Senator CURTIS. And you had known them? Reverend FRY. No, sir. Senator CURTIS. You did not know them? Reverend FRY. No, sir. Senator CURTIS. Based upon your attendance at the trial of Hairston, did any of these four provide evidence for the prosecution? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. Three of them. Senator CURTIS. How many of them? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. Senator CURTIS. I think that is all at this point. Senator MUNDT. One question about McClure. You say that nothing in the hearing, nothing in the trial, gave you any idea as to what the motivation might be for Hairston wanting to get rid of McClure, if in fact he did? Reverend FRY. To my knowledge, this was not established in the trial. There were vigorous legal debates between the prosecution and the defense about what was relevant, as I recall. Senator MUNDT. In those debates, did you get any idea what occupation or activities were being engaged in by McClure? Reverend FRY. Senator Mundt, it is my understanding that Leo McClure was a narcotic peddler. Senator MUNDT. That is what I wanted you to say, because that is the evidence we have before us. (The witness conferred with his counsel.) The CHAIRMAN. Do you know why Hairston would want to have a dope peddler killed? Reverend FRY. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether Hairston had been engaging in dope peddling? Reverend FRY. I do not know, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was your purpose in attending the trial? To see that they got justice? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You wanted to see that they got justice? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did he get justice? Reverend FRY. The case is being appealed. The CHAIRMAN. But you heard the trial. You would know from that whether he got justice or not, from your judgment, from the evidence that you heard. Did he get justice on his conviction? Reverend FRY. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think he is innocent? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You think he is innocent? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is he innocent of all of these other charges, do you think? Reverend FRY. Of which other charges, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Those that I read to you. Reverend FRY. I have no knowledge of the events and the charges. and convictions on that sheet of paper. The CHAIRMAN. Were you assigned to go to the back row primarily because of outbursts you made in the courtroom, you and two or three others there? Was that what you were told? Reverend FRY. I was told by the bailiff to sit on the back row and, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate that is all I know. The CHAIRMAN. You didn't inquire about it? Reverend FRY. I was told The CHAIRMAN. You had some idea why you were being ordered to sit on the back row, didn't you? Reverend FRY. My friendship with one of the defense attorneys led him to tell me what had happened in the judge's chambers. The CHAIRMAN. What did he tell you as to why you were made to sit on the back row? Reverend FRY. He told me that I had been making some kind of gestures that might be disturbing to the jury, and I told him that I was astonished inasmuch as I had not even been in the courtroom yet. The CHAIRMAN. Even your own lawyer was astonished when he told you. Come around, witness. Senator MUNDT. Was this the first day of the trial? Reverend FRY. No, sir. Senator MUNDT. Had you been instructed previously on other days? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. Senator MUNDT. In other words, you had been there other days, but you had not been there on this particular day? Reverend FRY. I believe this was the first day on which hard testimony was being given. They had been selecting a jury and things like this. Senator MUNDT. On other days, you had been sitting up close to the front? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir; in order better to hear. Senator MUNDT. So that you had been there other days. This particular day you came a little late and when you got there, they said the bailiff had moved your seat from the front to the back. Reverend FRY. I got there during a recess and then when the trial reconvened, I went to sit somewhere up close to the front and a bailiff told me I couldn't sit there. The CHAIRMAN. Were you there with Fort? Did you and Fort go there together? Reverend FRY. No, sir. Mr. Fort was in the court all that morning. The CHAIRMAN. Were you sitting there with him part of the time? Reverend FRY. I had not yet come to the court. The CHAIRMAN. You just keep talking about that one morning. I am talking about during the course of the trial. Had you been attending the trial with Fort? Reverend FRY. On some-at times I sat with him on the back row. The CHAIRMAN. You sat with him? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Were you there with him when he was pointing his fingers to his head, while the witness was testifying, telling him that he would intimidate the witness? Did you see that? Reverend FRY. He didn't do that while I was sitting next to him. The CHAIRMAN. You didn't see him? Reverend FRY. No, sir. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PIERSON The CHAIRMAN. What is your name? Mr. PIERSON. Robert Pierson. The CHAIRMAN. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. PIERSON. I do. The CHAIRMAN. State your name, your place of residence and what your business or occupation is, please. Mr. PIERSON. My name is Robert Pierson, I reside at 1810 West 96th Street, Chicago, Ill. My occupation is that of investigator for the State's attorney's office of Cook County. The CHAIRMAN. Investigator for the State's attorney's office of Cook County? Mr. PIERSON. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you held that position? Mr. PIERSON. Since October 1966. The CHAIRMAN. What position did you have prior to that? Mr. PIERSON. Prior to that I was a detective from 1960 until 1963 with the State's attorney's office. The CHAIRMAN. Assigned to the State's attorney? Mr. PIERSON. Assigned to the State's attorney from the Chicago Police department. The CHAIRMAN. Did you make an investigation of this Hairston case, this murder case? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; I did. The CHAIRMAN. Did you attend the trial? