MLK Consipiracy Trial Transcript

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

- 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

- 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 nonexistent. It is kind

of strange you should ask that question,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

106

because when we decided to go, that's the

first thing we thought about, how were we

going to get past the security, because we

knew that there would be some.

So one of the fellows that was with

us at the time, he said, well, we'll try and

see if we can't get through the back door.

We walked through the back door. Lo and

behold, the back door came straight open, I

mean, no problem at all. We walked right

into the door, upstairs to his room, knocked

on the door, never saw a soul, no one.

Q. You went directly up to his room?

A. Directly.

Q. You knocked on the door?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any security inside the

room?

A. No security.

Q. Who answered the door?

A. I think Reverend Abernathy answered

the door. No, wait a minute. Let me get

this straight. Was it Bernard Shaw that was

with him at the time. You have to help me

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

107

here. I think Bernard answered the door

because I think Dr. King was in the bathroom

putting on