read it, because you didn't feel it would refresh your recollection; is that correct?

Judge CRAVEN. That plus-mainly just disinterest. I have more to do than read that transcript and I am not interested in it. This is something that interests this committee, but frankly it does not interest me. I tried that case 9 years ago and I didn't want to read the transcript.

Senator BROOKE. Did you take trial notes during the course of this trial?

Judge CRAVEN. No, sir; never do.

Senator BROOKE. You never take trial notes during the course of any trial?

Judge CRAVEN. Never do.

Senator BROOKE. As soon as you were called by Mr. McLean, if that was the first time-well, was that the first time you heard about this case?

Judge CRAVEN. No; the first time I heard about it was from Mr. Casey, I think. He phoned me, Mr. Fields phoned me, everybody has been phoning me; the New York Times reporter. I have heard about it for some several weeks now.

Senator BROOKE. But you have no notes available to you, obviously no transcript available to you, from which you could have refreshed your recollection relative to what happened in this particular case? Judge CRAVEN. No, sir.

Senator BROOKE. So what you told us today is based entirely upon either your recollection or reconstruction of the actual event? Judge CRAVEN. Yes.

Senator BROOKE. Mr. Chairman, are we on the 10-minute rule?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we are.

Senator BROOKE. Then my time is up.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cranston?
Senator CRANSTON. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth?

Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here at the beginning of the hearing, but I was having an important meeting at the Government Operations Committee.

As I indicated to you earlier, last week, John Van Braunt, Jr., Esq., a reputable member of the Delaware bar, was quoted in the Wilmington papers as charging that Mr. William J. Casey had violated legal ethics under the circumstances in which he participated in a business venture with two of his clients. Because of the seriousness of the charges, I thought that I should make an independent study of them. At the same time, a member of this committee's staff was investigating the allegations.

In the course of my investigation, I determined that Mr. Casey was represented in a dispute involving this relationship by two Delaware law firms, Richards, Layton & Finger, and Cohen, Morris & Rosenthal. Since my wife, a practicing attorney, was a member of the law firm of Richards, Layton & Finger at the time of the dispute, I have decided that I should disqualify myself from further consideration of this matter.

Accordingly, I would request that the record show, that in order

to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict of interest, I shall not further participate in the confirmation proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator Roth discussed this with me earlier today and he wished to make that statement. The committee has no objection, I presume, to his withdrawing from further consideration in the case.

Thank you very much.

Judge CRAVEN. Could I add one thing in response to Senator Brooke? He asked to whom I conveyed the information that I was coming and I answered Mr. O'Neal and that is correct. But I did write a letter from Richmond a day or so before that suggesting that a subpena be issued to me and making clear-I referred to it in my original testimony that I was not coming to support or oppose the nomination. I sent a copy of that to Mr. Casey and his lawyer, because I felt like they were entitled to know that I was being asked to testify and the basis on which I would come if I came.

Senator BROOKE. To whom was that letter addressed?

Judge CRAVEN. I have a copy of it here, it wouldn't take me but a minute to find it.

Senator PROXMIRE. Was that the letter of March 4 from Richmond? Judge CRAVEN. I think so.

Senator PROXMIRE. This was the letter to Kenneth McLean?

The CHAIRMAN. He said he addressed a letter to Mr. Casey and one to his lawyer.

Senator BROOKE. Copies of it--but the letter was addressed to Mr. McLean.

Senator PROXMIRE. Copies to Senator Sparkman, myself, Mr. Casey,

so on.

Senator BROOKE. Was a copy sent to you, Senator Proxmire?

Senator PROXMIRE. Yes; it was sent to Kenneth McLean, with a copy to me.

Judge CRAVEN. Dated March 4 to Mr. McLean, copies to Senators Sparkman and Proxmire, William J. Casey, and Thomas A. Diskin. Senator BROOKE. Can you answer why you sent a copy of it to Senator Proxmire?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes; I talked to him by telephone once in Richmond about testifying.

Senator BROOKE. Was that prior to the 3d of March?

Judge CRAVEN. It may have been on the 3d. Wasn't the 3d of March on Wednesday? I think so. I believe it was on the 3d of March.

Senator BROOKE. Was that an invitation to appear before this committee.

Judge CRAVEN. Sir?

Senator BROOKE. Was that an invitation to appear before this committee extended by Senator Proxmire?

Judge CRAVEN. I would characterize it as such; yes.

Senator BROOKE. Was that the first time you were invited to appear before the committee?

Judge CRAVEN. No; Kenneth McLean asked me first.

Senator BROOKE. This was prior to the 3d of March?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes.

Senator BROOKE. When was that?

Judge CRAVEN. The previous week back in Asheville.
Senator BROOKE. Sometime in February?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes.

Senator BROOKE. Did you respond to that request?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't think I did by letter.

Senator BROOKE. By telephone?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't recall, Senator Brooke.
Senator BROOKE. In person?

Judge CRAVEN. Oh, no. The letter to McLean refers to our telephone conversation which would be March 3. But I think I got a call from him in Asheville before I went to Richmond on March 1. I could be mistaken on that.

Senator BROOKE. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stevenson?

Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions but I would like to thank the judge for graciously accepting the invitation of this committee and for helping us in our deliberations. Judge CRAVEN. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brock?

Senator BROCK. I want to thank you for being here. I appreciated your testimony and remarks. In the matter of the transcript, who asked that you release the transcript?

Judge CRAVEN. I think Mr. Casey.

Senator BROCK. Who paid the cost?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't know, but I know Mr. Fields didn't because he phoned me and wanted a free copy. So I assume Mr. Casey paid for it or Prentice Hall.

