Melvin D. Dixon - Police Officer - Case in Chief

For Viewing Only
Forum rules
Since some of the different parts of the trial transcript are extremely large, posting has been disabled in them. Use the Baniszewski Trial Discussions for postable topics.
 
Posts: 139  Images: 550  Joined: August 8th, 2010, 7:35 am
Location: Springfield, Illinois

Melvin D. Dixon - Police Officer - Case in Chief

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 7:16 pm

THE STATE OF INDIANA, TO MAINTAIN THE ISSUES ON IT'S BEHALF, OFFERED IT'S EVIDENCE IN CHIEF AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

MELVIN D. DIXON , a witness called on behalf of the State of Indiana,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Will you state your name to the Court and jury, sir?

A. Melvin D. Dixon.

Q. Are you a police officer for the City of Indianapolis?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. Sixteen years.

Q. Were you a police officer for the City of Indianapolis October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In that capacity, did you have occasion to go to 3850 East New York Street, Marion County, Indiana?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time of day or night did you receive the run?

A. 6:27 P.M.

Q. I am sorry, I did not hear you.

A. 6:27 P.M.

Q. Where were you at the time?

A. In a patrol car.

Q. Do you know your location?

A. St. Clair and Ritter.

Q. What time did you arrive at 3850 East New York Street?

A. Approximately three minutes later.

Q. Upon your arrival at that location, what did you do or see?

A. I arrived at that location and they opened the door for me and I was admitted in.

Q. Who was there upon your arrival?

A. Mrs. Wright was the most predominate person I noticed.

Q. Do you see her in the courtroom?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you identify Mrs. Wright to the court and jury?

A. Mrs. Wright is sitting at the end. (indicating defendant Gertrude Baniszewski)

MR. NEW: Let the record show the witness identifies the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski.

Q. What did you then do?

MR. BOWMAN: A preliminary question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. FORREST BOWMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
COY HUBBARD AND JOHN STEPHAN BANISZEWSKI

Q. Officer, was the door open as you approached?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see who opened it?

A. I could not be certain, no, I did not see that.

Q. You did not see that?

A. No.

Q. After the door was opened, you entered?

A. Yes.

MR. BOWMAN: Further questions in the absence of the jury, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled at this time.

Q. After entering that house, did you make certain observations?

A. I was interested in what I received a run for.

Q. Did you make certain observations inside that house?

A. Yes.

Q. At that address, 3850 East New York Street?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you see this defendant there at that time?

A. No, sir.

Q. You did not see him there at that time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see him there any time when you were there?

A. No, sir.

MR. BOWMAN: Your Honor, I do ask permission again to renew this in the absence of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: It is for the purpose of a Motion to Suppress.

THE COURT: Overruled at this time. You may proceed, Mr. New.

MR. BOWMAN: I am not through on my Motion to Suppress.

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. BOWMAN: I would like to put another witness on. I want to offer testimony from another witness. I asked to do it in the absence of the jury. If I must do it in the presence of the jury, I will.

THE COURT: I think it is a little out of order to bring in other witnesses. If you want an independent hearing on a Motion to Suppress -

MR. BOWMAN: I want a hearing at this time. I prefer it be in the absence of the jury.

THE COURT: Shall I tell the jury to come back tomorrow morning?

MR. BOWMAN: I don't think it will take me very long. I don't think it will take over five minutes.

THE COURT: Which defendant is asking for it?

MR. BOWMAN: John Stephan Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Overruled at this time.

MR. BOWMAN: May I not put on another witness at this time?

THE COURT: We have a witness on the stand. Let's go with him. When I think your client requires the jury out of the room, I will give you an opportunity. There has to be an orderly process of procedure.

MR. BOWMAN: Those are all the questions I have of this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. New.

DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. What, if anything, did Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski do or say upon your immediate arrival at the door?

MR. BOWMAN: To which these two defendants object, Your Honor, for the reason it is not shown they were present. It would be hearsay as to them, and as to John Stephan Baniszewski it would be a violation of his right under the 4th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.

