 |
 |
 |
|
|
18 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS _______________________________________________
CORETTA SCOTT KING, et al, Plaintiffs, Vs. Case No. 97242 LOYD JOWERS, et al, Defendants. _______________________________________________ PROCEEDINGS November 16th, 1999 VOLUME II _______________________________________________ Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen, Division 4, judge presiding. _______________________________________________ DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD COURT REPORTERS Suite 2200, One Commerce Square Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 529-1999
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 19 - APPEARANCES - For the Plaintiff: DR. WILLIAM PEPPER Attorney at Law New York City, New York For the Defendant: MR. LEWIS GARRISON Attorney at Law Memphis, Tennessee Court Reported by: MR. BRIAN F. DOMINSKI Certificate of Merit Registered Professional Reporter Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski, Richberger & Weatherford 22nd Floor One Commerce Square Memphis, Tennessee 38103
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 20 - INDEX - WITNESS: PAGE/LINE NUMBER
CORETTA KING
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 53 22
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:...................... 70 15
COBEY SMITH
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 75 10
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:...................... 96 16
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 101 4
CHARLES CABBAGE
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 102 10
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 121 7
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 127 18
JOHN McFERREN
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 132 5
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 155 10
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 159 9
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 21
NATHAN WHITLOCK
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 160 9
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 184 4
THOMAS SMITH
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 185 14
CHARLES HURLEY
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 192 15
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 22
PROCEEDINGS
(November 16th, 1999, 10:15 a.m.)
MR. PERA: Your Honor, good
morning. I have a couple preliminary matters
related to the matter you have on trial.
May I address the Court this
morning?
THE COURT: Let me get my orders
first.
MR. PERA: Okay. I thought
that was done, Your Honor. That's why I
approached.
THE COURT: Any additional
orders?
Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Pera.
MR. PERA: As you know, I'm
Lucian Pera. I represent the Commercial
Appeal. First, your Honor, I have an order
on yesterday's proceedings as to our motion
for access -- I have served this on counsel
for the parties -- that both grants -- both
denies my motion for access, grants our
status as an intervenor for our limited
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 23
purpose and grants the Rule 9 motion that you
orally granted yesterday.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PERA: Does that meet with
your approval, your Honor?
There are two other matters, your
Honor, I want to present. One is a motion we
filed this morning.
As I understand it, although, of
course, I wasn't here and my client wasn't in
the courtroom, voir dire has been completed.
We have moved -- filed a motion with
the Court, I'm not sure if the Court has
received it yet, for access -- immediate
access as soon as practicable to the
transcript of voir dire proceedings. We have
filed a motion and would ask the Court to
grant us immediate access to the transcript
of the voir dire proceedings held in this
case.
THE COURT: Denied.
MR. PERA: Denied?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. PERA: May I, Your Honor --
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 24
I'll obviously give a moment to counsel. I'm
anticipating one of two possible results.
I've actually prepared an order. Since I
know my client may be interested in an
appeal, I will share this with Mr. Pepper and
Mr. Garrison.
There is one other matter, Your
Honor. That is my partner Ms. Leizure is in
a better position to address it than I. We
know the Court has granted access to the
trial to the broadcast media, but under Rule
30 we would also, as the Court knows, do use
still photographers and would request and
have filed a motion yesterday afternoon by
access by one of our still photographers to
the courtroom.
If the Court needs to hear that
addressed from a legal point of view under
Rule 30, my partner, Ms. Leizure, can address
that.
THE COURT: As for still
photography, I'll have to refer to the rule,
which does allow it, but it is limited.
MS. LEIZURE: Your Honor, I
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 25
believe the provisions are that you can limit
it to two still photographers.
THE COURT: Who are you?
MS. LEIZURE: I'm sorry, Your
Honor. I'm Kathy Leizure. I'm Mr. Pera's
partner. I represent the Commercial Appeal.
THE COURT: Kathy who?
MS. LEIZURE: I'm Kathy
Leizure. I believe the provision is, your
Honor, you can limit it to two still
photographers who are using no more than two
cameras each.
THE COURT: I intend to abide by
the rule.
MS. LEIZURE: Okay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It says if there are
more than two, if we're going to have still
photography in the courtroom, you'll have to
work it out among yourselves. If they can't
work it out among themselves, then I'm going
to disallow all of it.
MS. LEIZURE: I understand, Your
Honor. There is a provision in here for
pooling arrangements, which I would be happy
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 26
to try to work out if I know, you know, what
other media have been granted access pursuant
to this rule for still photography purposes.
THE COURT: I intend to abide by
the rules. It is for that same reason that I
disallowed the presence of media during the
jury selection.
All right. Assuming that there are
no others who want to have still
photographers in the room, I'll allow yours,
but if it comes to a point where there are
more than the rule allows, if you can work it
out among yourselves, I'll do that. If not,
as I said, I'm going to disallow all of them,
because I'm not going to become involved in a
dispute over who can and who cannot.
MS. LEISURE: I understand, Your
Honor. I understand. So I will advise my
client that they can bring the still
photographer in within the provisions, the
criteria and guidelines of the rules.
THE COURT: The other thing is
that I have instructed all of them that they
are not to photograph my jury.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 27
MS. LEIZURE: That's right.
That's certainly a provision that is in the
rule. That's understood.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PEPPER: May I be heard,
Your Honor?
MR. PERA: I've provided this
order --
THE COURT: Just a moment. Go
ahead, Mr. Pepper.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
Honor. Your Honor, the family has its own
still photographer who would like to be
present in the courtroom and will abide by
all of the rules. It is Mr. Benedict
Fernandez, who for nearly forty years has
followed the history of Dr. King's work and
these proceedings.
THE COURT: All right. Those
two, then.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
Honor.
MR. PERA: Mr. Pepper, is this
order okay.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 28
MR. PEPPER: Yes.
MR. PERA: Your Honor, if I
could pass the order for immediate access to
is the transcript. Mr. Garrison and
Mr. Pepper have approved that order, although
I haven't actually signed that original.
Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate
you hearing us.
THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Garrison,
are you ready?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Pepper?
MR. PEPPER: Yes.
THE COURT: Bring the jury out,
Mr. Sheriff.
(Jury in.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen. Glad to see that everybody
made it this morning. Yesterday I
inadvertently omitted one of the Court
personnel. I should have introduced him. I
have to constantly remind him that I'm
elected by the residents of Shelby County and
that he is not my boss. It is my court
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 29
clerk, Mr. Brian Bailey over here. I think I
introduced everybody else.
Before we begin the trial, I'm going
to give you some preliminary facts that you
can refer to during the course of this
trial. Before the trial begins, I'm going to
give you some instructions to help you
understand how the case will proceed, what
your duties many be, and how you should
conduct yourselves during the trial.
When I have completed these
instructions, the attorneys will make their
opening statements. These statements will be
brief outlines of what the attorneys expect
to be evidence.
After the opening statements, you
will hear the evidence. The evidence
generally consists of the numbered exhibits
and testimony of witnesses. The plaintiffs
will present evidence first. The defendant
will then be given the opportunity to present
evidence.
Normally the plaintiff presents all
of the plaintiff's evidence before the other
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 30
parties present any evidence. Exceptions are
sometimes made out of this usually to
accommodate a witness.
The witnesses will testify in
response to questions from the attorneys.
Witnesses are first asked questions by the
party who calls the witness to testify, and
then other parties are permitted to
cross-examine the witness.
Although evidence is preserved my
asking questions, the questions themselves
are not evidence. Any insinuation contained
in a question is not evidence. You should
consider a question only as it gives meaning
to the witness' answer.
Evidence may be presented by
deposition. A deposition is testimony taken
under oath before the trial and preserved in
writing or sometimes it will be videotaped.
During the trial objections may be
made to the evidence or trial procedures. I
may sustain objections to questions asked
without permitting the witness to answer or I
may instruct you to disregard an answer that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 31
has been given.
In deciding this case you may not
draw an inference from an unanswered
question, and you may not consider testimony
that you are instructed to disregard.
Any arguments about objection or
motions are usually required to be made by
the attorneys out of the hearing of the
jury. Information may be excluded because it
is not legally admissible. Excluded
information cannot be considered in reaching
your decision.
A ruling that is made on an
objection or motion will be based solely upon
the law. You must not infer from a ruling
that I hold any view or opinion for or
against any parties to this lawsuit.
When all of the evidence has been
presented to you, the attorneys will make
their closing arguments. The attorneys will
point out to you what they contend the
evidence has shown, what inferences you
should draw from the evidence and what
conclusions you should reach as your
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 32
verdict.
The plaintiff will make the first
argument and will be followed by the
defendant. Plaintiff will then respond to
the defendant's arguments. Unless you are
otherwise instructed, statements made by the
attorneys are not evidence. Those statements
are made only to help you understand the
evidence and apply the law to the evidence.
You should ignore any statement that is not
supported by the evidence.
After the arguments are made, I will
instruct you on the rulings of law that apply
to the case. It is your function as jurors
to determine what facts -- what the facts are
and apply the rules of law that I have given
you to the facts that you have found.
