Trial Transcript of Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination Conspiracy Trial

[Magda Hassan]

• Mrs. Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., currently-Founder, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc.
  
• Dr. Cobey Smith, founder, The Invaders (Black Organizing Project)-1968, educator consultant (current)
  
• Mr. Charles Cabbage, Executive Secretary, The Invaders
  
• Mr. John McFerren, founder, Fayette County Civic & Welfare League and local businessman
  
• Mr. Nathan Whitlock, taxicab driver, musician
  
• Captain Thomas Smith, Memphis Police Department, Homocide Detective (1968), currently retired
  
• Mr. Charles Hurley, advertising manager, National Food Stores, Memphis (1968), Division Manager, Save-A-Lot Food Stores (current)
  

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


19
- 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


20
- 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


21
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

22

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


23
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 --

24
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

25

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

26
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.


27
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.


28

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


29
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


30
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


31
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


32
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


33
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

34
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


35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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


39
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


40
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

41
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

42
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

43
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

44
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

45
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

46
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

47
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

48
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.


49
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


50
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,

51
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


52
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

53
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.


54
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

55 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


56
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.

57
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?


58
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


59
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


60
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



61
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


62
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


63
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

64
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

65 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

66
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

67
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.

68
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

69 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.


70
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

71 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

72
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

73
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

74
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,


75
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


76
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.

77
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


78
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

79
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

80
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

81
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

82
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

83
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

84
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

85
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

86
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

87
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.

88
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 ...