THE COURT: Overruled for the last reason assigned. Sustained as to the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you will ignore the evidence in arriving at a verdict as to the defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: Unless the evidence produced by this evidence shows Paula Marie to be on the premises at the same time, I move the Court to suppress the testimony as regards her.

THE COURT: Overruled as to suppress. The jury will ignore the question and answer in arriving at a verdict as to Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. ERBECKER: On behalf of the person named in the question, Gertrude Baniszewski, she objects for the following reasons. Any conversation or any questions or any interrogation by this officer at the time he got there was made in violation of Escobedo vs Illinois, in that the officer failed and neglected to properly, effectively and completely warn her of her constitutional right to remain silent. For the further reason that, any conversation at that time would be in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article 1, Section 14 which provides no person in any criminal prosecution be compelled to testify against himself. For the further reason that, the record is barren of any warrant for the arrest of Gertrude Baniszewski and for the further reason that there is a total absence of probable cause for any interrogation of Gertrude Baniszewski. The record is barren that Gertrude Baniszewski knowingly, willingly, and understandingly gave her consent or any waiver as to any conversation with the police officer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Officer, what did you say or do immediately upon your arrival?

THE COURT: Is there a question before this witness that remains unanswered?

MR. NEW: I will withdraw the last question.

Q. What, if anything, did Mrs. Wright or Mrs. Baniszewski do or say upon your immediate arrival at the door?

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Same objection, same ruling.

MR. BOWMAN: It happened again. If Mr. New is going to renew the question, we are going to have to repeat the objection.

THE COURT: The objection will apply to this question, regardless how many times it is repeated.

Q. What did she say or do?

A. I asked where the girl was and she immediately took me upstairs.

Q. Describe the stairway and -

MR. ERBECKER: The same objection all the way.

THE COURT: Overruled. Show a continuing objection for everybody.

MR. BOWMAN: We object on behalf of these defendants, based on the 4th and 14th amendments.

THE COURT: The same objections as before, the same ruling and the same reasons given will be noted by the Court Reporter and if she forgets, she is taking down what I am saying, and the objections will be overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: Gertrude Baniszewski further objects to any examination, investigation or search of the premises by the officers which is in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution to the United States.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Describe the location of the stairway.

A. The stairway was straight in from the doorway, located on the north wall.

Q. Did you go first or Mrs. Wright go first?

A. I believe I went first.

Q. Did she follow you?

A. Yes.

Q. Immediately behind you?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go upon your arrival upstairs?

A. I went immediately to the room in the northwest segment of the house.

Q. What sort of room was it?

A. A bedroom.

Q. What, if anything, did you see upon your arrival in that room?

A. The first thing I noticed was a girl laying on the mattress.

Q. Did you see anything else in the room?

A. Yes, sir, there was a bed.

Q. Where was the mattress?

A. The bed was in the southwest corner of the room and the mattress lay directly at the foot.

Q. Describe the girl.

A. Physical appearances?

Q. What you saw, whether she was dressed, her color?

A. The girl was dressed. She had on a sweater and slacks. She was laying on the mattress.

Q. Was Mrs. Baniszewski or Mrs. Wright with you as you first observed her?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have conversation with Mrs. Wright at that time?

A. I had the information taken down in my notebook for my report. I asked her all the necessary information.

Q. What did Mrs. Wright say, if anything?

MR. ERBECKER: I ask permission to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. WILLIAM ERBECKER, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
GERTRUDE BANISZEWSKI

Q. Officer, at that time did you warn Gertrude Baniszewski or Mrs. Wright of her constitutional right to remain silent and say nothing?

A. I had no reason to tell her that.

Q. Did you or not?

A. No, sir.

Q. At that time, you were carrying out the process of interrogating her with reference to a dead body or something?

A. An investigation, yes.

Q. Police investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the investigation was directed to 3850 East New York Street, was it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. She was head of the house there, wasn't she?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time I am going to object to any conversation between this officer and Gertrude Baniszewski for the reason heretofore given.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: It is my understanding the objections I previously made with respect to hearsay on behalf of these two defendants continuing in this subject, with continuing admonition of the Court. In order to be certain I renew my objection to this question in their behalf, it is hearsay outside their presence.