You will determine the facts from
all of the evidence. You are the sole and
exclusive judges of the facts. On the other
hand, you are required to accept the rules of
law that I give you, whether you agree with
them or not.
As the sole judge of the facts, you
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 33
must determine which of the witness'
testimony you accept, what weight you attach
to it and what inferences you will draw from
it. The law does not, however, require you
to accept all of the evidence in deciding
what evidence you will accept.
You must make your own evaluation of
the testimony given by each of the witnesses
and determine the weight you will give to
that testimony. You must decide which
witnesses you believe and how important you
think their testimony is. You are not
required to accept or reject everything a
witness says. You are free to believe all,
none or part of any person's testimony.
In deciding which testimony you
believe, you should rely on your own common
sense and every-day experiences. There is no
fixed set of rules to use in deciding whether
you believe a witness, but it may help you to
think of the following questions: Was the
witness able to see, hear or be aware of the
things about which the witness testifies?
How well was the witness able to recall and
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 34
describe those things? How long was the
witness watching or listening? Was the
witness distracted in any way? Did the
witness have a good memory?
How did the witness look and act
while testifying? Was the witness making an
honest effort to tell the truth or did the
witness evade questions? Did the witness
have an interest in the outcome of the case?
Did the witness have any motive,
bias or prejudice that would influence the
witness' testimony? How reasonable was the
witness' testimony when you consider all of
the evidence in the case?
There are certain rules that would
apply concerning your conduct during the
trial and during recesses that you should
keep in mind. First, do not conduct your own
investigation into the case, although you may
be tempted do so.
For example, do not visit the scene
of an incident, read any books or articles
concerning any issue in the case or consult
any other source of information. If you were
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 35
to do that, you would be getting information
that is not evidence. You must decide the
case only on the evidence and law presented
to you during the trial.
Any juror who receives any
information about the case other than that
presented at the trial must notify the Court
immediately. Do not discuss the case either
among yourselves or with anyone else during
the trial.
You must keep an open mind until you
have heard all the evidence, the attorneys'
closing arguments and my final instructions
concerning the law. Any discussion before
the conclusion of the case would be premature
and improper.
Do not permit any other person to
discuss the case in your presence. If anyone
does attempt to do so, report that fact to
the Court immediately without discussing the
incident with any of the other jurors. Do
not speak to any of the attorneys, parties or
witnesses in the case even for the limited
purpose of saying good morning. They are
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 36
also instructed not to talk to you. In no
other way can all of the parties feel assured
of your absolute impartiality.
All right. There are a couple of
additional comments I would like to make. I
know that when you are over in the big room,
the jury commissioner probably tells you
don't ever leave anything lying around. I
just want you to know that we have not had
any unhappy experiences, that your personal
affects are considered to be safe in the jury
room.
So if you have sweaters or coats or
lunches or whatever else, then you can feel
pretty safe leaving them back there while you
are here or while you are gone to lunch.
Also, if we need to take a comfort
break, let us know and we'll be glad to
accommodate you. We want to make this a
pleasant experience for everyone.
We would ask you to be on time
whenever we are supposed to congregate. We'd
hate to have to be waiting on someone who is
disrespectful of the others and for some
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 37
reason couldn't make it on time.
Finally, I know that sometimes,
usually after lunch, but any time of day you
can become weary and just can't keep your
eyes open. So I am going to designate each
of you and authorize you to nudge your
neighbor if you catch them dozing on us.
All right. As I promised, the
attorneys will give their opening statements,
that is, they will tell you what they expect
the proof to be in this case. After they
have done that, we will begin to hear the
proof.
As I told you, this is a case on
conspiracy. Conspiracy I guess in general
terms would mean carrying out a design or
plan where two or more have agreed to commit
an act to do injury or damage. And the
planning, of course, is not enough. They
have to, in addition to the planning, do an
act pursuant to that plan in order to be a
co-conspirator.
All right. The plaintiff will
begin. Then after the defendant has given
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 38
their opening statement, we will start to
hear the proof in the case.
Mr. Pepper.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
Honor.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen
of the jury. On the 3rd of April, 1968,
loving husband, father of four young children
kissed his family goodbye and left for
Memphis, Tennessee. He would never return.
They would never see him alive again.
On the 4th of April, 1968,
approximately one minute past six in the
evening as he stood on a balcony overlooking
a parking area of the Lorraine Motel, he was
felled by a single bullet, never regained
consciousness and died shortly thereafter.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the
beginning of this story. The plaintiff in
this case, the victim, was a husband and a
father, but he also was a prophetic figure in
American history. He had been a civil rights
leader as a young man after school and in his
early pastor's years, but he moved beyond
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 39
that calling, beyond that calling on behalf
of the poor in the southern part of this
country, in this area of this country, to
become an international figure concerned with
the plight of poor people, economic injustice
and with the issues of peace and war.
So as he grew in his leadership and
his calling, he was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize. With that award he became truly an
international figure, not a regional pastor
fighting for justice on behalf of his
people. He then turned his attention to the
plight of poor people and the effect of war.
He came out strongly during the last
year of his life to oppose the war in Vietnam
because he saw it destroying an ancient
culture and civilization that had so much in
common with the plight of black people and
the poor everywhere in the world. So he
opposed that war.
He also turned his attention to the
plight of poor people, the growing numbers of
poor in the United States, and had put
together a poor people's campaign that was to
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 40
descend on Washington D.C. in the spring of
1968, the very spring in which he was
assassinated. That March an encampment did
come off but without its leader. As such, it
is history now that it did not have the
impact that it might have had on the Congress
of the United States. The victim was, of
course, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..
The defendant in this case, Mr. Loyd
Jowers, who owned Jim's Grill, which was at
the ground floor of a rooming house on South
Main Street in Memphis at the time. It no
longer exists, but the building is still
there. Your Honor has quite correctly
advised you not to go near the scene of this
crime because it has changed so much over the
years. It would only be very confusing for
you. That is the reason for that
instruction.
At that time and now that building
backed onto an area, like a vacant lot area
or a backyard. That backyard was covered
with brush and bushes, and beyond it was the
Lorraine Motel and the balcony on which
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 41
Martin Luther King stood when he was
assassinated. The defendant managed and
owned that grill, and the plaintiffs will
attempt to prove that the wrongful acts and
conduct of this defendant led to the death of
Martin Luther King from behind his very
premises, from the bushes, the brush in that
area.
Now, by way of disclosure to you,
counsel for both parties have agreed not to
conduct any interviews with the media, not to
talk to the press at all, during the course
of this trial. The Court has so instructed
you with respect to that.
We think that is a most important
instruction, and, in addition, plaintiffs
would hope that you would think carefully
about the issues of this case and the facts
that are presented and the evidence that
comes before you and not considering what is
on television or radio or in the newspapers
regarding this case.
We would ask you please consider
staying away from any coverage of that sort
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 42
and make your decision solely on what you
hear in this courtroom. It is most
important.
Also by way of disclosure I have the
obligation to tell you that I was a friend
and a colleague of the victim in this case
during only the last year of his life. Years
later I began to look into the facts of this
case and ultimately became convinced that the
man accused of the crime was not guilty and
undertook to represent him and was his lawyer
for the last ten years of his life.
He died in prison, never having a
trial on the evidence in the case. And the
plaintiff family decided that this man also
was innocent of the crime and decided to come
out and support a trial for him a few years
before he died.
Now, the Court has properly
instructed you with respect to the nature of
the evidence. There will be mostly live
witnesses, but there will also be some
deposition evidence that you will hear, some
affidavits, some public statements, and the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 43
Court will advise you as to the range of
voracity you should put on any evidence that
is admitted in this Court. But it will not
all be live testimony, although indeed most
of it will.
With respect to the plaintiff's
proof, it is -- the case will be divided into
a variety of sections. It is important to us
that you consider those sections in the order
as it appears. There will be a general
introductory background area of the case that
will familiarize yourself with what led up to
this wrongful death so that will be hopefully
as clear to you as can be.
There will then be evidence laid
before you that will indicate that in fact
the fatal bullet was fired from the brush
area behind the rooming house, from a row of
bushes that were very tall and thick where a
sniper lay in wait and fired the shot. So
that section will deal with the bushes.
There will be a section of proof
that will deal with the rifle that is in
evidence that is alleged to have caused the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 44
death of Dr. King. And the proof that the
plaintiffs will put forward will demonstrate
to you that in fact the rifle in evidence is
not the murder weapon and that the murder
weapon was disposed of in another way.
Plaintiffs will advance proof that
there were a number of other people
involved. As Your Honor has correctly told
you, of course a conspiracy involves more
than one. Whilst this case is focusing in a
civil court on Mr. Jowers as the defendant,
there were other people involved. And some
of those individuals will be developed in
evidence.
In particular one individual will be
developed in evidence who was critical to the
coordination of a lot of these activities and
who is beyond the reach of this Court,
although will be invited, has been invited,
and will be invited to attend, but was a part
of this conspiracy, this collaboration with
Mr. Jowers.
