|
Dodge Polara or Monaco?
click here
Patty
Valentine
First
statement to police
(pdf file)
Grand
Jury testimony (pdf
file)
First
trial testimony
(pdf
file)
Al
Bello
Why
the "cabdriver alibi" doesn't hold up (click
here)
In
his book, Carter falsely writes that the police didn't know about Bello
being at the scene until months after the murders:
click here
Note: the prosecution
decided that Haggins was an unreliable witness who changed her story every
time she was questioned, and they did not call her to testify.
For more on the revenge
motive, click here
More on conflicting
alibis, click here
|
ANALYSIS
OF SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE FOR RETRIAL
This document,
prepared by Assistant Prosecutor John Goceljak before Rubin "Hurricane"
Carter and John Artis' second trial for the Lafayette Grill murders in
1976, gives a rundown of the evidence against them.
CONFIDENTIAL. ATTORNEY’S
WORK PRODUCT FOR THE EYES
ONLY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS.
MEMORANDUM
RE: STATE v. CARTER and ARTIS
ANALYSIS OF SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE FOR RETRIAL
Evidence connecting defendants with the homicides at the Lafayette Grill
on June 17, 1966, includes the following:
1. THE CAR
A. Carter had leased and was operating a new, white, 1966 Dodge. This
vehicle bore New York license plates, which at the time had a blue background
with orange or gold lettering. Most significantly, the vehicle had peculiarly
shaped
taillights, which tapered from the outside toward the center, and which
gave a
“butterfly” effect particularly when the brakes are applied.
According to the AAA “book” on American made automobiles, the
1966
Dodge model of the type leased by Carter was unique with respect to that
type of
taillight at the time.
A white car, containing two black males, bearing license plates with a
blue
background and gold or orange or yellow letters and with tapered, triangular
or
“butterfly” shaped taillights, was seen speeding away from the
Lafayette Grill
immediately after the shootings.
B. Patricia (Graham) Valentine, who lived above the tavern premises,
witnessed two black males getting into the car and speeding off. Before
the Grand
Jury at the pretrial suppression hearing and at the
trial, she gave testimony
identifying the vehicle as white, with blue license plates with yellow
or gold
lettering and with taillights “like two triangles starting at the
outside of the car and
narrowing into the center.”
Shortly after police officers arrived at the scene, she drew a diagram
of the
taillights for Officer Greenough. When the Carter vehicle was returned
to the Lafayette Grill, she was asked to view the vehicle, and later testified
“ I walked around to the back of the white car and I looked at the
taillights and these were the ones I had seen from the window.” Upon
viewing the car, she became upset and began crying. Later that morning
she again identified the car at police headquarters, in
a statement given to Lt. James Lawless. Her identification is also
noted in the police
report prepared that morning.
C. The white, 1966 Dodge leased by Carter was also identified that
morning by Alfred
Bello. When the first police officers (Unger and Greenough)
responded to the Lafayette Grill no more than four or five minutes after
the
shootings, Bello told them that a white car with blue plates and containing
two
black males had been involved. Shortly thereafter, when Sgt. Capter and
Officer
De Chellis came to the scene and asked Bello for a description of the
car, he told
them it had an out-of-state plate and taillights which lit up like a “butterfly”
when
the brakes were applied. These officers had minutes earlier stopped and
released
the Carter vehicle, and when they heard Bello’s description they
looked at each
other and immediately left to search for the Carter vehicle, which
they located
shortly thereafter. Later that morning, Bello identified the Carter vehicle
at police
headquarters to Lt. Lawless as the one he had seen leaving the Lafayette
Grill at
the time of the shootings.
It should be noted that this identification of the car by Bello was made
on
the morning of June 17, 1966, shortly after the homicides and some four
months
before he came forward to identify Carter and Artis as the men he had
seen.
Further, although Bello in 1974 “recanted” his identification
of the two defendants,
he never recanted his identification of the car. His early identification
of the Carter
vehicle as the one involved can be substantiated by the testimony of Lt.
Lawless,
Sgt. Capter and Officer De Chellis, and appears in his statement given
early in the
morning of June 17, 1966 as well as in the police report of that date.
D. His identification of the car is further credited by the testimony
of
Ronald Ruggiero, who lived a few houses away from the Lafayette Grill.