Senator BROCK. Wouldn't it be normal for the requesting party to pay such charges as might be attended to the transcript?

Judge CRAVEN. I would think so. I think Mr. Casey was the first I knew about this matter. I think he phoned me and wanted to get a copy of the transcript and wanted an order to open the record. But I didn't feel I could enter an order without the consent of all the parties. Later I didn't feel I needed Mr. Fields' consent because he was eager to release it 9 years ago. But he consented also, so that became academic.

Senator BROCK. It was on Mr. Casey's initial request?

Judge CRAVEN. Yes, sir.

Senator BROCK. Thank you,

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gambrell?

Senator GAMBRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the committee to indulge me for being late. I was presiding in the Senate and I was late in getting here. I don't have any questions except I would like to join Senator Stevenson in stating in my judgment I think the judge has done us a service to come here and make a presentation. I don't think he should be criticized for his taking part in this.

Judge CRAVEN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Craven, it seems to me that a great deal of of the things we have been asking you about really are not highly relevant. For instance, the matter of sealing the transcript. I don't care about opening this up again but, as a matter of fact, when Mr.

Fields asked for a copy of the speech that his lawyer had made to the jury and you refused-is that all he wanted?

Judge CRAVEN. Well, we had agreed on sealing everything and then he just had this last little thought, couldn't I have a copy of this wonderful speech. Of course I said no, that was out of the question. The whole idea was to seal everything.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just wanted to get it clear.

Judge CRAVEN. I think in fairness to the defendants, I should say they never conceded liability. They always took the position that they were not liable, even after the verdict, but that the publicity when a verdict had come in against them would be very damaging to reputa

tions.

As I say, my recollection was that the concern was about damage to reputation of the publications, not to Mr. Casey's reputation. But I could be mistaken about that.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, may I infer that Mr. Fields can now have a copy of that splendid summation, if he is willing to pay for it?

Judge CRAVEN. He gets it free now.
Senator BENNETT. Did he get it free?
Judge CRAVEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Proxmire stepped out. Senator Tower, are you ready for another round?

Senator TOWER. Judge, did you testify a few minutes ago without any reservation that this young man had plagiarized his specific instructions?

Judge CRAVEN. No, I didn't say that.

Senator TOWER. You didn't intend to say that.

Judge CRAVEN. I didn't say it.

Senator TowER. Senator Taft asked me to raise the question, because he assumed you said that.

Judge CRAVEN. If I did, I rescind it. I don't remember the relationship between Mr. Casey and the young man. I don't remember. Perhaps I should have read the transcript, but I didn't.

Senator TOWER. You did reserve a decision on a motion to set aside the verdict, is that correct?

Judge CRAVEN. I did from 10 o'clock at night until the following morning.

Senator TOWER. And a motion for a new trial would have been in order?

Judge CRAVEN. Well, there wasn't any such motion.

Senator TOWER. But it would have been in order?

Judge CRAVEN. Oh, sure.

Senator TOWER. Was there ever a final order in the case?

Judge CRAVEN. Nothing except the order of sealing the record and a complete settlement and discharge and compromise and everybody was happy and the whole thing was all over with.

Senator TOWER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams, do you have additional questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. NO.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett?

Senator BENNETT. No.

57-426-71- 4

The CHAIRMAN. Senator McIntyre?
Senator MCINTYRE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brooke?

Senator BROOKE. Yes, I do have a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. Judge Craven, you were reading, I believe, from a copy of the docket or from notes taken from the docket?

Judge CRAVEN. From a photocopy of docket entries. I am not sure of my vocabulary now. I think that is what the southern district calls it, docket sheets given me by Rudy Laudante, who was deputy clerk assigned to me.

Senator BROOKE. Is it complete?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't know. He just handed them to me. I didn't remember having them. I found them yesterday in the attic. It purports to be complete. It is not only this case but the $3 million case also.

Senator BROOKE. With reference to the motion to set aside the verdict, I think you testified that as you view the docket that motion was denied and there was a line drawn through it and then it was granted?

Judge CRAVEN. No, this was not the motion to set aside the verdict. I was talking about the defendant Prentice Hall's motion to dismiss. It is all in here, motion denied and then denied is stricken through and the word "granted" is written in and underlined. So, apparently I let Prentice Hall out.

Senator BROOKE. Did you have a change of mind? First you denied it and then you subsequently granted it?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't know. I don't know whether I changed my mind or whether the clerk put it down wrong and realized he put it down wrong. I just don't know. Maybe the transcript would show that. But that applied only to Prentice Hall.

Senator BROOKE. Yes, I understand. But you don't recall whether you made the decision to let Prentice Hall out or not?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't have any independent recollection of it. But apparently the transcript confirms I did dismiss Prentice Hall from it. But my memory is actually to the contrary, which shows you how memory is after 9 years. I would have said it went to the jury against all three and obviously I am wrong.

Senator BROOKE. Now, Judge, I ask you again to refresh your recollection concerning punitive damages. The punitive damages against Mr. Casey were somewhat higher than the punitive damages awarded against the corporate defendant. Do you recall that?

Judge CRAVEN. I don't remember. I think Senator Proxmire indicated that.

Senator BROOKE. Did you give the same charge to the jury relative to Casey as you gave the corporate defendant?

Judge CRAVEN. Now I am reconstructing rather than remembering. I must have, I can't think of any reason why I would give a different

one.

Senator BROOKE. Do you have any recollection as to why the punitive damages were greater against Mr. Casey than against the corporate defendant?

Judge CRAVEN. None at all. Of course, punitive damages don't really make sense anyway, as you know, Senator; any logical sense. I don't know.