Now, defendants have in their
answer, their amended answer, indicated that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 45
if liability results, and counsel has
mentioned that yesterday, if liability
results, attaches to his client, that it
should also attach to other agencies and
individuals.
Because that door is open,
plaintiffs will advance evidence of the
extent and the scope of this conspiracy so
that you understand the umbrella under which
the defendant was operating, so it is clear
to you the kind of total picture in which he
found himself as he carried out his wrongful
acts which led to this death.
One indication of this conspiracy,
why we are here thirty-one years later in
this courtroom in Memphis, Tennessee, is the
suppression of the truth, the cover-up that
has lasted for so long and the effects of
that cover-up in terms of people learning the
truth and courts, such as this Court, being
able to entertain proceedings designed to
unearth that truth.
This cover-up itself and that
section of the case would show you
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 46
indications of the wrong and will relate
directly to the wrong itself that we are
proving here and alleging here.
Now, because these witnesses will
come from various parts of the country and
various parts of the world, I must say, we've
had to adjust to various schedules of
people. So to some extent the evidence you
hear up there may be disjointed. But what I
ask you to consider is that each of the
witnesses who testify with respect to facts
will be putting forward to you a particular
piece of this puzzle. And they are being
called only for -- he or she will be called
only for that particular piece. So you must
discern what that is in each instance.
Yes, there will be an introductory
statement so that you get to know the witness
and who the witness is, get a feeling for
whether he or she is credible. But beyond
that there will be a piece of information.
It would be very useful in our view
for you, if you could, to take notes in the
course of these proceedings. I know the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 47
State I understand does not provide you with
note paper or pads in this jurisdiction. But
if you could provide yourselves with them
just to make notes of particular facts that
you think are relevant that a witness has
testified to or an exhibit that you might
want to look at further or later on during
deliberations, that would be very helpful to
you when you begin to refresh your own
recollections, because there will be a lot of
information coming out.
There will be a great deal of
information coming out from a number of
witnesses. You may very well expect to
forget some of it unless you have noted it
down so you understand what they said. I
urge you to consider using that, to use some
mechanical way of recalling what has
happened. I think that's basically it.
I think plaintiffs believe that as a
result of the evidence you will hear in this
courtroom, that finally the truth will emerge
in respect of the assassination of Martin
Luther King, Jr. He often said that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 48
truth-crushed earth will rise again. Well, I
think plaintiffs sincerely hope that the
truth will be resurrected in this courtroom.
And that as a result of the truth being
resurrected in this courtroom, the events,
those horrible events of April 4th, 1968,
will be unearthed and seen and understood.
Ladies and gentlemen, prepare
yourselves for the resurrection of truth with
respect to that horrible day, April 4, 1968.
And I suggest to you that some of the
evidence you hear may go to the essence of
this Republic and may in fact shake some of
the foundations of this Republic. So
important is this case, so important is the
evidence, please consider it carefully and
well.
We seek a verdict of liability
against the defendant because he played a
critical role in these events. But it goes
well beyond him. And we're prepared to
acknowledge and to establish that.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Garrison.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 49
MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor
please and Dr. Pepper and ladies and
gentlemen, as you know, I'm Lewis Garrison.
I represent Mr. Jowers, who is the defendant
in this case.
I'd like to say this: I started
forty years ago in this practice of law in
August, and on April the 6th, 1968, I was
about three hundred feet from this very spot
in my desk when Dr. King was assassinated.
Now, Dr. Pepper and I agree on
probably eighty percent of the things that he
is advocating and stating to you. There are
some areas that we do not agree upon. I'll
touch on those now.
Ladies and gentlemen, April 4th,
1968, this city was racially divided.
November 16, 1999, it is still racially
divided. I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It
is an error we need to work on, and I hope
this trial will bring out some things that
perhaps will have some bearing on that.
Mr. Jowers has been around the City
of Memphis a long time. He is a former
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 50
police officer. When this occurred in 1968,
he was operating a small restaurant called
Jim's Grill.
Now, you'll find that any part that
he -- he has conferred with Mr. Dexter King
and Ambassador Young and told them some
things that he knew and heard, but I think
you will find that he was a very small part,
if any -- if any -- in the assassination of
Dr. King. He was simply operating a little
restaurant down on South Main Street.
Anything that Mr. Jowers may have had to do
with this certainly was unknown to him.
He was never told that the target of
an assassination was Dr. King. Certainly his
feelings are that he was at sympathy with
Dr. King and certainly for the things that
Dr. King was seeking.
Certainly Ms. King and her family
have been made to suffer more than any family
should. There is no question about that.
They've had to go through more than a family
should have to go through. We're certainly
in sympathy with them and have always been,
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 51
always have been behind Dr. King and the
things that he was seeking.
When I was growing up, not too far
from here, we had separate rest rooms,
separate water fountains, those type things,
separate schools. It doesn't seem like it
was very long ago. But after Dr. King came
along, those things came to some extent, but
we still take too much of our rights for
granted. It has not always been the way it
is now.
In this trial you will hear from
different persons that will bring forth
things that you probably never heard before.
For instance, there will be a police officer
that will testify here about the United
States government sending in agents just
before Dr. King's assassination. You'll hear
a lady here testify about a police officer
who was her husband who was very prejudiced
against people whose skin was not white.
You'll hear, ladies and gentlemen,
from a gentleman who will also tell you that
he had a chance to be with Mr. James Earl Ray
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 52
for some months before the assassination, and
he'll provide information to you as to what
Mr. Ray disclosed to him as to how he escaped
from the Missouri prison, who helped him, and
the purpose of it.
I think, ladies and gentlemen,
you'll find in this case that Mr. Jowers was
a very, very small cog in a big wheel, if he
was a party at all. He never knowingly did
anything that would have caused the death of
Dr. King or brought any hardship on Ms. King
or her family.
Now, this has been a long process.
I've been involved it seems like forever. It
has been many, many years. Dr. Pepper has
been involved in this three times as long as
I have. But this is the final chapter.
Whatever historians may write, your verdict
will be the final chapter in this case.
So in this case I think when you
hear all the testimony here and all the proof
that Dr. Pepper will offer and I'll offer,
I'm going to be able to stand here and ask
you not only if you find that Mr. Jowers had
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 53
anything to do with it, but there are others
who are much more responsible than he was who
knew what they were doing and who brought
about the commission of this hate crime.
That's what it was. And that others
are responsible and that they should be held
liable instead of Mr. Jowers. It will be an
interesting trial. I think that you will
certainly find it interesting, and I hope
that you do.
If you will listen attentively,
because this is a very important case in the
history of this country.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Pepper, call
your first witness, please.
MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call
Mrs. Coretta Scott King to the stand.
CORETTA SCOTT KING
Having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good morning, Mrs. King.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 54
A. Good morning.
Q. Thank you for being here. I realize
how stressful it is at the time, particularly
because of the gauntlet of the media out
there. We're grateful for your presence.
Could you just tell us by way of
background what was the purpose of Dr. King's
visit to Memphis, his involvement in Memphis
and his coming here in 1968.
A. Martin came to Memphis to support the
sanitation workers who were engaged in a
strike for better wages and working
conditions. He felt it was important to come
to support them because they were working
poor people.
Q. And how did the sanitation workers'
strike and his support for that fit into the
Poor People's March in Washington which had
been planned for later on, the spring?
A. He felt that it was important that he
give his support to them because they were a
part of what he was really struggling to get
the nation to understand, that people work
full-time jobs but in a sense for part-time
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 55 pay. Even people who were poor who worked
could not make a decent living. So they
would then be invited to join the
mobilization for the campaign which was to be
held in Washington.
Q. Right. And was this support -- his
support for the sanitation workers in Memphis
and the plans for the Poor People's March in
Washington to be covered by the umbrella of
non-violence at all times?
A. Absolutely. He felt that -- as you
know, his whole life was dedicated to
non-violent struggle. Any time there was
violence of any kind, it was very disturbing
to him, and he disavowed it completely and
whenever he had an opportunity to.
He dedicated his life to helping
people to understand the philosophy of
non-violence, which he lived it as a way of
life. And so when he came to Memphis --
I don't know, Counsel, should I
mention that he -- I don't want to get ahead
of myself, but when he came to Memphis the
first time and there was a march that he led
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 56
which his organization had very little to do
with planning, that broke out in violence.
It was very, very upsetting to him
because most of the marches, I would say all
of them, that he had led had always been
mobilized with the support of the National
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
staff. Therefore, they were aware of any
problems, any controversies that might exist,
conflicts between groups and among groups.
But he came that day from a trip,
got off the plane and went straight to the
head of the march. Of course, the march did
break out in violence. It was most
disturbing to him.
So when he -- when this happened, he
felt that it was very important for him to
return to Memphis to lead a peaceful,
non-violent march before he could go forth to
Washington. He had to demonstrate that a
non-violent march, a peaceful march, could
take place in Memphis because of the
criticisms that were being leveled at that
time.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 57
Q. So he returned to Memphis that last
time because of the violence that broke out
on the march of March 28th, and he was
determined, from what you are saying, to
restore the position of non-violence to the
movement?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Did he attribute -- did he have any
idea why that march on March 28th turned
violent? Did he have any notion of what
caused that?
