to be a little darker than his hair."
The essence of that sentence is that the roommate was or had dirty blond hair and also that the beard he described it was a three to four day growth of beard, a three to four day growth of beard to me, that would be --
THE COURT: Don't go into that.
THE WITNESS: What he describes as a three to four day growth I describe as husky.
A: (Continued) He described it as darker than his hair, but the main point was that the beard was different than his actual hair. The essence of that was -- my interpretation was of a three or four day growth is different than --
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go to the next one.
A: (Continued) Further on down he said the roommate appeared to be cruddy and Perry said he never used the word "cruddy," he used the word dirty. I used cruddy and if there is any difference --
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Where are you reading from?
THE WITNESS: The middle of Page 4.
A: (Continued) The next thing he said a little further on down he mentioned this, "Ferrie told him not to worry about it because he was a funny guy and didn't like to talk to anybody, all he did was sit down on the porch in the dark and think and read books all the time."
I don't know what the inconsistency is there but the essence of that is --
MR. WEGMANN: I object if he doesn't even know what the inconsistency is.
THE WITNESS: There was an inconsistency but what it was I don't know. Further on down, "Ferrie told Russo he had tried the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly.
A: (Continued) He said he and the roommate, meaning Ferrie and the roommate, laid in bed naked and he, Ferrie, gave the drug to his roommate and that he had intercourse with Ferrie." Now Perry said yesterday --
MR. DYMOND: We object to his reiterating the testimony.
THE WITNESS: I am pointing to inconsistencies.
THE COURT: What is the inconsistency?
THE WITNESS: The inconsistency was that Perry said that Ferrie never told him he had intercourse with Leon. The essence is that Ferrie and the boy lay in bed and that he gave Leon an aphrodisiac drug and whether or not Ferrie and his roommate actually had intercourse was --
MR. DYMOND: I know of no way -- in view of the fact that Russo had an opportunity to explain and now I think that his legal position now is that he is refuting what Russo had to say.
MR. WEGMANN: This is what he's doing and what he's testifying to.
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MR. DYMOND: He is interpreting things into the statement that don't even appear in the statement. He is reading into the statement things that are not there.
MR. ALCOCK: As the Court pointed out originally the inconsistencies were pointed out by Russo. This is the very nature and reason for going over this now to go over the inconsistencies brought out by Mr. Dymond on cross-examination of Russo. How could we get the inconsistencies in unless we say what Perry Russo said yesterday as to what he termed inconsistencies or omissions.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: If it is Mr. Alcock's position that first of all that he never said these inconsistencies why weren't they originally brought up by Mr. Russo on Direct Examination by Mr. Alcock. I admit we cross-examined on them. If it is Mr. Alcock's legal position now that he is impeaching his own witness, Perry Russo, this is entirely correct but this is not the posture he put before the Court initially.
THE COURT: I think he is trying to have Mr. Sciambra state why he put this in his memo, he's trying to explain the errors and assumptions.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
MR. DYMOND: He certainly doesn't have a right to refute Russo's testimony. He is in the position of having been in this courtroom while the witness was here yesterday testifying.
THE COURT: I checked that out under Article 371 and he is an attorney and did not anticipate that he would be called.
MR. DYMOND: We have not raised the exception because of the law but by the same token because it is an exception what he says and does as a witness is strictly limited and he can't violate the bridge given to him as an attorney by recounting what someone said he had no right to hear except for the fact he was in the courtroom.
MR. ALCOCK: I don't know of any provision like that. It seems there's an awful lot of provisions that you're coming up with.
MR. DYMOND: Coming under the exception of Article 371 that is the bridge.
THE COURT: That is what he said he is coming under the exception and I can't tell him to disabuse his mind.
MR. DYMOND: He doesn't have to disabuse his mind but by the same token he can make -- not make statements that are not even in the memorandum.
THE COURT: He is in an unusual position. You may proceed and we will cross each bridge as we get to it.
A: (Continued) The last thing as to whether or not there was an intercourse or not --
MR. WEGMANN: Where are you?
THE WITNESS: Perry said yesterday --
MR. WEGMANN: Where are you?
THE WITNESS: Same place?
MR. WEGMANN: And where is that?
