![]() |
The Pacifica Radio/UC Berkeley |
![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name? THE WITNESS: Bobby G. Seale. MR. KUNSTLER: And, Mr. Seale, what is your occupation? THE WITNESS: Presently, I am the Chairman of the Black Panther Party. MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what is the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense? THE WITNESS: The Black Panther Party-- MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. THE COURT: I sustain the objection. MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, every single witness on the stand called by the defense has been entitled to tell what is the organization in which his occupation pertained. MR. SCHULTZ: We are not litigating the Black Panther Party, your Honor, in this case. THE COURT: I will let my ruling stand, sir. MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, would you state for the Court and jury what your duties are as Chairman of the Black Panther Party? THE WITNESS: As the Chairman of the Black Panther Party, I am a member
of the central committee who have to make speaking engagements, representing
the Party's program, the Party's ideology, the social programs that we
are setting forth in communities to deal with political, economic, and
social evils and injustices that exist in this American society.
MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, you mentioned the name of Fred Hampton. Who was Fred Hampton? THE WITNESS: Deputy Chairman-- MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. THE COURT: I sustain the objection. MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, if you will instruct Mr. Seale that when an objection is pending, he should wait before he answers the question-- THE COURT: Mr. Seale, when an objection is made by the opposing lawyers sitting at that table, wait until the Court decides the objection before you answer, please. THE WITNESS: Well, should I just give a few seconds to see if there is going to be an objection? THE COURT: Yes. Wait. It is a good idea. THE WITNESS: Just to see if there is going to be an objection. MR. SCHULTZ: I will try to be prompt, your Honor. MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, I call your attention to August 27, 1968. Did there come a time when you went to the San Francisco International Airport? THE WITNESS: Tuesday. That Tuesday in August. It was a Tuesday, I think. MR. KUNSTLER: Did you then board an airplane? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know the destination of that airplane? THE WITNESS: Chicago, Illinois. MR. KUNSTLER: I will ask you now to look at the defense table and I want to ask you this question whether, prior to boarding that airplane, you had ever known Jerry Rubin. THE WITNESS: No, I had not. MR. KUNSTLER: David Dellinger? THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life. MR. KUNSTLER: Abbie Hoffman? THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life before that. MR. KUNSTLER: Lee Weiner? THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life. MR. KUNSTLER: Rennie Davis? THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life. MR. KUNSTLER: Tom Hayden? THE WITNESS: I had heard of his name but I had never met him or seen him before in my life. MR. KUNSTLER: John Froines? THE WITNESS: I never seen him or heard of him before in my life. MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state to the Court the purpose of your trip to Chicago? MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: I sustain the objection. MR. KUNSTLER: Now after you arrived in Chicago on the twenty-seventh of August, did you have occasion at any time later that day to go to Lincoln Park? THE WITNESS: Yes, it was late in the afternoon. MR. KUNSTLER: Now when you arrived at Lincoln Park, can you recollect what was going on in the area you went to? THE WITNESS: The area in the park that I observed was completely occupied
by policemen.
MR. KUNSTLER: Now did there come a time, Mr. Seale, when you spoke in Lincoln Park that afternoon? THE WITNESS: Yes, there did come a time when I did speak. MR. KUNSTLER: I show you D-350 for identification, do you think that you could identify for us what it is? THE WITNESS: This is a transcript from a tape recording of the speech I made there. MR. KUNSTLER: I will show you 350-B. Is that the tape from which 350 was made? THE WITNESS: Yes, I can recognize it. MR. KUNSTLER: Is that tape a fair and accurate reproduction of your
speech as you gave it on
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, except for the fact that the very first line, about half of the sentence on that tape, the very first line of the first sentence that I pronounced in that speech is not on that tape. MR. KUNSTLER: With the exception of those first three or four words, it is a fair and accurate representation of the speech? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KUNSTLER: Then I would offer it into evidence. MR. SCHULTZ: No objection. MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, before this is played we will furnish to the court reporter, to save her hands, a copy of the speech. MR. SCHULTZ: No objection. We've come out to speak to some people who're
involved, maybe emotionally and maybe in many respects, in a drastic situation
of a developing revolution. The revolution in this country at the
time is in fact the people coming forth to demand freedom. The revolution
at this time is directly connected with organized guns and force.
MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Seale, when you used the term "Pig" in that speech, can you define what is meant by the word "pig"? THE WITNESS: A pig is a person or a policeman who is generally found violating the constitutional rights and the human rights of people, a vile traducer, and he is usually found masquerading as a victim of unprovoked attack. MR. KUNSTLER: And you also used the term in discussing Huey P. Newton "the sky is the limit." Would you explain what you meant by that? THE WITNESS: I meant by that that we would exhaust all political and legal means through the courts all the way to the top of the Supreme Court. We would have demonstrations. We will organize the people in together and we will go to the limit to try and get our Minister of Defense free if he is not set free. MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further question. THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sir, your Honor, I have some.
THE WITNESS: He was charged with shooting a policeman. He was charged with shooting in defense of himself. MR. SCHULTZ: So when you said that "individuals should mike pigs act in a desired manner," you were referring to shooting policemen in defense if necessary, isn't that right? THE WITNESS: Organizationally and functionally, if you look at the whole
context of the sentence, what I mean is not what you are inferring.
MR. SCHULTZ: I am asking you what you said, sir. I am asking you, did you not state that? THE WITNESS: But you also asked me what I mean, Mr. Schultz. MR. KUNSTLER: I thought he asked him what he meant, too, Your Honor. MR. SCHULTZ: Let me rephrase the question if I did.
THE WITNESS: What was that? Rephrase your question again. I am trying to make sure you don't trip me. MR. SCHULTZ: It was a little complicated, Mr. Seale. It wasn't very well stated. THE WITNESS: All right. MR. SCHULTZ: I will ask it to you again.
THE WITNESS: No. I can state it in another way in answering the question. MR. SCHULTZ: No. THE WITNESS: If you will let me answer the question. MR. SCHULTZ: You said you were not. THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question? THE COURT: You have answered the question. Ask him another question. MR. SCHULTZ: Were you referring to shooting policemen in the desired manner when you said this: "But if a pig comes up to us and starts swinging a billy club, you're gonna take that club and whip him over the head, and lay him on the ground, and then the pig is acting in a desired manner." THE WITNESS: I was referring to defending myself. MR. SCHULTZ: Now you said to the people, did you not, that they should pull the spike from the wall, because "if you pull it out and if you shoot well, all I am going to do is pat you on the back and say 'Keep on shooting'?" Was that for the purpose of making the pig act in the desired manner? THE WITNESS: That's for the purpose of telling people they have to defend themselves. In that broad sense of that statement, without taking it out of context, that generally means that, and if any individual is unjustly attacked by any policeman, unjustly, at that point he has a human right-- MR. SCHULTZ: To kill the policeman. THE WITNESS: To defend himself. MR. SCHULTZ: And that means if necessary to kill that policeman, does it not? THE WITNESS: If that policeman is attacking me, if he is violating the law, if he is violating the law unjustly, attacking me, --I am not talking about a policeman down the street stopping somebody-- MR. SCHULTZ: That means killing, if necessary, doesn't it? THE WITNESS: No. MR. SCHULTZ: You will not kill a policeman, is that right? THE WITNESS: It is not the desire to kill, and that's what you are trying to put in the tone of it, and it's not that-- MR. SCHULTZ: Will you answer my question? THE WITNESS: I won't answer that question with a yes or no, your Honor. I have to answer the question my own way. MR. SCHULTZ: I can rephrase it.
THE WITNESS: I was referring to shooting any racist, bigoted pig who unjustly attacks us or brutalizes us in the process of us doing any kind of organizational and functional work to try to change the power structure and remove the oppression. MR. SCHULTZ: And you said in that context "unjustly attacking you?" THE WITNESS: In the context of the whole speech, that's what I am talking about. MR. SCHULTZ: So when you told the people that what we have to do is get every black man in the black community with a shotgun in his home and a .357 Magnum and a .45, if he can get it, and an M-1, if he can get it--you were referring to getting guns for defense, isn't that right' THE WITNESS: Getting a gun, put a gun in your home, a shotgun. MR. SCHULTZ: In defense? THE WITNESS: --or M-1 --you have a right by the Second Amendment of the Constitution to have it. MR. SCHULTZ: Were you referring to it in self-defense, that is my question, sir? THE WITNESS: I was referring to it in self-defense against unjust brutal attack by any policeman or pigs or bigots in this society who will attack people. MR. SCHULTZ: And you said to the people in Lincoln Park "I am referring to unjust brutal attack," didn't you? THE WITNESS: No. You know what I mean, Mr. Schultz. I am telling you what I am referring to. MR. SCHULTZ: Now, when you told the people to stop running around in
big groups and with rocks and bottles because you can't do anything against
500 pigs
THE WITNESS: Definitely. It is a change.
