Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Senator ERVIN. I want to ask two or three questions. Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Mr. McCord told you that he had been furnished information from the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice and from other sources, which led him to believe that there might be some violence practiced against the President or his surrogates in the campaign, did he not? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And that was the kind of defense he wanted to interpose, was it not? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you studied that defense and briefed it and Judge Sirica held, during the progress of the trial, that he would charge that that defense was unavailable, legally speaking? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Then the only defense you were left with was the defense of lack of criminal intent on the part of Mr. McCord? Mr. ALCH. If it can be called a defense; yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Well, as you told him, that was a very weak defense, and I think that is because it is a rule of law, is it not, that every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own acts, and the natural consequences of McCord's own acts was that he was caught in the Watergate? Mr. ALCH. That is correct.
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Senator ERVIN. Now, you suggested that you might solve some conflict in testimony by a polygraph test? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Do you not know, as a lawyer, that polygraph tests are not admitted in evidence in any court in the United States? Mr. ALCH. I know - I believe that in some jurisdictions, Senator, if there is a stipulation by the adversary parties to the effect that whatever the results are, if the judge in the case determines that it is given by a competent examiner under proper circumstances, it is admissible. I also know of recent Federal decisions. The reason I say this is because, as a defense attorney, we sometimes utilize that, both for investigation and to try to get it into evidence. I am also cognizant of recent Federal decisions which have held that under certain circumstances, it is admissible. Senator ERVIN. Do you not know, as a lawyer, that the overwhelming majority of all judicial decisions are to the effect that polygraph tests will not be received as evidence? Mr. ALCH. Senator, I was asked by Senator Baker as to any suggestions I could offer as to how to resolve the question of credibility, which understandably, to me is most important. I gave the Senator that answer. Senator ERVIN. My question had no relation to that. My question was do you not know, as a lawyer, that results of polygraph tests are not received as evidence by any court in the United States? Mr. ALCH. I do not. I believe that there are certain jurisdictions now, today, there are opinions which state they are admissible. I believe, and this is just my opinion, that, as time goes on, they will eventually be admissible. But I think they are admissible in some jurisdictions today. Senator ERVIN. My question is this: Do you not know, as a lawyer, that the overwhelming majority of all courts in the United States hold that polygraph tests are not admissible in evidence? Mr. ALCH. Yes, but the trend, in my opinion, is beginning to go the other way. And I think it should. I have faith in them. Senator ERVIN. There are 96 different Federal judges in the United States-district judges. No, more than that. There are 96 separate Federal districts in the United States and an old lawyer in St. Louis made a speech some time ago in which he said: Do not waste your time looking up the law in advance, because you can find some Federal district court decision that will sustain any proposition you make. Mr. ALCH. Senator, I know from my own experience that a great many, if not all, prosecutors heavily rely on them.
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Senator ERVIN. Yes. I happen to have made a study of polygraph tests, and I call them 20th century witchcraft. I think a brazen liar who is calm can pass one without any difficulty, and a truthful person who is nervous could pass one with great difficulty. Senator BAKER. I would like to say something, and I will say it either now or when you finish. Senator ERVIN. Say it now. Senator BAKER. To begin with, I did not bring up the question of the lie detector test - the polygraph test. I asked the witness very properly for any suggestions he had as to how we could arrive at the truth in a contradictory situation. Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. This is not a court of law. We are not bound by the rules of evidence. If we were, we would not have gotten two-thirds of the testimony we have. We would have been out on the hearsay rule. But this is a fact-finding group and I am not suggesting that we compel these witnesses to take a polygraph test. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that if these people who are in conflict want to do that, I think we would do a disservice if we did not permit them to and receive that for whatever it is worth. If I were a sitting judge and had to decide whether the results of that test were hearsay or not, I would be hard put to conclude that it was not hearsay or was not in violation of a constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. But I am not a judge. I hope I never am a judge. Senator ERVIN. Well, I have followed the rules of evidence so far as I can, because I think the experience of the rest and the administration of justice shows it is about the best way to ascertain truth. Senator BAKER. Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, if you will listen to me for just a second. I would like Mr. Dash to hear it, too. And I do not have any idea what Mr. Fensterwald will say about that, about whether he wants to take a polygraph test or not. If he does not, there is nothing anybody is going to do about it. Nor is anybody, as far as I am concerned, going to make any comment on it. That is yet to be determined. But if we are suddenly going to be bound by the rules of evidence, we have given them only the most glancing pass so far in this hearing. Then I would suggest as an alternative possibility, Mr. Chairman, that if it is indeed the embodiment of 20th century witchcraft - which I do not believe, because I think virtually every police department in the United States now uses it in its investigative work - I would suggest instead the possibility that the staff - that the staff as a part of its investigative technique, undertake those results and then this committee will decide whether it has any value or not.
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Senator ERVIN. Did not Judge Sirica state several times during the course of the trial on criminal charges, that the lawyers on neither side of the case were asking the right questions in respect to who or whether the accused were hired to break into Watergate, and if so, by whom they were hired? Mr. ALCH. My recollection, Senator, is that if those questions were asked by Chief Judge Sirica, they related to the prosecution. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Now, as a matter of fact, did it not come out in the evidence that Sturgis, Barker, Martinez, and Gonzales had approximately $4,200 in bills whose serial numbers showed that they came from the campaign funds contributed to reelect the President? Mr. ALCH. I have no specific recall. That may be correct. Senator ERVIN. You do not recall that? Mr. ALCH. Not specifically. Senator ERVIN. Do you recall it otherwise than specifically? Do you not recall evidence to that effect? Mr. ALCH. I do not recall the exact amount. I remember that there was money introduced. Senator ERVIN. And do you not know that they were traced in the evidence, the serial numbers, to a bank in Miami taken out of the $114,000 deposited, $89,000 of which came out of the Mexican bank and $25,000 through a check of Mr. Dahlberg? Mr. ALCH. I believe that was the evidence. Senator ERVIN. You were told by your client that John Mitchell was involved and he told you that he had been told that by Liddy, did he not? Mr. ALCH. He did. Senator ERVIN. And he knew that Liddy and McCord and Hunt had all worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President? Mr. ALCH. He did. Senator ERVIN. Yes; and Mr. Magruder. Were any questions asked by anybody to indicate whether or not anybody other than those three were involved in the Watergate? Mr. ALCH. By me? Senator ERVIN. By anybody. Mr. ALCH. I do not recall. I did not. Disclosure from Mr. McCord regarding what Mr. Liddy told him came after Mr. Magruder had testified.
Testimony of Gerald Alch - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Senator ERVIN. Now, as a matter of fact, did not the Department of Justice maintain, clear up to the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Attorney General had the right and power to exercise electronic surveillance over persons suspected of domestic subversion without getting an order of the court, or the President, acting through the Attorney General? Mr. ALCH. I do not recall that. If you are referring, and I am asking this respectfully, are you referring, Senator, to when there was an appeal regarding whether or not the contents of the monitored calls should be divulged? Senator ERVIN. Yes, but do you not know as a lawyer, talking about several district court cases on that point, some of which held that the President had the inherent power to wiretap without an order of the court in cases of domestic subversion, and others held to the contrary? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, 2 (lays after the Watergate break-in, handed down the unanimous decision that that power did not exist? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. Mr. ALCH. Am I excused, Mr. Chairman or shall I return? Senator ERVIN. We will excuse you, subject to recall.