THE WITNESS: On Page 4 where they laid in bed and they had intercourse, I think Perry said the inconsistency was that Ferrie never told him he had intercourse with Leon.
A: (Continued) The essence of that sentence was that they lay in bed naked --
THE COURT: Don't go into that 'cause we can read that.
A (Continued) As a result of being in bed naked and that the intercourse was had and whether Perry said it or not I don't know.
MR. DYMOND: Now he's going into this man opinion that from the facts and from what he heard this is what happened.
THE COURT: I'm going to permit him to do it anyhow.
MR. DYMOND: To which the Court, reserves a bill of exception making the objection, the Court's ruling and all the testimony part of the bill.
THE COURT: Get along with your memo.
A: (Continued) The next inconsistency, further on down, is where "Ferrie repeated that these Cubans who were coming to his apartment were jungle fighters and would help liberate South America. I think there was an inconsistency and what Perry refers to as "South Americans," and that everything out of the country is South American to him. That was the consistency.
Next in the middle of Page 5, I can recall that "Russo said that he remembered once going to the Nashville Street Wharf to hear J.F.K. make a speech and he remembers that he saw a Secret Service man guarding the President every five or ten feet."
I think Perry said yesterday that he didn't see a Secret Service man guarding the President every five or ten feet but he said he did see Secret Service men who were not looking at the President but looking at the crowd and I put it down as every five or ten feet.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
A: (Continued) In essence the essence there is correct.
THE COURT: Don't go into the essence, you explained it.
A: (Continued) Ferrie said he knew of a type of drug -- this is at the bottom of Page 5 -- "Ferrie said that he knew of a type of drug which once it got into the blood stream would cause physical reaction that would result in extensive brain damage or blood clot and eventual death." That is exactly how I remember it.
THE COURT: Go to the next one.
A: (Continued) "Russo said that in September and October of 1963 Ferrie got worse in his speeches about an assassination." That is exactly how I remember it. He said something about the correct point in September, but that's exactly the way I remember it.
MR. DYMOND: We object to that.
THE COURT: That is the way he remembered it. Go on to the next one.
A: (Continued) The next one is at the bottom of the first paragraph of Page 6 where he said "Russo said that he hasn't spoken with Ferrie since the assassination." I remember Russo saying that he had seen Ferrie after the assassination but did not speak about the assassination and I put it down that Russo hadn't spoken with him since the assassination, for that reason.
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: It was his impression and there is a difference between from seeing somebody and talking to him and why do you object to that?
MR. DYMOND: Now he's getting ready to interpret and explain his own testimony.
THE COURT: That is what I permitted him to do from the very beginning.
MR. DYMOND: He puts down one thing and his explanation is something else.
THE WITNESS: Mainly the point I was pointing out, Your Honor, is that in my notes that were dictated concerning what Perry Russo told me I put it in my words and not Perry's words. If there is a difference in interpretation between Mr. Dymond and Mr. Russo and between me.
Actually, the essence of everything is the same.
THE COURT: You may go to your next one.
A: (Continued) A little further down "The first person he picked out was Arcacha Smith and he said that Arcacha looked very much like the Cuban in the pronographic film." That is what I remember as Perry told it to me.
THE COURT: Go to the next one.
A: (Continued) The next one is "He then called his brother, Steve over to look at Arcacha's picture and asked him if that face was familiar to him" and said that Steve wasn't his actual brother, it was his "soul brother."
I left out "soul."
Right here a little further on down in the paragraph, "The next picture that he identified was that of Clay Shaw. He said that he saw this man twice." That is obviously wrong because he said he saw the man three times and he didn't identify him as Clay Shaw but he identified him, Clay Shaw, as Clem Bertrand.
THE COURT: Go to the next one.
A: (Continued) The next discrepancy was that "Shaw had on a corduroy type jacket." I think that Perry said he wasn't sure but I thought he said corduroy but the point is that he had a jacket on.
The next one, "The third picture that Russo identified was that of Lee Harvey Oswald." I think he said he did not identify the picture as Lee Harvey Oswald but as Leon Oswald, Leon instead of Lee, which the essence is he did identify the picture. Once again I point out the word "cruddy," he said he used the word dirty and I used the word cruddy.
A bushy beard -- I think a three or four day growth of beard is bushy but he doesn't evidently.