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; I did. The CHAIRMAN. Were you there when the court required the Reverend and Mr. Fort, and some others, to get on the back row? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Just tell us what happened. Mr. PIERSON. As a result of Jeff Fort holding his hand up in the motion of a gun to his head at the time that one of the witnesses was on the stand, I brought this to the attention of the judge presiding over this trial. I also commented to him about the various outbursts that had been taking place during the trial. The CHAIRMAN. Various what? Mr. PIERSON. Outbursts, reactions by Reverend Fry, by Jeff Fort, and by other members of the First Presbyterian Church and the Blackstone Rangers. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of outbursts are you talking about? Mr. PIERSON. Reactions to the answers that would be given by the witness that would seem to be slightly unfavorable to the witness. They would react in order to bring a reaction from the jury. The CHAIRMAN. I have tried a few cases. What do you mean by reaction? Did they go through some motion or signs or make a noise? Mr. PIERSON. Well, laughing when an error would be made by the witness. The CHAIRMAN. Laughing out loud? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Was it a distraction to the jury? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; it was. The CHAIRMAN. I mean, the jury was trying to concentrate and this was going on. Is that the reason the judge assigned them back row seats? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The judge said due to these outbursts the judge talked to Mr. Cotsirilos, who represented Eugene Hairston, and told him that Reverend Fry, Jeff Fort and Anne Schwalbach, would have to sit in the back of the courtroom as a result of their conduct. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Senator CURTIS. How long had the trial proceeded in days when this happened? Mr. PIERSON. To the best of my recollection, this was the third or fourth day of trial. Senator CURTIS. It was after the jury was selected? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir, the jury had been impaneled. Senator CURTIS. And the State had started to put on their evidence? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; they had. Senator CURTIS. Do you recall what witness was on the stand when Jeff Fort made a motion with his hand toward his head that you interpreted as being a threat? Do you recall what witness was on the stand? Mr. PIERSON. I believe it was either Sanders or Marvin Martin. Senator CURTIS. Were they some of the boys charged with the actual shooting? Mr. PIERSON. At one time they had been charged with the shooting, yes, sir. They were not under indictment at that time. Senator CURTIS. But they were giving evidence for the State? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; they were. The CHAIRMAN. Which one of the boys? Did you name one of them? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was the name? Mr. PIERSON. It was either Sanders or Marvin Martin. Senator CURTIS. And this came about because you observed it and reported it to the judge? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; and also the judge said that he had noticed these outbursts, that he considered them to be disfavorable to the prosecution and in that light he told the defense attorney that he would-in fact, the defense attorney offered to tell Reverend Fry and to tell Jeff Fort that they would have to sit in the back of the courtroom. Senator CURTIS. And you are quite sure this didn't occur the first half day after the jury was selected? Mr. PIERSON. No, sir; because Sanders and Marvin Martin were not the first witnesses on the stand. One of the victims was one of the first witnesses to take the stand. Senator CURTIS. Was your report to the judge based upon what happened that morning? Mr. PIERSON. My report to the judge, sir, was based upon the activities from the beginning of the trial up to that point, as well as what occurred that morning. Senator CURTIS. Was Reverend Fry there that morning? Mr. PIERSON. To the best of my recollection, what I had brought to the attention of the judge was what I had noticed of Jeff Fort. I did not notice the reverend there. He could have been there earlier and out. Senator CURTIS. As of that particular morning. Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. Senator CURTIS. So there may not be any conflict in your testimony and the reverend's so far as that particular morning is concerned. Mr. PIERSON. That is true, sir, there may not be conflict. Senator CURTIS. Was this a noon recess or a midmorning recess? Mr. PIERSON. A midmorning recess. The CHAIRMAN. The reverend named four boys awhile ago who were supposed to have been solicited to do the killing. You said two of them testified at the trial, at the conspiracy trial, of Hairston? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear their testimony? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir; I did. The CHAIRMAN. What did they testify with reference to the inducement Hairston made to them? Just briefly. I don't want to go into the details. It has already been adjudicated that Hairston did it. But just so that this record will reflect something to give us an indication of what the facts are, will you briefly state them? Mr. PIERSON. Hairston had told Sanders Martin earlier that day, the day of the killing. He pointed out an automobile and in the automobile were three occupants. He told Sanders Martin that he wanted the car burned and the driver hit. Sanders Martin related this information to the other defendants and subsequently Leo McClure was killed and two other men, two victims, were shot twice each. The CHAIRMAN. That same day? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And these boys testified to that? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. And they further testified that after the crime had been committed, they had been paid off with money and with some food in the Martin apartment later that day. The CHAIRMAN. Later that day? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Who paid them the money, did they claim? Mr. PIERSON. They claimed Eugene Hairston paid them the money. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Durocher Berrian who was wounded at the same time McClure was killed? Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. |