A. Well, I think he became aware that
there was a local -- well, he thought at the
time what was a local group of young people
who really precipitated the violence. The
feeling was that there were some forces
behind them, that they were not just persons
who decided that they would throw rocks and
break windows.
Q. Now, what was behind or underlay his
decision to come out against the war in
Vietnam and to take on such a public
political posture, if you will, which was
quite a different change for him?
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 58
A. I must say that my husband had wanted
to speak out against the war in Vietnam for
many years before he actually did do so. He
always -- he understood the conflict that
existed in Vietnam from its inception. And
he realized that it was an unjust war in the
first place. Then it was being fought
against, you know, people of color who were
poor. And wars, of course, for him didn't
solve any social problems but created more
problems than they solved.
He felt that this particular war was
not -- we could not win. Of course, history
proved him right within a very short period
of time after he spoke out. As a matter of
fact, one year after he spoke out against the
war, he was vindicated in that the nation had
reversed itself and its policy toward that
war.
That was April 4th, 1968, when he
actually spoke out against the war in his
first public statement. But he said he had
to do it because his conscience -- he could
no longer live with his conscience without
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 59
taking a position. He felt that doing so,
perhaps he could help to mobilize other
public opinion in support of his position,
which was, again, against the war.
Q. Do you recall the reaction of other
civil rights leaders at that time when he
came out against the war?
A. Yes, I do. Civil rights leaders,
other opinion makers, all criticized him,
both black and white. It was certainly --
certainly he expected it, but he probably
didn't expect some of the people who
criticized him to do so publicly.
His way in the non-violent way was
to privately disagree and to go and talk to
persons which are having a disagreement, but
to be attacked publicly was very difficult
for him. He also knew that if he spoke out,
it would probably affect the support, the
financial support, for his organization, the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
And, of course, it did very
profoundly. He knew that before he took that
risk and that position. So it wasn't
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 60
surprising, but, nevertheless, it was
painful.
Q. Was there much discussion at the time
about him running for public office because
he was being pushed forward as a third-party
candidate with Dr. Benjamin Spock as an
alternative to Lyndon Johnson's being
returned to office at that time? What do you
recall about him moving in that direction of
more serious political activity?
A. Well, I was aware of the fact that
there was talk about his running for public
office. It was interesting because from what
I knew of him, I never thought that he would
run for public office. Just knowing the kind
of person he was, and because, you know,
politics is very important and necessary, but
he would be freer to make statements
according to his conscience if he didn't run
for public office, and because he was
Christian minister and because he took his
commitment so seriously, I felt that it would
have been difficult for him.
But at the same time I remember him
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 61
saying that because of the criticisms that he
had gotten as he had spoken out against the
war, the media had stopped carrying any of
his statements and they didn't understand --
no one was getting his message, because the
message wasn't being carried forth.
There were a number of critical
articles and some cover stories that were
very critical of him at that time. Time
magazine, for instance, did one in 1967 that
was extremely critical. He had been the Time
man of the year in 1964 after the Peace
Prize, and 1957 was the first time, so it
was, again, very painful for him not to be
able to get his message out.
So he said if I did run for office,
it would be one way of getting my message out
because I would have to be given equal time.
The interesting thing about my
husband, he always considered, you know,
every aspect of an issue, both the pros and
the cons. And then he would make his mind up
as to what he would do.
Q. Were there any comments that he made
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 62
the night before his departure to Memphis,
that last trip, any indications that he had
of potential danger or the seriousness of the
task that he faced in Memphis?
A. I don't remember specific comments in
that regard. But he had -- after he returned
from Memphis after the violence broke out,
which was like on a Friday evening, he went
back on a Tuesday -- he went back on --
Q. He arrived on a Wednesday, the 3rd.
A. -- on Wednesday morning. But in
between that time I was aware of how heavily
it weighed on him, the problem of -- this
whole problem of the sanitation workers'
conflict and what he could do to help by
getting his staff united. Because some of
the staff didn't feel he should go to Memphis
in the first place. He was very strongly in
favor of that.
So he came home late -- I guess it
was Tuesday evening he came in. There was
not time to talk. He got up very early
Wednesday morning to go to Memphis. He
always called me, you know, almost every
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 63
night when he was on trips, so he didn't say
whole lot about it, but I could tell that he
had a lot of anxiety and it was very heavily
weighing on his mind.
Q. Did he go through these times, and
particularly this last year, manifesting an
awareness that his life was in danger, that
he had taken a path of action now that might
have brought his life into danger?
A. Yes. I think he was aware of that
certainly. I might say he was aware from the
early days after Montgomery, Montgomery
forward, but I think as he got closer toward
this period of his life, he was even more
acutely aware.
Given the positions that he had
taken, he realized that, you know, he could
be killed at any time, but for him, his
commitment to what he believed and to a
higher authority was such that he didn't mind
giving his life for a cause that he believed
in.
He used to say that the end of life
is not to be happy but to do God's will, come
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 64
what may. So for him being happy was when he
could come out against the war against
Vietnam. He said to a colleague, and I heard
this on the telephone, I was the happiest man
in the world when I could come out personally
against this evil and immoral war, because I
came to a point where I felt that silence was
betrayal.
So that was -- I think that was his
position.
Q. Mrs. King, on March 10th, 1969, one
James Earl Ray entered a guilty plea and was
sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison for
the assassination of your husband. Mr. Ray
stayed in prison until he died. But he tried
continually to get a trial.
At one point the family decided to
support an effort for a trial for Mr. Ray.
Why did the family take that position that
late in the day at that point in time?
A. Well, as a matter of fact, it was
because he of new information that we had
received and largely because of the efforts
that you had put forth to investigate a
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 65
number of these leads that had come out and
found that they were reliable enough.
When we looked at it and
investigated it, we felt then that we had to
take a position. For years we hoped that
somebody else would find out, find the
answers. We wanted to know the truth. But
the truth was elusive.
We wanted to go on with our lives.
We felt the only way we could do it was to
really take the position that we did take,
because the evidence pointed away from Mr.
Ray, not that he might have not had some
involvement but he was not the person we felt
that really actually killed him.
THE COURT: Just a moment. I
see this man aiming a camera at my jury. I
don't know that he has been told not to.
DEPUTY JAMES: I've instructed
him not to take it of the jury.
THE COURT: All right. Go
ahead.
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) What was the general
reaction to the family as a result of that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 66
position? Were there animosity? Were there
attacks, lawsuits? What happened to the
family, yourself and the children and the
organization as a result of that position?
A. Well, there were a number of media
articles that were negative toward the
family. As a result of that -- there were
several really and over a period of months,
and as a result of it, we feel that there was
some -- it had affected some of the support
that we might have been able to receive for
the King Center.
Q. Financial support?
A. Financial support, yes.
Q. Contributions?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that similar to what happened to
SCLC back in 1967?
A. That's right.
Q. Mrs. King, why is the family bringing
this action now thirty -- almost thirty-one
years later against the defendant,
Mr. Jowers?
A. Well, it has only been recently that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 67
we realized the extent of Mr. Jowers'
involvement. So we felt that it was
important to bring it now. We're all getting
older, I'll say, and, of course, we wanted to
be able to get the truth, as much of it as we
can, out before it gets later.
I don't know how much longer any of
us will be around. That's not given. But
the fact is that my family, my children and
I -- I've always felt that somehow the truth
would be known, and I hoped that I would live
to see it.
And it is important I think for the
sake of healing for so many people, my
family, for other people, for the nation. I
think Martin Luther King, Jr., served this
nation. He was a servant. He gave his -- he
willingly gave his life if it was necessary.
It is important to know, actually not because
we feel a sense of revenge -- we never have.
We have no feeling of bitterness or hatred
toward anybody. But just the fact that if we
know the truth, we can be free, and we can go
on with our lives.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 68
Q. Mrs. King, is the family seeking a
large monetary award from Mr. Jowers as a
result of this action?
A. No, it is not about money. That's
not the issue. I think what we're concerned
about is the fact that certainly there is
some liability by Mr. Jowers, but we're
concerned about the truth, having the truth
coming out, and in a court of law so that it
can be documented for all. And we were
hoping that this would be one way of getting
to the truth.
MR. PEPPER: Mrs. King, thank
you very much.
MR. GARRISON: If we could
possibly take a short break before I ask my
questions.
THE COURT: Very well. We will
take a fifteen-minute recess.
(Jury out.)
(Short recess.)
THE COURT: Are you ready for
the jury?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, if Your
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 69
Honor please.
THE COURT: Bring the jury out.
(Jury in.)
THE COURT: All right, ladies
and gentlemen. I would like to read to you
before we begin here the Court rules on
taking notes. You are permitted to take
notes during the trial. You may take notes
only of verbal testimony from witnesses,
including witnesses presented by deposition
or videotape.
