Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tiff took half the amount of the verdict. That doesn't make very much

sense.

If he paid any portion to keep the story quiet, I am afraid he got shortchanged if the judge was telling about it all around his circuit. Now, the record shows that the case was settled without any commitment to seal the record. The judge confirms my recollection that it was not until after the case was settled that Mr. Fields asked for a copy of the summation made by his attorney and it was my recollection, and I so testified before this committee, that it was only then that the question of sealing the record was raised. Nowhere in the record is there any mention of sealing the record until I raised it in the context of the plaintiff's of the summation of the plaintiff's attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask this question to be sure I am clear in my own mind. Now, at that time the case had already been decided-the agreement had been made?

Mr. CASEY. Yes. The case had been settled. There would be no appeal. There appeared to be no need for a record, no reason why the notes should be transcribed. The conduct of the plaintiff indicated he might be planning some use of this summation which would be to the disadvantage of the defendant.

Now I would like to take you through what the record tells about what happened. Judge Craven testified without the benefit of the record. At the earlier confirmation hearing I also testified without the benefit of the record and I testified to my best recollection. I sympathize with the position in which the judge found himself when he had to talk here on the basis of his memory of something that hap pened 9 years ago.

Now when I was here in the first confirmation hearing I testified that after the jury had come in with a verdict of something like $40,000, the actual figure was $41,450. The judge did a highly unusual thing. He called in the two attorneys and said to them, the verdict was not supported by the evidence and that he would set it aside and he recommended that the parties get together and settle.

Now I went a bit too far on that because I wasn't there. That was a private conference between the judge and the two attorneys. I merely testified to what I had understood from my own attorney who told me about this conversation. But what I gave you was my impression after 9 years.

The transcript of the trial record shows that after the verdict was rendered my attorney made an extensive argument requesting the judge to set aside the verdict. He said he was shocked at the verdict and surmised that the judge was also shocked. He spelled out how the verdict was grossly excessive and wholly against the evidence. He particularly emphasized that there was no evidence at all of any malice on the part of the defendants. The judge's response to this request is in the transcript at page EVA51.

The judge said. "Well, gentlemen, I am going to take a long time to think about that. I am not going to attempt to decide it at 9:30 p.m. at night. I think I will give it a more careful consideration after a night's sleep." A little later he said: "Gentlemen, I believe I will confer with you in my chambers-just a few minutes with Mr. Diskin and Mr. Garfield. There won't be any ruling, I just want to talk to

you generally about the problem." Thereupon followed a conference between the two lawyers and the judge.

Senator BENNETT. Would you please identify the lawyers.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Garfield, the lawyer for the plaintiff, and Mr. Diskin, the lawyer for the defendant.

I was not present at the conference in chambers which the judge had with the two attorneys. But the record shows that the judge thought the motion to set aside the verdict required serious consideration and the fact is Mr. Garfield, an experienced trial lawyer, who is now dead, negotiated a settlement with his client's consent of $20,500 instead of the $41,450 brought in by the jury.

I can only say that firmly lodged in my memory over the intervening years was the impression that the judge evidenced an attitude which caused Mr. Fields and his attorney, Mr. Garfield, to settle for half the amount of the jury's verdict. Transposed into that situation was my interpretation that the judge had somehow indicated the verdict would be set aside and a new trial ordered unless the parties could agree to a settlement. The judge says this did not happen, but this was what I thought had, in effect, occurred up until the time I saw his letter.

Now, that recollection is in line with what happened and it is supported by a great deal in the record. The record does show that at one stage the judge had stated that the jury was not understanding the case and the motion for a new trial emphasized the extent to which the verdict showed the jury was in a state of high confusion.

The judge also stated during the trial, and the record shows this, that he thought the jury would come in with a low verdict; it might be as low as $250. So we all had the impression, and Mr. Diskin had so stated, that the judge was as shocked as the rest of us about the scale and the size of the verdict.

Now, I was wrong when I testified that the judge took the initiative. in sealing the record in the Fields case. I have refreshed my recollection from the transcript and it is clear that the judge did not take the initiative, but that I did. I did.