Ruggiero testified that on the morning of June 17, 1966, he heard shots,
that
shortly after that he heard footsteps running down the street, and was
able to
recognize Bello when the latter ran past his house. Moments later a white
car with
two black males sped past in the same direction. Thus, Ruggerio’s
testimony
established that Bello was at least in a position to have seen what had
occurred on
the corner where the Lafayette Grill was located, that he was obviously
running
down the street for his own safety, and that a white car with black male
occupants
sped from the scene.
E. After defendants were taken into custody and the vehicle impounded,
a
search of the car conducted at police headquarters by Detective Di Robbio
disclosed a .32 caliber S & W bullet on the floor near the front seat
and a 12 gauge
shotgun shell in the trunk. These two calibers matched the two types of
weapons
used in the shootings an hour and forty-five minutes earlier. Carter at
[the first] trial testified he had been shown a bullet at headquarters
that morning but denied any
knowledge of it being in his car.
The .32 caliber S & W bullet was admitted at the trial, but the 12-gauge
shotgun shell was excluded. In the view of the fact that the New Jersey
Supreme
Court on the original appeal found that the shell was admissible in evidence,
it
would be available as evidence at the retrial.
The defense has previously raised the inference that the bullet and shell
were “planted” by the police, and can be expected to do this
again. Obviously, the
presence in a car operated by defendants of two types of ammunition
corresponding to those used in a crime, is highly incriminatory, especially
when it
is considered that defendants were observed in the car a scant ten minutes
after the shootings.
Carter in his Grand Jury testimony given two weeks after the event was
exhaustively questioned concerning his control of the 1966 white Dodge
during all
times that evening, and persistently insisted that no one else could have
utilized it.
The defense is therefore confronted with the problem of explaining the
presence in a car admittedly in the sole control of defendant Carter of
the two rounds of live ammunition of the respective caliber’s used
in the shootings. At the original trial the defense attempt to infer that
32 caliber bullet was planted was obviously ineffectual, and their problem
at a retrial will be compounded because of the admissibility of both the
bullet and the shotgun shell.
F. The identification of the white, 1966 Dodge with blue license plates
and
unique taillights by Patricia Graham and Alfred Bello, as well as the
finding of the
two shells of corresponding caliber’s to those used in the shootings,
in the same
vehicle, is highly incriminatory as it relates to defendants.
Initially, the vehicle was leased by Carter, and admittedly had been used
by
him throughout that evening and night. More importantly, Sgt. Capter and
Officer
De Chellis observed both defendants in that car at 2:40 a.m. on the morning
of
June 17, 1966. This would be no more than ten minutes after the shootings
at the
Lafayette Grill.
The initial call relating to the incident was received at police headquarters
at 2:34 a.m. and the testimony of Patricia Graham Valentine, who first
called the
police, indicates that it would have been made only two or three minutes
after the
car sped from the scene. The Carter vehicle was initially stopped by Sgt.
Capter at
Broadway and 14th street, which is only one or two minutes’ driving
time from the
Lafayette Grill. This would have allowed several minutes for the vehicle
to make a
stop or stops in the interim, i.e., to pick up the additional passenger
observed by
Sgt. Capter, or to dispose of weapons.
In light of the identification of the Carter vehicle as that seen leaving
the
Lafayette Grill immediately after the shootings, and the finding in the
vehicle of
ammunition of the type calibers used in the killings, the presence of
defendants in
the vehicle only ten minutes after the crime alone must create a presumption
that
defendants either were direct participants or knew who the perpetrators
of the
offense were. In his statements and Grand Jury and trial testimony, Carter
insisted
that he was in control and possession of his car during that entire night,
so the
possibility that someone else may have used the vehicle without his knowledge
has been eliminated by his own admission.
2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS
A. ALFRED BELLO. The account given by Bello to the first responding
policeman, Officer Greenough, was noted as describing the two males who
departed the scene in a white car with blue plates as being two colored
males, thin
built, each about 5’ 11”.
Two hours later, in a written, signed statement given to Lt. Lawless,
Bello
described the two men as having come out from the front door, that “one
was
about as tall as me, the other was a little taller than the first man.
The short one
had on a light colored jacket, and he was carrying a pump shot gun. The
tall one,
his clothes were dark in color and he was wearing a hat.”