THE COURT: That objection is well taken as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski and Paula Marie Baniszewski. The jury will ignore the evidence in arriving at a verdict as to defendants Paula Marie Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Officer, recite what you said and what Mrs. Wright said at that time.

A. I asked all the necessary information for a report.

Q. What was that, what did she say and what did you say.

A. I asked the girl's name.

Q. What did she say?

A. Sylvia Marie Likens. I asked her age and she said sixteen. I had already had Mrs. Wright's name down.

Q. What name did she give you?

A. Wright.

Q. Did she tell you where her husband was?

A. She said he was in the army.

Q. What else did you say and what else did she say?

A. I asked where her parents were and why she was here. She stated she was taking care of her.

Q. I am sorry I could not hear, Officer.

A. She stated she was taking care of her for the parents who were in Florida.

Q. Do you recall anything else that might have been said at that time?

A. Not a great deal more.

Q. Officer, at the time about which you are testifying, were pictures taken?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were they taken under your supervision?

A. From my call.

Q. Were you present when they were taken?

A. Yes.

Q. I will hand you what was marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 1 and ask if that is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene about which you have been testifying October 26, 1965, as you first observed it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 2. I will ask you if that is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene about which you have testified October 26, 1965 as you observed it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you present when Exhibit No. 2 was taken?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification as State's Exhibit No. 3. I will ask you if that is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene about which you have been testifying to this jury, as you observed it October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you present when that picture was taken?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification State's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you if that is a true and accurate reproduction of the scene as you observed it October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you present when that particular photograph was taken?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. NEW: The State offers in evidence State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

MR. ERBECKER: I ask permission to ask a preliminary question, if I may.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. WILLIAM ERBECKER, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
GERTRUDE BANISZEWSKI

Q. You did not take the pictures, did you, Officer?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were you present when it was developed?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, the likeness depicted in State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are identical with the scene depicted to you, as you observed the scenes in that house yourself?

A. It looks identical.

Q. And is there anything in these exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that leads you to believe they are identical, other than the fact you know some pictures were taken in your presence?

A. They are identical from the first looks I got.

Q. As a matter of fact, after they were taken, you were told they were the same pictures taken in your presence, were you?

A. Those are the same.

Q. Were you there when they were developed?

MR. NEW: I did not hear the answer.

A. They were the same. I was not there when they were developed, no, sir.

Q. At that time did you have a warrant to go in the house?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were you in pursuit of a felon, have reasonable grounds to think a felony had been committed in that house?

A. When I observed the girl, yes, sir.

Q. After you observed the girl?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you gained entrance in the house first before you thought there had been a felony committed, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you formed your conclusion a felony had been committed after you had viewed the entire premises, including the body of the girl, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: Your Honor, the defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, objects to State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the reason that any information or any evidence obtained by this officer was illegal in that there was no warrant for her arrest, that prior to the taking - to seeing the objects portrayed in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4, the officer did not have reasonable, probable grounds for thinking a felony had been committed. The entrance and intrusion in the premises at 3850 East New York Street was an invasion of the right of privacy guaranteed under the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution and made obligatory by the 14th amendment. That any information obtained by the officer by virtue of a warrantless arrest, because of lack of probable cause, is null and void. For that reason, Gertrude Baniszewski objects to the introduction in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: A preliminary question for both of them, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. FORREST BOWMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
COY HUBBARD AND JOHN STEPHAN BANISZEWSKI

Q. These photographs taken of the scene you observed at 3850 East New York Street, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you entered that house as you have stated. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The door being opened for you and you don't know who opened that door?

A. I don't know that.

Q. At the time you went in there, were you in pursuit of a felon?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Did you have a warrant for anyone you believe in that house?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have a warrant in your possession for the arrest of John Stephan Baniszewski?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have a warrant for the arrest of Coy Hubbard in your possession?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have a search warrant for the premises at 3850 East New York Street?