The judge's memory plays a trick on him because, after he reserved ruling, nothing happened the next day, and it was the day after that the court resumed on this matter. The record shows that at the beginning of that day the judge had further conference with the lawyers privately. They told him the matter had been settled.

Now, the judge did not seal the record, but did order that no transcript be made. His order, as shown by the transcript, correctly states what was done.

He said:

After the conference was terminated and subsequently thereto the Court directed as follows: In view of the foregoing settlement and the consent of all the parties and their counsel, that the verdict be expunged from the record, the Court orders and directs the Court Reporter that no transcript of any portion of the trial whatsoever shall be made, sold or delivered to any person whom

soever.

The record then states that at the close of the entire proceeding, my attorney thanked the judge for "The fine way you brought the parties together here this morning and effected the disposition of this case."

The impression I have carried in my mind was that this was what, in general effect, the judge had done.

Now, that is my recollection as refreshed by a reading of the transcript, which became available last Friday.

I will be glad to take any questions on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Proxmire?

Senator PROXMIRE. Mr. Casey, I would like to discuss what you just have been telling us about. I want to go over it once again to make sure I fully understand it.

Last month I asked you about how the transcript of the Fields case came to be sealed and you replied as follows:

My lawyer, the fellow that represented us in the case, tells me that the plaintiff's attorney had made some inflammatory remarks in his summation about big corporations exploiting the work of his poor clients. After the matter had been settled the plaintiff asked the judge for a copy of the summation and apparently the judge didn't like this and he said since the case had been settled and there would be no appeal and no need to transcribe the record, he was ordering the record sealed.

Now, Judge Craven flatly denied that he sealed the transcript on his own initiative. Moreover, the trial transcript shows the following colloquy.

The judge was asking the parties whether they agreed with the destruction of the interrogatory submitted to the court:

The COURT. Do you agree, Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, I do and I wonder if we can go further.

The COURT. I think that is enough.

Mr. CASEY. Well, I don't agree.

I would like to have the record sealed entirely.

Mr. DISKIN. Mr. Casey brought up to me that certain arguments were made during the course of summation that in effect he participated in some sort of conspiracy and that he sought to sabotage this and that evidence. Mr. CASEY. I sought to frame Cuddahy.

As I say, this record contradicts your earlier testimony on two points. One, your lawyer said it was you who brought up the question of the alleged inflammatory remarks, not the other way around but more importantly it was you who requested that the transcript be sealed.

The judge felt it was enough to destroy the verdict and certain interrogatories but you disagreed and wanted to go further and destroy the transcript.

I take it your recollection is, as you just told us, when you appeared before the committee before, you were mistaken, you did not recall accurately and Judge Craven's version on the basis of your having had a chance now to look at the record is correct; is that correct?

Mr. CASEY. As I understand it Judge Craven gave a third version, that the agreement to seal the record was part of the earlier settle

ment.

The testimony, Senator, that you just read indicates that the case was all settled as a result of the conference between the two lawyers and the judge and as a part of that settlement there was an agreement to expunge the verdict. Then the case was settled with no understanding as to sealing.

Senator PROXMIRE. The case was what?

Mr. CASEY. It was settled without any understanding as to sealing

and when the judge brought the parties in I then raised the question as to whether the record should not be sealed because there were inflammatory remarks. I testified at my earlier confirmation hearing about that. There was no need to transcribe the record and I always thought this was something that the judge would recognize as appropriate and this was all agreed to.

But the record did show, as far as the record goes, I was the first one to bring it up and it was brought up for the first time, not as Judge Craven indicated but as the record shows after the case was settled.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, let me ask you about another part of this. I am going to read from page 26 of your pretrial deposition. This refers to the agreement which you apparently had to pay $250 a month for the use of the publications by Mr. Fields.

Mr. GARFIELD. When were you to start paying the $250 a month?

Mr. CASEY. When I got back and when I wrote him a letter telling him what I wanted.

Mr. GARFIELD. Did you ever pay Mr. Fields $250 a month or 250 cents?