The following day, June 18, 1966, Bello in an interview with Lt. DeSimone
gave a description which was identical with that of Carter and consistent
with that of Artis, but equivocated in making a positive identification
of the two, and as a result he was released and his identification of
the men he had seen was not followed up until he came forward to Detective
Le Conte in early October, 1966.
On October 3, 1966, Bello identified Carter and Artis as the two men he
had seen, to Le Conte, and later that night to Le Conte and Detective
Sgt. Mohl.
On October 11, 1966, he again identified the two to those detectives and
to Lt. De
Simone during
the taped interview.
In an affidavit and in his testimony given at the recantation hearing
in 1974,
Bello stated that his testimony at trial that Carter and Artis were the
two men he
had seen leaving the bar that morning was not true. However, he has since
essentially withdrawn his recantation, and in affidavits given to Assemblyman
Hawkins, states that he did see Carter and Artis outside the bar at
the time of the
shootings, although two other black males were involved in the actual
shootings.
Bello’s original testimony was that he had seen Carter and Artis
coming
around the corner, carrying guns, shortly after he had heard shots while
he was
approaching the bar. His affidavits, referred to above, again have the
defendants
outside of the bar, with two other black males as having been inside the
bar doing
the shooting. Thus, while his original testimony and his latest statements
differ as
to where Bello was when the shooting took place and as to the number of
men and
cars involved Bello in both instances places the two defendants at the
scene.
That he was in a position to see who was in the area of the Lafayette
Grill
can be verified through the testimony of Ronald Ruggiero, who saw Bello
running
down the street and followed by a white car, as previously noted. It can
also be
substantiated by the fact that Bello had seen Patricia Graham looking
out of the
window, as she had testified she had done, and as Bello had related to
Bradley and to the police before he had occasion to know the Graham had
been looking out
that window.
Bello’s identification
of defendants as having been involved in the shootings can further be
substantiated by Kent Kellogg, who testified before the Grand Jury that
when Bello was released by the police on that morning, he came back to
the apartment and, when asked by Kellogg as to what had happened, replied
that “Rubin Carter shot up the whole bar.” This testimony was
not utilized at the original trial, but might be on retrial for the purpose
of rehabilitating Bello’s identification testimony.
B. ANNIE RUTH HAGGINS. Haggins was initially brought into the
investigation involuntarily when a taxi driver, Van Gelder, informed authorities
that a female fare had behaved suspiciously on the morning of June 17,
1966, a few
hours after the Lafayette Grill shootings.
She reluctantly disclosed that on that morning, a black male she identified
as Roosevelt Davis, had placed a pistol in her handbag, indicating that
it may have
been used for some “terrible” purpose on that night.
During the course of an intensive investigation which followed upon her
statements, it was developed that there were many inconsistencies and
lies in her
various versions of what had transpired, and eventually Roosevelt Davis
was
cleared of involvement after the entire matter was aired before the Grand
Jury.
The matter was not pursued further in light of the apparent lack of credibility
of her story, and was all but forgotten after Bello and Bradley came forward
to identify Carter and Artis as the men involved.
This aspect of the investigation was pursued last Fall, by Assemblyman
Hawkins, who contacted Haggins at her home in South Carolina and obtained
new
statements from her.
Her statements now place defendants Carter and Artis at the scene of the
shootings, although she involves two other named individuals as the actual
gunmen.
As a witness at the retrial, Haggins will of course be highly vulnerable
because of her various previous versions of what allegedly had occurred
on the
night of June 16-17, 1966.
However, she does place the two defendants at the scene of the shooting.
Further,
her affidavit is interesting because it at one point had stated that Carter
had a prior
unpleasant incident at the Lafayette Grill involving the bartender, Oliver.
If true,
this would tend to establish a motive for the Lafayette Grill shootings
in light of
the earlier shooting that evening of a black bar owner, who was the stepfather
of
the bartender at the Nite Spot, the bar where Carter frequented.
It is also interesting to note that certain of Haggins’ statements
given in
1966 when, for all practical purposes, the investigation had dropped Carter
as a
viable suspect, are consistent with other evidence of his involvement
and with her
version given to Assemblyman Hawkins.