MR. SCHULTZ: When you told the people in Lincoln Park, "Pick up a gun, pull the spike from the wall, because if you pull it out and you shoot well, all I'm gonna do is pat you on the back and say, 'Keep on shooting,' " That was part of your revolutionary tactics too, was it not, sir? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, and if you look generally-- MR. SCHULTZ: Please, that is all. THE COURT: You have answered the question. THE WITNESS: I strike that answer on the grounds that that particular question is wrong because it ain't clear. THE COURT: I have some news for you, sir. MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Seale, are you the Bobby G. Seale who was convicted on April 11, 1968, of being in possession of a shotgun in the vicinity of a jail? THE WITNESS: Yes, I am the same person who was convicted later of being
in possession of a shotgun as they charged me of being adjacent to a jail,
but as I know by the law, you could have a shotgun as long as it wasn't
concealed and as long as you are in a public place, and I was actually
in fact on a public sidewalk.
MR. SCHULTZ: You had five shotgun shells in that gun, did you not? THE WITNESS: Yes, in a magazine. MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Seale, on Wednesday morning, you gave the second speech, right? THE WITNESS: I guess that was Wednesday morning, in the middle of the week somewhere. MR. SCHULTZ: And you said to the people, Mr. Seale, "If the pigs get in the way of our march, then tangle with the blue-helmeted motherfuckers. Kill them and send them to the morgue slab," and you were pointing to policemen at that time, isn't that a fact? MR. KUNSTLER: This is completely out of the scope of the direct examination, your Honor. It is improper and it is wrong, THE COURT: No, the witness was brought here to testify about his activities
during that period.
MR. KUNSTLER: Is your Honor ruling that every witness that takes the stand can be cross-examined on anything? THE COURT: I said it is my ruling, sir, that that question is a proper one on this record. MR. SCHULTZ: How many people were you speaking to? THE WITNESS: Let's see now-- MR. GARRY: Just a minute, Mr. Seale.
THE COURT: If you so advise him and the witness wants to do it in a proper manner, I will respect his refusal to answer. MR. GARRY: Mr. Seale, you are entitled and I advise you not to answer
this question upon the ground it would tend to incriminate you under the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
THE COURT: Mr. Seale, you have heard Mr. Garry. If you wish to take advantage of the Fifth Amendment and say to the Court that to answer that question might tend to incriminate you, you may do it, but it must come from you, not from your lawyer. THE WITNESS: I would like to take the Fifth Amendment on the question, yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. You needn't answer the question. MR. SCHULTZ: That is all, your Honor. THE COURT: Is there any redirect examination? MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: No. MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor. That is not proper. THE COURT: I sustain the objection. The test is the conviction, not the punishment. MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, do you recall Mr. Schultz asked you about certain guns? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. MR. KUNSTLER: Now I ask you this question. When you were referring to those guns, did you not use the phrase "in his home"? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: Objection to the form of question. Mr. Kunstler is doing the testifying and using the witness as a sounding board. THE COURT: Yes, the form is bad. I sustain the objection. MR. KUNSTLER: All right. What did you say in that speech, Mr. Seale, with reference to where those guns were to be? THE WITNESS: I said "Put the guns in your home, .357 Magnum, M-1, .45s."
I referred to these kind of guns or anything else. You have a right
to do it, and that ,
THE COURT: All right. You've answered the question. MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Seale, as to the speech that you gave in Lincoln Park on August 27, 1968, what type of person was this speech addressed to? MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. I asked him nothing about the audience. THE COURT: I sustain the objection to the question. MR. KUNSTLER: In the light of that ruling, Your Honor, I have no further questions. THE COURT: I have sustained the objection. MR. SCHULTZ: I have no questions. THE COURT: You may go. Call your next witness, please. VOICES: Power to the people! Power to the people! This transcript is mirrored from the University of Missouri, Kansas City
|

This website copyright (C) 1996 by the Library, University of California,
Berkeley. All rights reserved.
All recordings (C) by Pacifica Radio All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/
by
Gary Handman, Head, Media Resources Center.
Last update 8/31/00 (gh)