A. No, sir.

Q. At the time you arrived and entered the house, did you have any reason to believe a felony had been committed?

A. No, sir.

Q. You did not see John Baniszewski there, is that correct?

A. To my knowledge, no, sir.

Q. Now, you testified No. 1 was a true and accurate representation of the scene as you first observed it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that true of No. 2, 3 and 4?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. To refresh your recollection, Officer, this I will show you here is Exhibit No. 3 in my right hand. Would that be true with respect to No. 3?

A. Would it be the same photograph?

Q. Would your answer be the same, that it is a true and accurate representation of the scene as you first observed it?

A. That is true.

Q. That is the same with respect to No. 4?

A. That is right.

Q. No. 1?

A. Right.

Q. No. 2?

A. Right.

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, there have been some alterations in the scene between 1, 2, 3 and 4?

MR. NEW: We object, Your Honor, that is not preliminary. That is cross examination.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. BOWMAN: The defendant John Baniszewski objects to State's Exhibit No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the reason they were gained contrary to his rights under the 4th and 14th amendments, and renews his request previously made to offer evidence on that and the defendants John Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard object to these exhibits at this time for the reason that they are inflammatory in nature and have not been connected to these defendants.

THE COURT: I don't know they are inflammatory. I tried to get a look at them a while ago.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs joins Mr. Bowman in the same objection and the additional one they are not only inflammatory, I think Exhibit No. 3 is redundant and accumulative depiction of what is depicted in Exhibit No. 1, 2 and 4.

MR. ERBECKER: Before the Court rules, I would like to make an additional objection, Your Honor. The defendant, Gertrude Baniszewski, further objects for the reason that the corpus delicti has not been established in this case and she adopts the reasons and grounds heretofore advanced and made by other defendants, which she now adopts as her own.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. RICE: May it please the Court, Paula Marie Baniszewski also objects to the admission on the grounds the four exhibits are cumulative and prejudicial and further there is no connection between the subject matter of the photographs, the background of the scene, and this defendant.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors, there will be a brief recess, five minutes. You will retire to the jury room. During this recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express an opinion till the case is finally submitted to you. The jury will retire to the jury room and the alternate jurors.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Sit still, Officer. Unless I missed something in the first few questions, Mr. New, is there any evidence here how he happened to decide to go to this place?

MR. NEW: How he arrived?

THE COURT: How he decided to go there? Read the first few questions back, Mrs. Court Reporter.

THE REPORTER READ THE FIRST PART OF THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: The objections of the defendants made to the introduction of State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 sustained at this time. Call in the jury.

MR. ERBECKER: For the purpose of the record, may I ask I be given an opportunity to make objections first, since it is at the top, to avoid confusion?

THE COURT: I think that is proper. Suppose you are a little slow and there is an answer? Let's try to proceed in an orderly fashion and in the fashion in which the indictment is brought on the face, if we can. Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: The objections of the defendants, made to the introduction of Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 sustained.

DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Officer Dixon who directed you to go to 3850 East New York Street at 6:27 P.M.

A. The police dispatcher.

Q. What was the direction of the dispatcher?

MR. ERBECKER: We object to anything said to this officer.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. Any other objections?

MR. RICE: We will object on the same grounds.

THE COURT: Sustained on the objection of Paula Marie Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: I will join those objections.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

MR. NEDEFF: Richard Hobbs objects.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. For what reason did you go there?

A. I was dispatched there to "investigate, a girl may be dead".

MR. ERBECKER: We object and move that be stricken and the jury admonished.

THE COURT: Motion to strike the answer is sustained. The jury will ignore the answer in arriving at a verdict in this case.

MR. BOWMAN: Is it stricken as to all defendants?

THE COURT: Everybody.

MR. NEW: The State now renews the offer of State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3, 4.

MR. ERBECKER: The same objection heretofore made and Gertrude Baniszewski further objects in that there was no probable cause and the officer was not in pursuit of a felon and the officer did not have a warrant and that the intrusion by the officer and the subsequent taking of any photographs is an invasion of Gertrude Baniszewski rights under the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 12 and 13, and the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

MR. RICE: An objection for Paula Marie Baniszewski as heretofore, for the same reason.