Although her credibility can be readily attacked, Haggins’ testimony
is
highly incriminatory of defendants for several reasons. As already stated,
she
places them at the scene of the murders. She establishes the motive for
the
shootings, which is consistent with other evidence. Her statements apparently
are
corroborative of Bello’s most recent statement of what he observed.
Further, she
has not been brought forth by the police or prosecution,
but by an independent
investigator commissioned to look into the matter.
C. ARTHUR DEXTER
BRADLEY In view of the fact that Bradley has “recanted” his
trial testimony, in which he had identified Carter as one of the men he
saw in the area of the Lafayette Grill at the time of the shootings, he
would be of little value to the State as an identification witness at
a retrial. This notwithstanding that his recantation
testimony was found to be unworthy of belief by Judge Larner, which
finding was sustained by the New Jersey Supreme Court. If called as a
State witness at all, it would be only for the limited purpose of corroborating
certain of Bello’s testimony relative to being in the area that morning
and the latter being in a position to see the perpetrators. [Note:
Bradley did not testify at the second trial]
D. WILLIAM MARINS Although he is now deceased, Marins’ testimony
at the first trial is available. However, it does little more than confirm
that there were two black males who came into the bar and did the shootings.
From the State’s point of view, his testimony as to the identification
of the men involved is at best equivocal,
and does not directly incriminate defendants.
E. PATRICIA GRAHAM VALENTINE Her testimony as to the identification of
the black males that she saw fleeing in the white car with blue license
plates would presumably remain the same as that given in the first trial.
Other than they were black males, wearing sport jackets, she could give
no further identification. Her testimony concerning the car, however,
is highly incriminatory.
F. HAZEL TANIS Such statements as were made by Hazel Tanis to police officers
while she lay critically wounded were not admissible as dying declarations
at the first trial, and it is problematical as to whether they might be
used in some fashion at the retrial - probably only if initiated by the
defense.
G. RONALD RUGGIERO Although he testified at the first trial that he was
able to briefly see a white car with black males in the front seat speed
past his house, he could not identify the car as Carter’s and could
not identify the males. However, his testimony will be useful in corroborating
Bello and in establishing that a white car with black males was involved.
H. SERGEANT CAPTER AND OFFICER DeCHELLIS These witnesses testified that
at 2:40 a.m. they stopped the Carter vehicle
and observed the two defendants and a third person in the car. This was
only ten minutes after the shooting. Their testimony would likewise corroborate
the description of the getaway car given by Bello, which corresponded
to the Carter vehicle.
I. OFFICER GREENOUGH His testimony would corroborate Patricia Graham Valentine’s
description of the car she saw leaving the scene as having triangular
shaped taillights and a blue license plate, and as identifying the Carter
vehicle when it was returned as the same car.
J. Taking, in toto, the evidence relative to the identification of Carter’s
car as being the one seen fleeing the Lafayette Grill, the evidence relative
to the bullets found in his car, the presence of defendants in the car
minutes after the shootings, and prospective testimony by Bello and Haggins
placing defendants at the scene of the shootings, certainly, at the least,
a jury question is presented.
3. MOTIVE
A. The testimony and statements of William Marins, and a statement of
Hazel
Tanis confirm that robbery was not the motive for the shootings at the
Lafayette
Grill, since each agreed the gunmen walked in and without saying a word
started
shooting everyone present. In view of the fact that only a few hours earlier
a black
bar owner had been shot dead by a white, a revenge
motive may be postulated for
the Lafayette Grill homicides.
B. Carter and Artis in their respective statements and Grand Jury testimony
stated they were aware of the earlier homicide, and that there was talk
and concern
regarding same throughout the black community that night. Carter in his
testimony before the Grand Jury referred to talk that there would be a
“shaking” in
Paterson as a result of the death of the black bar owner.