Mr. CASEY. No, I didn't. The 250 cents isn't necessary.

Mr. DONNELLY. No.

Mr. CASEY. God damn, if you're not a gentlemen, I will kick your ass out of here. You just kick that 250 cents out of here or you and I will have a hell of a lot of trouble.

Mr. GARFIELD. Did you pay him anything?

Mr. CASEY. I didn't pay him anything.

Mr. GARFIELD. Then you certainly didn't pay him 250 cents, did you?

Mr. CASEY. I told you not to try that again, or don't try that again or there will be more violence in this God damn office.

Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Casey, let's relax. There is a court to rule on that.

I think you are provoking this.

Mr. GARFIELD. I want the record to show that Mr. Casey struck me in the face. Mr. DONNELLY. I dispute that and I want the record to show that is a completely false statement.

Now, let's get the examination finished. And cut out the damn nonsense.

Now Mr. Casey, I ask you: "Did you ever strike Mr. Garfield in the face at that time?"

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Casey.

Mr. CASEY. It appears something happened there. I don't recall. I don't believe I struck Mr. Garfield. Certainly if I had, if there had been any violence the court stenographer would have so noted in the record. Certainly it couldn't have been very serious because the examination continued, everybody seemed to recover their composure and the examination went on for another 80 pages. I haven't struck anyone since high school.

Senator PROXMIRE. What did you mean when you said there would be more violence if Mr. Garfield persisted in his line of questioning? Mr. CASEY. I don't know what I meant.

Senator PROXMIRE. But to the best of your recollection you feel very strongly about it because you say you hadn't struck anybody since high school. You didn't hit him in the face and there was no violence that took place on this occasion?

Mr. CASEY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the Senator yield on that?
Senator PROXMIRE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is quite significant that Mr. Donnellythat was your lawyer, wasn't it-spoke up immediately and said it was a complete falsehood that you had hit anybody.

Mr. CASEY. Yes. And the stenographer would have noted any violence in the record, I am sure.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say that the committee staff made the inquiry and learned that Mr. Garfield was dead and that the reporter, or the one who was serving as the reporter in this matter-this was taking interrogatories, wasn't it?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, for a deposition.

The CHAIRMAN. And that the reporter said he had no recollection of it at all.

Mr. CASEY. Well, Mr. Garfield certainly got my goat. I have to agree to that.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, when you first testified before our committee on February 10, Mr. Casey, you indicated that the Fields plagiarism claim had no merit.

Here is what you said: "Our editors testified they had developed their material directly from the law and regulations." You further testified that the trial consisted of "members of my staff going over our book and showing how the material had been developed from original source law and regulations."

From this testimony I am sure that members of this committee gained the impression that it was your contention that no plagiarism occurred.

I would now like to read sentence by sentence a portion of the original Fields' manuscript given to you in August of 1956 and then read a portion of your work dated

Mr. CASEY. Could I save you some trouble on that, Senator?

I said the claim had no merit. It was a man claiming $175,000. I had always recognized that there were 212 pages which as the judge said were Chinese copies of his work and the circumstances under which they got this were always very confusing. But I had always been ready to pay the value of those 212 pages which I put at $250.

I think that might have been the number that the judge was referring to when he said he wouldn't be surprised if the jury came in with $250. I always admitted 212 pages.

When I say there was no merit I was talking in a broad way.

Senator PROXMIRE. In other words, you concede this was a verbatim repetition of the Fields' manuscript in the Casey book for 211⁄2 pages?

Mr. CASEY. As soon as Mr. Fields brought it to my attention in a letter I went to my editor and asked him what happened, it was reported to me that 212 pages of the Fields' manuscript had appeared in the December supplement.

I promptly telephoned Mr. Fields, promptly wrote him, and I told him what happened. I offered to pay for it. I offered to take whatever steps were necessary to protect his copyright position. I made full disclosure as to what had happened.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why didn't you tell this committee that last month?

Mr. CASEY. Because I was merely characterizing, Senator. I said that the bulk of the trial, the bulk of the time, was devoted to a com

« AnteriorContinuar »