Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.39.41] [STANS' attorney Robert BARKER continues to argue that STANS should not be required to testify because his testimony would prejudice his chances for a fair trial in a criminal indictment against him] On August 2, 1972, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared and gave sworn testimony to the assistant U.S. attorney for use before the Watergate grand jury here in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared before the staff of the House Banking and Currency Committee and gave information with respect to campaign finances and cooperated with that, committee, On six different occasions, in addition to submitting the official reports required of the committee, Mr. Stans gave affidavits and discussed matters, with Representatives of the General Accounting Office concerning campaign Finances and activities. He did everything he could to clarify matters. Again voluntarily, he went, to New York and appeared before the U.S. attorney handling the grand jury investigation into the Vesco contribution to the campaign. He then also voluntarily appeared on two occasions before that grand jury and fully and candidly and completely testified as to the matters known to him to the best of his ability. In addition, on three occasions, he has given en deposition-, in the civil litigation arising out of the campaign. He has also testified for the litigation in Florida, a criminal case down there. Subsequently, he appeared before the staff of this committee and on two occasions, gave them information concerning the campaign activities and finances, and he fully intended to appear voluntarily before this committee and to give it, all the cooperation and assistance that he could. However, on May 10, the United States of America, of which this committee is a part, a coordinate branch, changed the whole situation. It brought an indictment against Mr. Stans, charging him with very serious crimes arising out of the campaign and his duties as chairman of the finance committee. As you know, Mr. Stans pleaded innocent. Now, Mr. Stans is before this committee under subpena, with a direction to testify about his function as chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Inevitably, directly or indirectly, this hearing will influence any jury which might be called to hear the case In New York. This places Mr. Stans in an impossible position and a completely unfair one. Under our constitutional system and the fundamental laws of this land, an accused is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, unimpeded by a deluge of publicity. In other words, as the Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas, the concept of due process of law entitled the defendant to "both judicial serenity and calm." Now, Mr. Chairman, the inevitable Kleig light of publicity which will result from Mr. Stans' appearance here would preclude any judicial serenity and calm at the trial now set, as I say, for September 11 in New York. It would also tend to deny him the possibility of an impartial jury of the, kind guaranteed by' the sixth amendment. To paraphrase the language, of the Supreme Court in Delaney v. U.S. (199 F. 2d. 107Y 1st cir., 1952), Mr. Stans' appearance before, this committee and the television and other news media, related thereto would accomplish additional investigation and extensive publicity Which would serve no other purpose than to further prejudice Mr. Stans' right to a fair trial. Now, the Supreme Court, in speaking of the problem of publicity and fair trial, has said, the Court has insisted that no one, be, punished for a crime without a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public trial free of prejudice, passion, commitment, and tyrannical power." (Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 222, 236-237, 1940). Also speaking of freedom Of the Press, the Supreme Court has said it must not be allowed to divert, the trial from the very purpose of the court system, to adjudicate controversies both in the calmness and solemnity of the court-room according to legal procedures. Among the legal procedures is the requirement that the jury's verdict, be based on evidence received in open court, not from outside sources," (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350, 351, 1965). The undeviating rule of the Supreme Court was stated long ago by Mr. Justice Holmes, when he said, "The theory of our system is that the conclusions, to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print." (Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 4621 1907). [00.45.20]