C. Both Carter and Artis were well acquainted with Eddie Rawls, the bartender
at the Nite Spot, whose stepfather, Roy Holloway, was the victim of the
earlier homicide. When Rawls stopped at the Nite Spot on the way back
from the hospital, Carter spoke to him and offered his condolences. Rawls
then apparently went to police headquarters demanding to see his stepfather’s
murderer. Carter in
his Grand Jury testimony stated that when he saw Rawls at the Nite Spot
that
evening, the latter said that he would later be at Richie’s Hideway,
a bar in another
section of Paterson. Afterwards, Carter went to that bar, and Rawls and
his
brother, “Moose” Brown came there a little after 1 A.M. Carter
testified he left
that bar and returned to the Nite Spot shortly before 2 A.M. Rawls and
his
brother ostensibly returned to their stepfather’s house where they
stayed until after
3 A.M.
D. Annie Ruth Haggins in an affidavit given to Assemblyman Hawkins states
that she left the Nite Spot with Carter, Artis, Eddie Rawls and Elwood
Tuck, and
went to the Lafayette Grill. She also stated that the reason they went
to that
tavern was because James Oliver, the bartender there, had once previously
had a
run in with Rubin Carter, however, this part of her affidavit was later
scratched out
by her.
E. Carter in his Grand Jury testimony admitted that in the hours preceding
the
Lafayette Grill shootings, he had an argument with Neil Morrison concerning
several guns which Morrison had supposedly stolen from Carter’s training
camp.
These guns included a twelve gauge pump shotgun. This argument eventuated
into a confrontation among Carter, Morrison and one Annabelle Chandler,
an
acquaintance of both, at her apartment. The result of this confrontation
was not
determined, and Annabelle Chandler, who was terminally ill at the time,
died
shortly afterwards. However, it can be established from Carter’s
own testimony
that he was concerned with the location of his stolen weapons on that
particular
evening, and could be confirmed as well by the testimony of Morrison and
one
Jerry Reeves, who was with them at the time.
F. Another aspect which might be developed at trial should the occasion
allow
would be Carter’s familiarity with guns. In his Grand Jury testimony,
he stated
that he used them for target practice at
his training camp. Further, several rifles
and a pump shotgun he owned were stolen from him, allegedly by Neil Morrison.
When he was arrested for the Lafayette Grill homicides, additional weapons
were
found in his home.
G. None of the testimony relative to the earlier homicide was developed
at the
first trial, nor was the evidence of Carter’s attempt to ascertain
the location of his
guns shortly prior to the shootings brought into focus at the trial.
4. ALIBI
A. Should defendant Carter take the stand in his own defense, he would
be
very vulnerable with respect to his alibi testimony. Early in the investigations
Carter
and Artis gave statements to Lt. De Simone, subsequently, each gave
lengthy testimony before the Grand Jury concerning their respective whereabouts
that evening and night. Each testified at trial. A reading of all of this
material
shows significant discrepancies.
B. Carter’s alibi testimony at the first trial was premised upon
him being in the
company of one Katherine McGuire and her mother, Mrs. Mapes, during the
critical period between 2 A.M. and 2:30 A.M. That alibi was weakened at
the first
trial by major discrepancies shown in the testimony of those two witnesses,
particularly with respect to date.
C. The existence of additional
materials, apparently not known or available at
the time of the first trial, would be very useful in demonstrating that
Carter’s alibi
was a fabrication and that he had prompted certain of his alibi witnesses
to testify
in the manner they did. Both Carter and any of those alibi witnesses would
be hard
put to explain the purpose and intent of these materials, and their respective
credibility would certainly be affected. A showing that Carter’s
alibi was a
complete fabrication taken in conjunction with the identification of his
car at the
scene of the shootings, would be destructive to the defense case, and
the present
knowledge by the defense of these materials might prompt them to keep
defendants from taking the stand. [At the second trial, Carter did
not take the stand.]
(signed)
John P. Goceljak
Assistant Prosecutor
Date: April 5, 1976
* Assemblyman Hawkins
was given completely free access to all of our files. He
xeroxed and took away with him copies of much of our files, including
letters,
interoffice memos, attorney’s work product, correspondence, etc.,
much of which would not be discoverable by the defense under any theory.
As set forth in a letter by us to Assemblyman Hawkins given in connection
with our turnover of the material to him, this material was given on a
confidential basis only and not (to) be distributed to anyone other than
the Governor or Attorney General. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and over
Prosecutor Humphreys’ stated objection, I understand that the Governor’s
office authorized Assemblyman Hawkins to turn over all of such material
to the defense. [In other words, the Governor let Carter's defense
team have all of the prosecution's files on the case, including things
they would not ordinarily be entitled to see. Yet the defense team still
failed to turn up a smoking gun that would prove that Carter was framed.]
JPG:ms
|
