Demonstrators Convicted, Appeals Set

Demonstrators Convicted, Appeals Set

The attorney for 29 persons convicted of trespass for sitting in at the offices of the local draft board Oct. 15 plans to file an appeal of yesterday’s Circuit Court convictions with the State Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

The persons who were protesting U.S. involvement in Viet Nam will be sentenced by Circuit Judge James R. Breakey Jr. at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday.

All are now free on $100 bond with the exception of an out-of-state man, Willie B. Vaughn, 21, of McComb, Miss., who was required to post a $200 bond.

The defendants received the jury verdict calmly. They were then led from the court room to another room where their attorney made bond arrangements and a team of probation officers made brief pre-sentence investigations.

The Tuesday sentencing date was set at the request of Ernest Goodman, defense attorney, who plans to go abroad on Thursday for more than a month. Usually pre-sentence investigations take two or three weeks to complete.

Filing of an appeal will stay execution of any sentence.

The case went to the jury of seven women and five men at 1 p.m. yesterday. The jury was then given an hour lunch period. Deliberations took 30 minutes.

Goodman said he will appeal Judge Breakey’s several rulings which prevented him from presenting testimony that the demonstrators believed that they were acting under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and free assembly. He also tried to introduce his contention that the right to freedom of speech was extended by the Nuremburg trials to establish an obligation of citizens to protest what they consider to be the illegal and immoral actions of their government.

The defense was prevented from using this approach in the trial from the outset by the court’s rulings and the presentation of the prosecution’s case which limited the evidence to the time from 6 p.m. on. 

Goodman said in his opening statement to the jury that he hoped to prove "not only what happened but some of why it happened" so the jury would have a "fuller understanding of the reasons."

The defense attorney made it clear from the start that he would not attempt to deny or disprove the facts of the prosecution's witnesses.

He first called Peter Wolff, 28, of 321 E. Ann, a married graduate student in psychology, who was allowed only to  state details of what he did on the day of the demonstration.

Wolff said he joined a group on the campus and walked with the group to the Selective Service office at 103 E. Liberty, except for a short trip to his home nearby. He stated that "I sat down as part of my protest against U.S. involvement in Viet Nam."

The graduate student said he stayed in the draft board offices until 7:15 p.m., 1 1/4 hours after the group was notified that the building was closed and they must vacate or break the state trespass law.

Goodman's question, "why did you sit there," and his attempt to introduce in evidence a document which the Detroit attorney called a "request for the court to take judicial notice in support of briefs," were both prevented by the judge who sustained Prosecuting Attorney William F. Delhey's objections.

The document, which Goodman said he and Wolff prepared, contained numerous references to newspaper articles to support his contention that the government is not keeping faith with the public in the Vietnamese situation and is not keeping the public informed.

Judge Breakey held that the defenses of trespass are restricted and definite in content. Possible defenses he cited were lawful invitation to be on the premises or having business there.

"The statement that they were protesting the Viet Nam war is in no way a valid defense in this offense,” he said.
"Even if the protest were valid up to 6 p.m., it would have had to terminate at the time the office was closed and notice to depart was given,” he said.

Under cross-examination by Delhey, Wolff said he had not been requested to go the Selective Service office nor did he have any official business with the Ann Arbor draft board. He said he heard the reading of the law by Lt. Col. Robert Lundquist, chief of operations for the state Selective Service, and the order to leave or be arrested by Deputy Police Chief Walter Krasny.

The Rev. J. Daniel Burke, Episcopal chaplain at the University, was called to testify about a meeting with City Administrator Guy C. Larcom Jr. and demonstration leaders on Oct. 14. Goodman had intended to show that "the city knew what was going to happen and had worked out arrangements to handle the situation in an orderly and peaceful way."

Before Burke could identify more than the participants in the meeting and its date, Judge Breakey upheld Delhey's objection, stating that this testimony would be "irrelevant and immaterial."

The court pointed out that Goodman's statement that the demonstrators knew they were to be arrested and the manner in which they were arrested was not involved. "The city was not enforcing a city ordinance. These were proceedings under state law. Any agreement with Larcom does not operate as a possible element of condonation ," the judge said. 