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is a violation the 4th and 14th amendments, and again renew Offer to Prove with respect to that in the absence of the jury. They are inflammatory and has not been connected with these two defendants.

MR. NEDEFF: Mr. Hobbs renews his motion, Your Honor, and for the additional reason those photos actually are hearsay, demonstrative pictures and are hearsay and there is no connection by this officer or any witness connecting these pictures with Richard Hobbs.

THE COURT: Objections overruled. Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 admitted in evidence.

MR. NEW: At this time, the State asks permission to have the jury view these exhibits.

THE COURT: The record will show "shown to the jury".

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 1, 2, 3 and 4 WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
SHOWN TO THE JURY, AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

STATE'S EXHIBITS NO. 1 AND 2 ATTACHED.
(1. being a side view picture of body on mattress)
(2. being a overhead picture of body on mattress)

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 3 (being a large photograph) FILED SEPARATELY.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 4 (being a large photograph) FILED SEPARATELY.

Q. Officer Dixon, is 3850 East New York Street in Marion County, Indiana?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. This particular person you saw lying on the mattress, who is depicted in State's Exhibits No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, was it a human being?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, did you remain on the scene till the coroner came?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you remain on the scene till Officer Kaiser came?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was this particular girl dead upon your arrival?

A. Yes.

MR. BOWMAN: That is a conclusion of the witness. There is no showing he has sufficient capacity.

THE COURT: Objection sustained, the answer will go out.

Q. Officer, did you have further conversation with Mrs. Wright at the scene?

A. Compiled in the report. I took all the information I thought necessary.

Q. Did she give you anything while you were there?

A. Yes, she did.

MR. BOWMAN: These two defendants object for the reason it would be res inter alios acta.

THE COURT: Overruled for the reason assigned and for any other reason because the question is "did she give you anything".

MR. ERBECKER: In behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski, I object for the same reasons heretofore advanced.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. What, if anything?

THE COURT: The question is, "Did she give you anything" which remains unanswered.

A. She gave me a note.

MR. BOWMAN: I move to strike that.

THE COURT: The answer will be stricken. Did she give you anything, yes or no?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What, if anything, did she give you?

MR. ERBECKER: The same objection for Gertrude Baniszewski, the same objection heretofore given and for the further reason that there has been no corpus delicta proven in this case and for all other grounds and reasons.

THE COURT: Overruled, Parker vs Indiana. Any other?

MR. BOWMAN: Res inter alios acta as to my clients.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Officer, I hand you what is marked State's Exhibit No. 5. Can you look at that?

THE COURT: I don't know if we got an answer.

Q. What did she give you?

A. A note.

Q. I will hand you what is marked State's Exhibit No. 5. Will you examine it, please? Have you examined it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the note she gave you?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. NEW: The State offers in evidence State's Exhibit No. 5.

MR. ERBECKER: I ask permission to ask a preliminary question.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. WILLIAM ERBECKER, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
GERTRUDE BANISZEWSKI

Q. At the time, Officer, at the time Gertrude Wright gave you this note, had you ever advised her of her constitutional rights to remain silent, say nothing?

A. No, sir.

Q. Had you ever advised her she had a right to talk to an attorney?

A. No, sir.

Q. Prior to the time she gave you this, you asked her some questions as to what she had to do with this affair, did you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. When did she give you this note, with reference to seeing the body, before or after?

A. Afterwards.

Q. Afterwards?

A. Afterwards.

Q. At the time she gave you this note, had you been attempting to elicit information from her about the dead girl's body there?

A. Trying to find out if she knew who done it.

Q. You asked Gertrude Baniszewski a lot of questions, didn't you?

A. Not a great deal.

Q. How much time was consumed from the time you first saw that body till she gave you this note, in terms of minutes?

A. A very short period of time.

Q. She gave the note to you. Did you request she tell you what happened there?

A. She told me how the girl came in the house.

MR. BOWMAN: These defendants are going to ask those preliminary questions be asked in the absence of the jury. I think Mr. Erbecker probably has a right to ask them. I think he is beginning to prejudice these defendants.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. You did question Gertrude Baniszewski for some time after you saw the body and before you got this note, didn't you?