You may not take notes during the
opening statements or closing arguments or
take notes of objections made to the
evidence. You may not take notes during
breaks or recesses. Notes may be made only
in open court while witnesses are
testifying. Your notes should not contain
personal reactions or comments but, rather,
should be limited to a brief factual summary
of testimony you think is important.
Please do not let your note-taking
distract you and cause you to miss what the
witness said or how the witness said it.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999
pay. Even people who were poor who worked
could not make a decent living. So they
would then be invited to join the
mobilization for the campaign which was to be
held in Washington.
Q. Right. And was this support -- his
support for the sanitation workers in Memphis
and the plans for the Poor People's March in
Washington to be covered by the umbrella of
non-violence at all times?
A. Absolutely. He felt that -- as you
know, his whole life was dedicated to
non-violent struggle. Any time there was
violence of any kind, it was very disturbing
to him, and he disavowed it completely and
whenever he had an opportunity to.
He dedicated his life to helping
people to understand the philosophy of
non-violence, which he lived it as a way of
life. And so when he came to Memphis --
I don't know, Counsel, should I
mention that he -- I don't want to get ahead
of myself, but when he came to Memphis the
first time and there was a march that he led
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 56
which his organization had very little to do
with planning, that broke out in violence.
It was very, very upsetting to him
because most of the marches, I would say all
of them, that he had led had always been
mobilized with the support of the National
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
staff. Therefore, they were aware of any
problems, any controversies that might exist,
conflicts between groups and among groups.
But he came that day from a trip,
got off the plane and went straight to the
head of the march. Of course, the march did
break out in violence. It was most
disturbing to him.
So when he -- when this happened, he
felt that it was very important for him to
return to Memphis to lead a peaceful,
non-violent march before he could go forth to
Washington. He had to demonstrate that a
non-violent march, a peaceful march, could
take place in Memphis because of the
criticisms that were being leveled at that
time.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 57
Q. So he returned to Memphis that last
time because of the violence that broke out
on the march of March 28th, and he was
determined, from what you are saying, to
restore the position of non-violence to the
movement?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Did he attribute -- did he have any
idea why that march on March 28th turned
violent? Did he have any notion of what
caused that?
A. Well, I think he became aware that
there was a local -- well, he thought at the
time what was a local group of young people
who really precipitated the violence. The
feeling was that there were some forces
behind them, that they were not just persons
who decided that they would throw rocks and
break windows.
Q. Now, what was behind or underlay his
decision to come out against the war in
Vietnam and to take on such a public
political posture, if you will, which was
quite a different change for him?
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 58
A. I must say that my husband had wanted
to speak out against the war in Vietnam for
many years before he actually did do so. He
always -- he understood the conflict that
existed in Vietnam from its inception. And
he realized that it was an unjust war in the
first place. Then it was being fought
against, you know, people of color who were
poor. And wars, of course, for him didn't
solve any social problems but created more
problems than they solved.
He felt that this particular war was
not -- we could not win. Of course, history
proved him right within a very short period
of time after he spoke out. As a matter of
fact, one year after he spoke out against the
war, he was vindicated in that the nation had
reversed itself and its policy toward that
war.
That was April 4th, 1968, when he
actually spoke out against the war in his
first public statement. But he said he had
to do it because his conscience -- he could
no longer live with his conscience without
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 59
taking a position. He felt that doing so,
perhaps he could help to mobilize other
public opinion in support of his position,
which was, again, against the war.
Q. Do you recall the reaction of other
civil rights leaders at that time when he
came out against the war?
A. Yes, I do. Civil rights leaders,
other opinion makers, all criticized him,
both black and white. It was certainly --
certainly he expected it, but he probably
didn't expect some of the people who
criticized him to do so publicly.
His way in the non-violent way was
to privately disagree and to go and talk to
persons which are having a disagreement, but
to be attacked publicly was very difficult
for him. He also knew that if he spoke out,
it would probably affect the support, the
financial support, for his organization, the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
And, of course, it did very
profoundly. He knew that before he took that
risk and that position. So it wasn't
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 60
surprising, but, nevertheless, it was
painful.
Q. Was there much discussion at the time
about him running for public office because
he was being pushed forward as a third-party
candidate with Dr. Benjamin Spock as an
alternative to Lyndon Johnson's being
returned to office at that time? What do you
recall about him moving in that direction of
more serious political activity?
A. Well, I was aware of the fact that
there was talk about his running for public
office. It was interesting because from what
I knew of him, I never thought that he would
run for public office. Just knowing the kind
of person he was, and because, you know,
politics is very important and necessary, but
he would be freer to make statements
according to his conscience if he didn't run
for public office, and because he was
Christian minister and because he took his
commitment so seriously, I felt that it would
have been difficult for him.
But at the same time I remember him
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 61
saying that because of the criticisms that he
had gotten as he had spoken out against the
war, the media had stopped carrying any of
his statements and they didn't understand --
no one was getting his message, because the
message wasn't being carried forth.
There were a number of critical
articles and some cover stories that were
very critical of him at that time. Time
magazine, for instance, did one in 1967 that
was extremely critical. He had been the Time
man of the year in 1964 after the Peace
Prize, and 1957 was the first time, so it
was, again, very painful for him not to be
able to get his message out.
So he said if I did run for office,
it would be one way of getting my message out
because I would have to be given equal time.
The interesting thing about my
husband, he always considered, you know,
every aspect of an issue, both the pros and
the cons. And then he would make his mind up
as to what he would do.
Q. Were there any comments that he made
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 62
the night before his departure to Memphis,
that last trip, any indications that he had
of potential danger or the seriousness of the
task that he faced in Memphis?
A. I don't remember specific comments in
that regard. But he had -- after he returned
from Memphis after the violence broke out,
which was like on a Friday evening, he went
back on a Tuesday -- he went back on --
Q. He arrived on a Wednesday, the 3rd.
A. -- on Wednesday morning. But in
between that time I was aware of how heavily
it weighed on him, the problem of -- this
whole problem of the sanitation workers'
conflict and what he could do to help by
getting his staff united. Because some of
the staff didn't feel he should go to Memphis
in the first place. He was very strongly in
favor of that.
So he came home late -- I guess it
was Tuesday evening he came in. There was
not time to talk. He got up very early
Wednesday morning to go to Memphis. He
always called me, you know, almost every
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 63
night when he was on trips, so he didn't say
whole lot about it, but I could tell that he
had a lot of anxiety and it was very heavily
weighing on his mind.
Q. Did he go through these times, and
particularly this last year, manifesting an
awareness that his life was in danger, that
he had taken a path of action now that might
have brought his life into danger?
A. Yes. I think he was aware of that
certainly. I might say he was aware from the
early days after Montgomery, Montgomery
forward, but I think as he got closer toward
this period of his life, he was even more
acutely aware.
Given the positions that he had
taken, he realized that, you know, he could
be killed at any time, but for him, his
commitment to what he believed and to a
higher authority was such that he didn't mind
giving his life for a cause that he believed
in.
He used to say that the end of life
is not to be happy but to do God's will, come
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 64
what may. So for him being happy was when he
could come out against the war against
Vietnam. He said to a colleague, and I heard
this on the telephone, I was the happiest man
in the world when I could come out personally
against this evil and immoral war, because I
came to a point where I felt that silence was
betrayal.
So that was -- I think that was his
position.
Q. Mrs. King, on March 10th, 1969, one
James Earl Ray entered a guilty plea and was
sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison for
the assassination of your husband. Mr. Ray
stayed in prison until he died. But he tried
continually to get a trial.
At one point the family decided to
support an effort for a trial for Mr. Ray.
Why did the family take that position that
late in the day at that point in time?
A. Well, as a matter of fact, it was
because he of new information that we had
received and largely because of the efforts
that you had put forth to investigate a
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 65
number of these leads that had come out and
found that they were reliable enough.
When we looked at it and
investigated it, we felt then that we had to
take a position. For years we hoped that
somebody else would find out, find the
answers. We wanted to know the truth. But
the truth was elusive.
We wanted to go on with our lives.
We felt the only way we could do it was to
really take the position that we did take,
because the evidence pointed away from Mr.
Ray, not that he might have not had some
involvement but he was not the person we felt
that really actually killed him.
THE COURT: Just a moment. I
see this man aiming a camera at my jury. I
don't know that he has been told not to.
DEPUTY JAMES: I've instructed
him not to take it of the jury.
THE COURT: All right. Go
ahead.
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) What was the general
reaction to the family as a result of that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 66
position? Were there animosity? Were there
attacks, lawsuits? What happened to the
family, yourself and the children and the
organization as a result of that position?
A. Well, there were a number of media
articles that were negative toward the
family. As a result of that -- there were
several really and over a period of months,
and as a result of it, we feel that there was
some -- it had affected some of the support
that we might have been able to receive for
the King Center.
Q. Financial support?
A. Financial support, yes.
Q. Contributions?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that similar to what happened to
SCLC back in 1967?
A. That's right.
Q. Mrs. King, why is the family bringing
this action now thirty -- almost thirty-one
years later against the defendant,
Mr. Jowers?