The final defense witness was Duncan Sells, director of student organizations at the U-M since Aug. 10, 1965. He said he is responsible for the "discipline of students and for organizations."

Sells said he knew three of the defendants, Edward I. Geffner, Erica Chester and Gary Rothberger, before the demonstration. he said he was aware of events leading to the sit-in and "I consider them (the three) to be completely sincere in the beliefs they have expressed. Their reputation for sincerity is excellent."

Goodman renewed his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty and the court again denied it. 

Delhey closed with a brief statement of what he said he had proved. He added, "they took the law into their on hands. They were physically assisted out of the building. They are guilty of trespass."

Goodman implored the jury as the "common conscience of the community" to realize that "students today are a different breed than when I went to school. It is difficult for those of other generations to understand them. The present generation has different problems than we had. 

"Our generation has failed enormously in making a world I had hoped for. If I were a student today I would face a question of how to react to a problem. The problems and their appearances reflect problems we did not have," the defense attorney said.

He urged the jury to keep "the nature of students in a democratic society and the nature of the problems facing them" in mind in passing judgement on them. 

He did not dispute any facts put forth by Delhey's witnesses four command officers of the Ann Arbor Police Department and Lt. Col. Lundquist. In fact, he commended the police and the military officer "for everything they did."

Delhey, in rebuttal, pointed out that Goodman had "called upon your conscience. Under our system cases are decided on facts."

I seldom use personal opinion in trial but I disagree that our generation has failed enormously. Our country gives us a lot of freedoms and rights. I accept the responsibility to uphold the United States and to cherish it. Part of that is upholding its laws," he said.

"This was a deliberate violation of the law. They heard the direction to leave and they sat there and sang songs. They stayed in open defiance. They claimed no right to be there but merely sang and made it incumbent for 12 uniformed policemen to carry them out," Delhey said. 

The police had more important things to do that day. But it was necessary that the draft board's confidential records be protected," the prosecutor said.

Commenting on Goodman's remark that the defendants are students, Delhey said the "duties of a citizen are the same for all of us, to abide by the law. There is a prohibition against taking the law into our own hands. Each and every one of these 29 violated that duty as a citizen of the county, state and nation," he said. 

In his charge to the jury Judge Breakey said jurors must consider whether the group had lawful authority to remain and that they must not be guided be sympathy or revenge.

Before the jury returned with its verdict, the judge cautioned the audience "against any response when the verdict is given." The first day of trial, drawing a jury, brought two reprimands from the judge for laughing and "tittering."

Although the trial attracted a larger audience than is usual in courts here and more mass media representatives, order was maintained in the courtroom and halls by six new sheriff's deputies for the three days of trial.

Those found guilty included 22 present students at the U-M, an assistant professor of sociology, a research assistant in the Mental Health Research Institute, three former students and two persons who have never been affiliated with the University as students.

An additional six students have pleaded guilty and await sentencing, another is awaiting trial. Three women defendants, all students, did not appeal from Municipal Court.

Those convicted yesterday are William C. Ayers, 21; David J. Bernstein, 24; David L. Bloom, 20; Anita S. Brothman, 21; Douglas S. Chapman, 18; Eric Chester, 22; Samuel Friedman, 23; Joseph P. Gaughn, 19; Richard Gordon, 18; Alan H. Jones, 28; Paul Kanter, 20; Laurie Lipson, 22; Francie M. Lipton, 19; Jeremy Lustig, 28; Robert M. Meier, 18; Patrick Murphy, 19; John Raynor, 23; Gary Rothberger, 20; Richard R. Shortt, 21; David Smokler, 20; George Steinitz, 21; and Wolff. All of these are now U-M students.

Also convicted were Thomas F. Mayer, 28, an assistant professor, and Michael D. Locker, 23, research assistant.

Former students not enrolled this term were Edward I. Geffner, 26; Alan M. Valusek, 20; and Thomas F. Zimmerman, 19. Two others who have never been affiliated with the U-M are Tommie L. Suber, 17, of Warren, and Willie B. Vaughn,21 of McComb, Miss.