The next discrepancy he says "Robert Lemoyne lives in the vicinity of Nichols High School as he was in contact with Ferrie around that time. I think he said he made a mistake and it wasn't Robert Landry he told me it was Robert Landry but he told me it was Robert Lemoyne.
MR. DYMOND: The witness is now attempting to correct Perry Russo's intention.
MR. ALCOCK: He said his impression is that the information is not correct.
MR. DYMOND: He said he thinks that it was Russo made the mistake instead of saying Robert Landry and he said Robert Lemoyne is what he told him.
THE COURT: That is for the Jury to determine. You heard Russo's testimony.
A: (Continued) The next thing in the testimony, he said that "The name Leon rings a bell." He said the name Leon really did ring a bell." Also he said that "If he were hypnotized he may have total recall of names and places and dates."
There was a discrepancy because we had actually talked about hypnosis and Perry told me a little about hypnosis and that he was somewhat familiar with it and that Ferrie had tried to hypnotize him and there was a difference of opinion as to whether Ferrie was successful or not. In -- because of all of that talk about total recall and Perry said he'd be willing to undergo hypnosis if we would get a qualified doctor or hypnotist. The essence is correct if not word for word.
MR. ALCOCK: All right. I believe that covers it.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: All right, Mr. Sciambra, does this memorandum represent everything that he told you?
A: No, it doesn't. We actually talked for two and a half to three hours.
MR. DYMOND: We are still going to object to him adding to this memorandum.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can explain my answer.
MR. DYMOND: What, in addition to this Perry Russo -- what Perry Russo told him?
MR. WEGMANN: We cannot do that.
THE COURT: He said he spoke to him for two and a half hours.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: And does, it does not represent everything he told you?
A: It does not.
Q: Mr. Sciambra, later on, specifically in April or May 1967 did you have occasion to talk with Perry Russo concerning James Phelan?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And don't say what Perry Russo said but what did you tell Russo at this time?
A: I told Perry Russo that if Phelan wanted to go over to his house and talk to him to let Phelan come over but before he would let Phelan come over to let the District Attorney's office install bugging devices in the apartment and I told Perry Russo to lead Phelan on to see exactly how far Phelan would go in trying to influence his testimony.
Q: Did you personally install any equipment?
A: I did not personally install the taping device but I went over with a member of the District Attorney's office, I believe it was George Eckart, that installed the bugging device.
Q: Why did you instruct Russo --
A: Very simply 'cause he we were in a position --
MR. DYMOND: I object.
THE COURT: What was the question?
MR. DYMOND: Why he instructed Perry Russo along those lines.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
THE WITNESS: It was very simple.
MR. DYMOND: I objected to it, Your Honor, and you sustained me.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, this isn't calling for an opinion, it is calling for a fact from this witness as to why he took certain actions. This isn't calling for an opinion but an action that a witness took.
THE COURT: That would be for argument. You can explain it to the Jury as to why it was done.
MR. ALCOCK: He can testify --
THE COURT: He can testify it was done but the reason why can be explained in argument.
MR. ALCOCK: Even though the reason is peculiar to him?
THE COURT: It can be used as an argument.
MR. ALCOCK: In any case, Your Honor -- why do you do this? Why do you step down from the step. And I step down because I want to get down. That is the reason for doing something. That is all I am asking.
THE COURT: Let me see if I understand that -- Mr. Alcock's position. In other words they wanted to take down everything that Phelan said so they could explore everything he had on his mind.
MR. ALCOCK: That is what we are tyring to elicit from the witness.
THE COURT: Let the reason for doing anything be a fact, but the reason -- if it is an opinion or belief or suspicion, that is another thing and that is inadmissible.
MR. ALCOCK: In an armed robbery case we ask the man why did he put his hands up and the reason is the man had a gun in his back. That is admissible.
MR. DYMOND: But this is not a physical fact but a mental appreciation.
MR. ALCOCK: That he put a gun in his back is a physical fact. What if a man says "Put your hands up" without a gun? Why do you put your hands up? Because the man told you to put your hanbds up and you assume he had a gun.
THE COURT: Go on to something else. I am not going to permit you to go into that because then we will go into the whole part of the District Attorney's office that Mr. Phelan had anything to do with it and what they thought about the case and I am certainly not going to open that door.
We'll take a short recess.