A. Well, it has only been recently that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 67
we realized the extent of Mr. Jowers'
involvement. So we felt that it was
important to bring it now. We're all getting
older, I'll say, and, of course, we wanted to
be able to get the truth, as much of it as we
can, out before it gets later.
I don't know how much longer any of
us will be around. That's not given. But
the fact is that my family, my children and
I -- I've always felt that somehow the truth
would be known, and I hoped that I would live
to see it.
And it is important I think for the
sake of healing for so many people, my
family, for other people, for the nation. I
think Martin Luther King, Jr., served this
nation. He was a servant. He gave his -- he
willingly gave his life if it was necessary.
It is important to know, actually not because
we feel a sense of revenge -- we never have.
We have no feeling of bitterness or hatred
toward anybody. But just the fact that if we
know the truth, we can be free, and we can go
on with our lives.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 68
Q. Mrs. King, is the family seeking a
large monetary award from Mr. Jowers as a
result of this action?
A. No, it is not about money. That's
not the issue. I think what we're concerned
about is the fact that certainly there is
some liability by Mr. Jowers, but we're
concerned about the truth, having the truth
coming out, and in a court of law so that it
can be documented for all. And we were
hoping that this would be one way of getting
to the truth.
MR. PEPPER: Mrs. King, thank
you very much.
MR. GARRISON: If we could
possibly take a short break before I ask my
questions.
THE COURT: Very well. We will
take a fifteen-minute recess.
(Jury out.)
(Short recess.)
THE COURT: Are you ready for
the jury?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, if Your
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 69
Honor please.
THE COURT: Bring the jury out.
(Jury in.)
THE COURT: All right, ladies
and gentlemen. I would like to read to you
before we begin here the Court rules on
taking notes. You are permitted to take
notes during the trial. You may take notes
only of verbal testimony from witnesses,
including witnesses presented by deposition
or videotape.
You may not take notes during the
opening statements or closing arguments or
take notes of objections made to the
evidence. You may not take notes during
breaks or recesses. Notes may be made only
in open court while witnesses are
testifying. Your notes should not contain
personal reactions or comments but, rather,
should be limited to a brief factual summary
of testimony you think is important.
Please do not let your note-taking
distract you and cause you to miss what the
witness said or how the witness said it.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 70
Remember that some testimony may not appear
to be important to you at the time. The same
testimony, however, may become important
later in the trial.
Your notes are not evidence. You
should not view your notes as authoritative
records or consider them as a transcript of
the testimony. Your notes may be incomplete
or may have certain errors and are not an
exact account of what was said by a witness.
All right. You may proceed,
Mr. Pepper.
Oh, would you like to cross-examine,
Mr. Garrison?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good morning, Mrs. King.
A. Goods morning.
Q. Ms. King, you and I met before and
we've talked a few times. I've talked to
your sons several times.
Let me say this to you: I know it
isn't easy for you to be the mother of four
children, but they are all fine, honorable
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 71
sons and daughters, very fine, honorable
people and I know you are pleased with them.
I know Dr. King would be.
Let me ask you, Ms. King, you've
never been afforded the opportunity to come
into a court of law such as this and be able
to be a witness as a part of it, have you?
When Mr. Ray had a hearing, you were not a
party to that hearing, were you?
A. No.
Q. You never had an opportunity to come
into a court of law before this to have a
jury decide the issues in the case. Am I
correct, please, ma'am?
A. That's correct.
Q. Let me ask you, did Dr. King before
his assassination, sometime before he came to
Memphis, did he receive a lot of threats that
you are aware of that may be hearsay? Was he
aware of a lot of threats?
A. Well, the morning that he was to come
back to Memphis that second time, which was
the final time, his plane was delayed because
of threats that had come to him. I
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 72
understand that -- well, of course, over the
years there had been threats on his life many
times.
Q. Do you recall, Ms. King, when Dr.
King would appear at a place such as Memphis
here who would plan his security? Do you
know who was in charge of that or how they
arranged for security for him? Did he have
someone in his group that was responsible for
it or did they rely on the local police
department? Do you know how that was done?
A. I really don't know how that was
handled except usually when he went into
cities, the people who -- when he went to
towns, the people locally, the committee
locally that invited him, would handle the
security.
Q. Let me ask you, Ms. King, when Dr.
King returned from Memphis after the march,
do you recall -- was there any particular
group or any particular person that insisted
he come back here a second time? Did he ever
mention to you anything about any particular
person or any group that insisted on him
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 73
coming back a second time?
A. I don't know about his coming back
specifically, but I know about his coming
initially. I think what he had said publicly
before he left was that he was planning to
come back. So I think there was that
understanding that he would be coming back.
How it came about I'm not sure.
Q. You mentioned earlier I believe that
he seemed to be agonizing over the fact that
he would return to Memphis. Was that because
of the threat or because of the conditions
here?
A. No, not because of the threats but
just because it was so important that he lead
a non-violent demonstration. Of course,
there was an injunction. He had to get past
the injunction as well. He took those -- his
responsibility very, very seriously, because
he knew that the nation and indeed the world
was watching. In his own conscience he
wanted to be clear that he was doing the
right thing.
Q. Now, Ms. King, you are aware of the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 74
fact that Mr. Jowers had met and conferred
with Mr. Dexter King, your son, on one
occasion, then again with Mr. Dexter King and
Ambassador Young on another occasion. You
have heard about that, I'm sure?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that
Mr. Jowers stated to them each time he met
with them that he was not aware of any of the
acts he did that would lead up to the
assassination of Dr. King, that whatever
acts -- there was no mention of that to him,
that he had no idea that whatever acts he may
have been called upon he had no idea would
lead to the assassination Dr. King? Are you
aware of that?
A. I'm not aware of the conversation as
much as I wasn't involved with it. So I
couldn't speak to the detail of that.
Q. I see.
MR. GARRISON: I believe that's
all. Thank you, Ms. King.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. PEPPER: Nothing further,
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 75
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may stand down,
Ms. King.
(Witness excused.)
MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Dr.
Cobey Smith.
COBEY SMITH
Having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Smith.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Thank you for coming here. Would you
state your full name and address for the
record, please.
A. Cobey Vernon Smith, 2240 Brown
Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. I'm an educator consultant.
Q. Were you a member of a group called
the Invaders back in 1968?
A. Yes.
Q. You were an active member of that
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 76
group at the time of the assassination of
Martin Luther King?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time of the sanitation
workers' strike?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were the Invaders formed?
A. In 1967.
Q. Who formed that group?
A. I formed that group along with
Charles Cabbage and John Smith.
Q. What was the purpose of the
Invaders? What was their organizational
purpose?
A. The purpose was to provide an
organizational format for young people, for
people in the City of Memphis. We really
formed as a result of the Meredith march in
Mississippi, which is when I first met Dr.
King. Many of us who had gone down became
active in organizing and became proponents of
the black power movement. We saw ourselves
as agents for liberation of our people
throughout the country.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 77
I don't know whether people can
really remember this, but in 1966 and 1967 it
was extremely unsafe to walk the streets in
cities like Memphis and southern cities
across the country, cities all over. So we
saw ourselves as an organizing tool to make
people aware of the fact that we were a free
people with all the rights and privileges of
Americans, to operate and seek prosperity,
equality and all the other things that were
rightfully ours by law.
Q. So the Invaders were a local
community-organizing group?
A. That's right.
Q. How were the Invaders funded? How
were they financed?
A. Out of our own pocket. We received
no real funding. We received one grant for
the black organizing project, which is a
grant I wrote in 1967. We received some jobs
from the War on Poverty Commission.
Cab and I were hired as
thirty-dollar-a-week organizers in 1967, a
job from which we were fired because we had
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 78
affiliation with SNCC and other
organizations.
Q. Would you tell the jury what SNCC
stands for?
A. The Student Non-violent Coordinating
Committee.
Q. What was the Student Non-violent
Coordinating Committee?
A. It was a national organization which
spent -- which really developed out of the
civil rights movement which at its inception
provided the foot soldiers for the civil
rights movement, the young men and women who
went out and desegregated lunch counters,
students from all over the country, many from
Memphis, incidentally, who became the cannon
fodder for the movement, as a matter of
fact.
We would go out and do the
organizing work, go into the rural areas, go
into the cities, the colleges, the prisons,
everywhere there was a need really to let
people know the kinds of things that Dr. King
and others had talked about were realities
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 79
for us.
Q. Did you see yourself in a sense as
foot soldiers, community-based foot soldiers,
in that movement?
A. Well, you know, now that I'm a
gray-haired old man, I don't want to be vain
enough to say that. We really thought that
we were a chosen few on a mission. We really
saw ourselves as helping fulfill the American
dream.
We were idealists for the most
part. We were people born of desire to
change the concept in America from its
desegregated biased roots and its hatred for
African-Americans to people who understood
that we should enjoy the right to vote, the
right to speak freely, the right to come and
go as we please, to live where we wanted to,
to seek an education, all those little things
that people now seem to say we take for
granted.
Q. With this background and this history
and this organizational activity, was there a
time when you associated -- became associated
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 80
with Dr. King's activities in Memphis?
A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
Q. When was that?
A. When the sanitation workers started
their -- we did the basic street organizing,
you might say, for the events that led up to
the sanitation workers' strike. We went out
and got the -- we told grown men that they
had a right to petition government, to
question police, to do all kinds of things.
Then when the organization, the
AFSCME, which is the American Federation of
State, County, Municipal Employees, started
to organize its membership, many of its
leaders came to us and they accepted our
efforts to go out in the communities and gain
support for the kind of people who needed
this help.
When you say this to somebody, it
probably sounds -- I don't know how to really
describe it because this was a very dangerous
thing to do. You didn't have a right to go
and talk to the city government about
organizing its employees. That was against
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 81
the law. You did not have a right to
question a policeman if they stopped you and
talked to you or if they asked you a
question. And people were afraid.
We didn't have many lawyers, judges,
anything else, who would actually stand up to
the kind of abuse that we were subjected to
here in Memphis.
So when the sanitation workers got
together and decided they would organize,
they offered a list of things that they
wanted, to be recognized as a union, to
receive the same pay as white employees,
other kinds of things, that seem so mundane
to us now. That platform that they used, we
had been using it for a few years since a man
who is now a judge ran for public works
commissioner.
So we were involved in this process
actively trying to get it together. And that
year when we became -- when the union kind of
put itself together, the real hell broke
loose in Memphis. The mayor decided that it
would never be recognized. A group of
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 82
ministers got together and decided that they
would work in support of the union.
We worked hard to get them to come
in. And because we were having such great
difficulty with the white community resisting
this whole effort, with many people in the
black community being threatened and who were
afraid, the leadership of the strike itself
decided to invite Dr. King here.
Dr. King was not only the greatest
leader that we've ever had, he was a person
who by his bearing and presence brought a
kind of calm to the entire community, to
those who were opposed to us. We understood
because of our youth and our exuberance that
sometimes we were not perceived as being
ready to lead.
There were people who were afraid of
us because we would stop and ask questions.
Well -- or because we would even resist the
kinds of pushing around that we received.
Several days after the start of the strike
itself, the sanitation workers had a march
down Main Street, and the police took their
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 83
cars and pushed them into the sidewalk.
Q. Do you know -- excuse me for
interrupting. Do you know the date of that
particular march?
A. No, I don't remember the exact date.
But it was --
Q. Was it in February of 1967 or March
of 1967?
A. It would have been in February.
Q. Early on in the strike?
A. Yes. Very early in the strike. A
number of sanitation workers were injured.
Before that happened, two men were killed,
were crushed, in a garbage truck, one that
automatically closed down and collected the
garbage. That set off a fierce to
resistance, a fierce resistance.
When they had to march down Main
Street and the police attacked them, dogs,
clubs, guns, beat the hell out of a lot of
them, we really decided to ask for a more
militant stance from the union itself.
This probably sounds pretty mundane,
but prior to that time the religious leaders
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 84
did not want to approach this as if it were a
regular strike. Many of us had grown up in
the -- with roots to the labor movement, just
as we had to the civil rights movement.
We believed, for example, that
ASCFME should operate its strike just like
the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters or anybody else
and that we should stop the flow of trucks
that were being driven by strike breakers,
that we should end this garbage collection
that was designed to break the strike. Well,
we found ourselves in a greatly divided
strike effort.
Many of the ministers and some of
the black leaders in town were much more
interested in compromising and going along
with the edicts of the city administration.
We did not want to see that occur.
We wanted a full and legitimate
recognition of the union. We wanted to make
sure that the rights of these employees were
protected. Most of these men were from rural
West Tennessee, had been driven off the farm,
had come in from places like Fayette County
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 85
where they had been driven off the land in
what we call the Tent City.
Q. The founder of Tent City will be
testifying in these proceedings. So we can
move from that. But let me move you onto the
association with Dr. King. What was the
relationship that emerged between the
Invaders and SCLC, Dr. King's organization
here in Memphis, related to the sanitation
workers' strike?
A. Originally when Dr. King's people got
here there was a kind of an uneasiness
between the two organizations. In fact,
there were -- there was a brief struggle,
skirmish, that kind of occurred, some bad
feelings, some other things. It took Dr.
King's arrival here to ease those problems
out, to kind of smooth that over. We
insisted on following the same principles
that we had learned from Dr. King during the
Meredith march in Mississippi and other
places.
Q. Did the Invaders with its
relationship with SCLC play a role in the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 86
first march that Dr. King led here on the
28th of March, 1967, on behalf of the
sanitation workers' strike?
A. We did not play an active role in
that march because the night before, Reverend
Jim Lawson and reverend H. Ralph Jackson came
to the steering committee and presented a
letter with bullets in it and said that they
had been sent by the Invaders and that we had
threatened them. Consequently I ordered the
members of our organization off the streets,
not to participate.
Q. So the clergy-led steering committee
received from somewhere --
A. From somewhere.
Q. -- a letter with some bullets in it?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was represented as having
been sent by the Invaders?
A. That's right.
Q. It was taken as a threat by the more
traditional civil rights groups here?
A. Yes. They were very annoyed with
us. They didn't like our style. They didn't
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 87
like the blue jeans, the long hair. I used
to have hair.
Q. Dr. Smith, style aside, did the
Invaders send that threat to --
A. No, no.
Q. -- to the organization?
A. Quite frankly, the protocol for
groups like ours, if we intended on sending a
message, we sent a message. We were not
interested in showing --
Q. Let me move you on. You know the
march on the 28th of March became violent?
A. Yes.
Q. That was perhaps the only violent
march or march that turned violent that Dr.
King ever led.
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that the Invaders have
been blamed for causing that disruption.
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that Dr. King returned
to Memphis to lead another march on his fatal
trip here as a result of that violent march?
A. Yes.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 88
Q. Now, let me ask you, did the Invaders
disrupt that march?
A. No.
Q. How was that march disrupted? Who
disrupted that march, to the best of your
knowledge?
A. We received --
Q. Strike that. Let me rephrase that.
Did you conduct as an organization an
investigation?
A. Yes. I personally conducted an
investigation. I ordered a complete
investigation to see if any of our people
were involved. As I said, I put an order out
that our people would not attend the march
because we had already, once that letter had
been sent with the bullets in it, we knew
that we would receive the blame.
Our people started to report the
influx of other individuals who were coming
in with Illinois license plates who were seen
about town, who were seen on Beale Street by
our affiliates on Beale Street, and who were
members of several organizations, some the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 89
Black Egyptians out of East St. Louis, some
reported to have been Blackstone Rangers out
of Chicago.
Q. So these were strangers that came to
Memphis just prior to this march. Is that
what you are saying?
A. That's right.
Q. Why would they have come to Memphis?
A. We have no idea, because usually when
organizations came to town, they would
contact us. The Black Egyptians did. Chuck
Cohen and some other people did in fact
contact our people in an appropriate
fashion. The ones we were concerned about
were unidentified.
This is very unusual, because the
nature of the movement was such that people
relied on each other for housing, for
accommodations, for transportation, for
information, for all kinds of things. The
nature of the movement was a very communal
kind of thing. Everybody helped everybody if
we could.
Q. What did you learn about the
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 90
disruption of that march and what do you know
about -- from personal knowledge do you know
about how that march was disrupted?
A. That march was disrupted, in my
opinion, by police and by agents from parts
unknown who came here specifically to
embarrass Dr. King and to disrupt the march.
The FBI reports, classified reports that have
since been released, indicate to me that
through the informants that they -- they
always black out the name of the
informants -- always indicate that there were
plans to disrupt our activities, to single
out the individuals in my organization and
several other organizations as the kind of
fall guys.
We were supposed to be the ones who
would be blamed. Some indication was that
the march was supposed to be stopped at Main
Street and turned south on Main instead of
being allowed to turn north where we were
supposed to have had a warehouse with weapons
in it and we were going to start a race war.
Q. This was the kind of rumor that you
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 91
heard?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. As a result of the violent disruption
of the march, Dr. King decided to come back
to Memphis?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Invaders established yet a
closer working relationship with him?
A. Yes.
Q. This time?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you going to work closely in the
preparation of the next march?
A. Yes, yes. There were some essential
problems with that first march. There were
no marshals. There were no people on the
march route who would establish what the
perimeters of the march would be. In a
disciplined march, you always have to have
someone organize the flanks to keep the
people separated from the pedestrians, so to
speak, who would stand there, even though we
encouraged people to join the march, the idea
is you have to have very disciplined people
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 92
who will not break windows, who will not run,
who will not panic, who will not be afraid,
in case we met force.
The marshals were instructed to
protect people, to show them how not to panic
and cause themselves to be hurt. That didn't
exist in the first march. In the second
march, Dr. King made an agreement for the
Invaders to participate in the march, to be
marshals for the march, to protect
individuals and to make certain that we were
not blamed for things that ultimately
happened in the first march.
Q. Just reverting quickly to the
break-up of the first march, do you know
which hotel Dr. King was taken to when that
march turned violent?
A. Yes. He was taken to the Rivermont.
It was a Holiday Inn flagship, which is now
an apartment building. But when our people
went up there, he had no guards on his room,
they went straight to the room and were able
to see Dr. King without anybody protecting
him. We thought that was horrendous. We
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 93
thought that that was -- we really were very
afraid for Dr. King at that time.
Q. In the planning in which you were
engaged in the second march, the march that
Dr. King never made, the march which in fact
became a memorial march for his death, did
you take up rooms under the -- with the
financial support of his organization?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Did you take up those rooms at the
Lorraine Motel?
A. Yes.
Q. The very place where Dr. King was
assassinated?
A. Yes. As a part of the organization.
Q. Do you recall how many rooms the
Invaders had there?
A. They had two rooms.
Q. And how many Invaders were in those
rooms at that time?
A. The total numbers probably ran to
about twenty, from ten to twenty Invaders.
Some would leave and come back. Other people
would come. But around ten to twenty.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 94
Q. And this was a part of your working
arrangement with Dr. King so you would be on
site to plan with him. Is that right?
A. That's right. And to assist in
SCLC's efforts in whatever fashion was
required.
Q. Were the Invaders at some point
summarily asked to leave the Lorraine Motel?
A. My field representatives called and
reported they had been asked to leave the
hotel, that they had been put out.
Q. When did that take place?
A. Just a little while before the
assassination.
Q. On the day of April 4th?
A. On the day of April 4th.
Q. Close to the time of the
assassination?
A. Yes. Within a few hours.
Q. Excuse me.
A. Within a few hours.
Q. Did the Invaders in fact leave the
motel at that time?
A. Yes. It was a very difficult
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 95
situation. Some Invaders were still there,
but once put out of the room, the main body
of our group had to do what they were asked
to do. At the time that I received the
report from the people in the field, they
were also concerned about a number of other
things.
There was no police presence. It
was a very confused situation. We did not
know who was in charge. Some of -- I could
not get a clear answer about who gave the
order to put the Invaders out of the hotel.
Q. We may come to that with other
witnesses. But were you surprised that you
were asked to leave the hotel?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. This was not in accordance with your
arrangements with Dr. King?
A. No, it was not. Dr. King had agreed
to involve the Invaders. He had chastised
his people for making it difficult for the
Invaders to operate along with them. We had
a very good relationship.
Dr. King probably is the reason --
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 96
James Lawson and Dr. King are the reasons
that I have spent almost thirty-five years of
my life in the movement.
MR. PEPPER: No further
questions. Your witness.
THE COURT: Do you expect your
cross-examination to be lengthy?
MR. GARRISON: I don't think it
will be terribly long. I'll go on if you
want me to.
THE COURT: I'll take about five
seconds. Then you can continue with your
examination.
(Brief recess.)
THE COURT: Mr. Garrison.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q. Dr. Smith, if I may ask you a few
questions, I would appreciate it. Let me ask
you, during the time that you were working
with Dr. King's group, were you made aware of
any threats against Dr. King by any source?
A. No.
Q. And when Dr. King came in the first
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 97
time when there was a march and there was a
riot and he had gone back to Atlanta, are you
aware of the fact that he planned to come
back or said I'll be back? How was that
left?
A. I was aware that Dr. King was going
to be back. We were extremely interested in
making sure that the march worked, that the
sanitation workers' strike was successful.
Q. Among the group that you were with,
Dr. Smith, the Invaders, was there a
gentleman whose name was Merrell McCullough?
A. Yes.
Q. What part did he play in this?
A. Merrell McCullough was our director
of transportation. He had the only car and
the only gas. So we made him the minister of
transportation. That should have made us
leery right there. We're talking about some
poor youngsters in a very poor town. I guess
you can say that Memphis is still a poor
town.
We didn't have anything. We didn't
have any money. We got around the best we
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 98
could, which was usually to bum a ride. In
fact, the police would sometimes have to give
us a ride. The ones that were watching us
would sometimes give us a ride.
McCullough was a very accessible
person. He would come to my home every day,
as he would go around all the Invaders. When
I met him, he was introduced to me by what we
call the Riverside Invaders, who brought him
into the organization.
Q. Did you later learn that he at that
time was working undercover for the Memphis
Police Department?
A. Yes. I was invited down to the
police department after Dr. King was
assassinated, and I was introduced to him by
inspector types of the Memphis Police
Department as Officer Merrell McCullough.
Q. And would it surprise you to learn
that he was brought into Mr. Jowers'
restaurant by another officer and introduced
as Officer Merrell McCullough?
A. I did not know about that until much
later on, but I was extremely surprised. I
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 99
think one of the reasons I was surprised is
because we felt that there were people who
would infiltrate our group, but we did not
have any idea that the infiltration was of a
nature broader than the local police
department.
We knew that many members of the --
many men who are now members of the police
department, in fact, the former police
director who has just recently resigned, was
also an undercover agent in our
organization.
Q. Dr. Smith, the day that the
assassination occurred, you were along with
some other members of your group in a room or
two rooms at the Lorraine Motel. Am I
correct, sir?
A. The members of my organization were
there.
Q. What floor were you on?
A. On the second floor.
Q. All right. Was there a time that day
that you had occasion to look across the
street to see what was down on the street
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 100
below the motel and across over there on the
other side? Did you have any occasion to do
that that day that you recall?
A. I did not. On that day I had to
leave to maintain what we call our
information center. What I had to do was to
receive the information from around the city
from our various locations where we thought
the strategic information that told us what
was happening with the strike itself, with
the plans for events and activities, in
preparation for the strategy team's meeting
and that sort of thing.
Q. All the time that you were at the
hotel and the going and coming, do you ever
remember seeing anyone in that brush area
there across from the hotel? Do you ever
recall any activity, seeing anyone in that
area?
A. No, I did not see anyone in that
area.
MR. GARRISON: Dr. Smith, I had
hair once like you. Thank you.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 101
MR. PEPPER: Very briefly, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Dr. Smith, do you know where Merrell
McCullough is employed today?
A. I understand he is employed at the
Central Intelligence Agency out of Langley,
Maryland.
Q. Langley, Virginia?
A. Virginia.
MR. PEPPER: No further
questions.
THE COURT: All right. You may
stand down, Dr. Smith.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: All right, ladies
and gentlemen, we're going to take our lunch
break at this time. We'll resume at two
o'clock.
(Lunch recess.)
THE COURT: All right. Bring
the jury out, please.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 102
(Jury in.)
THE COURT: All right,
Mr. Pepper. Call your next witness.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
Honor.
Plaintiffs call in Charles Cabbage.
CHARLES CABBAGE
Having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cabbage.
A. How are you doing, sir.
Q. For the record, would you state your
full name and address, please.
A. Charles Laverne Cabbage, 1942 Florida
Street, Number 6, Memphis, Tennessee.
Q. Thank you very much for coming down
here this afternoon.
A. You are perfectly welcome.
Q. We've heard testimony earlier about
the Invaders and the background and the
purpose of the organization and all of that
detail.
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 103
What I want to do is I want to move
on with you. Would you tell us what your
position was in the Invaders around the time
of 1968?
A. Around 1968 -- first of all, let me
try to clear something up here as far as the
name "Invaders" goes. My title was execute
secretary of the Black Organizing Project,
which was a project that we had put together
and made up one of the groups we organized.
The press actually just gave us the name
"Invaders" and it kind of stuck. You know,
it kind of stuck. A lot of people can kind
of relate to that.
Generally we were referred to as the
Invaders about, but actually my title was
executive secretary, Black Organizing
Project.
Q. What was your role in the Black
Organizing Project and that group in
particular?
A. Well, basically training street
organizers, going on to campuses, trying to
set up various and different groups,
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 104
educating, trying to empower black people
basically, trying to make an impression on
the structure, the power structure, as it was
at the time, generally raising the
consciousness of black people at that time
period. We were basically facing difficult
times.
Q. Consciousness-raising activities?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Now, when the march Dr. King led on
the 28th of March broke up into a riot, did
you and any of the members of the
organization meet with Dr. King shortly after
that?
A. We did. We met afterward. We had
made an effort to meet with him before then,
before the march. There were many
indications that there was going to be a
serious problem, but we were unable to reach
him at the time.
After the riot occurred, we made an
effort to meet with him then. We knew he was
staying at the Rivermont. That was public
knowledge at the time. So a group of us we
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 105
met out at John's apartment out in south
Memphis and we decided that we best go over
there and try to get a chance to talk to him
and let him know what the situation was, what
he had walked into.
Q. Some of you went along to the
Rivermont to meet with Dr. King. Would
that -- when would that have been? Would
have been the day after the riot?
A. You are going to have to help me here
with these dates and times here. We're
talking about a long time ago. As near as I
can recollect, I think it was probably been
the next day.
Q. The riot took place on the 28th of
March. You would have met with him on the
29ing of March?
A. Probably. Probably.
Q. When you went to the Rivermont to
meet with Dr. King after this disruption, did
you notice any security at the Rivermont for
him that the point?
A. No. It was n |