A. That is right.

Q. After you saw the body, you informed Gertrude Baniszewski that she would have to remain there in the house, didn't you?

A. No, sir.

Q. She never gave you permission to enter the house, did she?

A. I was invited in.

Q. By whom?

A. Whoever opened the door.

Q. Was it Gertrude Baniszewski?

A. As I stated before, I don't know who opened the door.

Q. Was there a verbal invitation for you to come in the house?

MR. NEW: We object. This is not preliminary.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't recall anything being verbal, no, sir.

Q. Was there an engraved, written invitation for you to go in the house?

A. The door was pushed open for me. I was called there. I presumed it was proper for me to go in.

Q. You presumed it was proper for you to go in?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There was no invitation by Gertrude Baniszewski any time for you to enter the house?

A. Not verbally.

Q. Was it written?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was there any smoke signals around, inviting you in?

A. No.

MR. ERBECKER: I am going to object to the introduction of this State's Exhibit No. 5 for the reasons heretofore given and for the further reason that the officer's presence, participation, interrogation and acquisition of State's Exhibit No. 5 is in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of the United States and Articles 1, 6 and 13 of the Indiana Constitution and a violation of the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in Escobedo vs Illinois.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RICE: A preliminary question of the officer on behalf of Paula Marie Baniszewski.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS,
BY MR. GEORGE RICE, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
PAULA MARIE BANISZEWSKI

Q. Mr. Dixon, at the time entry was made of the house by you, was any other person present at the time you first encountered the defendant, Mrs. Baniszewski?

A. Anybody present in the room besides her?

Q. In your company?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you identify these people?

A. I can't identify them. I paid no attention to them.

Q. Can you tell us whether they were adults or children?

A. Glancing, I would say children.

Q. Can tell us how many?

A. That I would not be sure of. I might say two or three.

Q. Were they all females or males or mixed, do you recall?

A. It seems to me there were more females than males there.

Q. Are you able to say whether or not the defendant, Paula Marie Baniszewski seated behind me, was one of these people?

A. That I could not be certain of.

Q. Your answer is, in the absence of certainty - no, you can't identify her?

A. No, sir.

MR. BOWMAN: Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski object because it is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained as to the defendants Paula Marie Baniszewski, Coy Hubbard, John Stephan Baniszewski. Overruled as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. Show in evidence.

MR. NEW: At this time, the State asks permission to read note and have the jury view it.

MR. ERBECKER: I should like to make a further objection on behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski. I move the Court to reconsider it's ruling and advance the following grounds. It is hearsay and for the further reason there is no evidence in the record to show it was not written by the decedent.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BOWMAN: I object to it being read or passed to the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled. Ladies and Gentlemen there will be a recess for two minutes. You will retire to the jury room. During the recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion on the case till it is finally submitted to you. Jury and alternate jurors are excused. Court will remain in session, about two minutes.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: You may remain seated. Mr. New, any reading of this to the jury at this time - they will have to be admonished they are to ignore it in arriving at a verdict as to the other defendants and repetition of that is perhaps alright. This is twice, I think, today. Does this have to be read to the jury at this time?

MR. NEW: Of course it does not have to, Your Honor.

THE COURT: As the evidence develops, it may be a different situation.

MR. NEW: It is more intelligible if it is read to the jury. We may not have another time. I think it is more intelligible if it is read without embellishment. Anything of this kind on two pages - detailed - is better read. I don't think it is harmful or prejudicial, with an admonition.

THE COURT: I wanted to be very careful in this case about admonitions because of the numerous requests and re-requests - if that is a good word to use - about separate trials. I don't want to let it get so cumulative because of that. I think it is evidence - as far as the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski is concerned - admissible evidence rather as far as she is concerned, but not to the other defendants.

MR. NEW: I am sure the Court has already admonished the jury on other evidence. Likewise, is true here.

THE COURT: I am trying to impress with repeated admonitions. You want it read now?

MR. NEW: I don't see any harm in reading it. It can be viewed. I don't see harm in reading it.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

THE COURT: The State's Exhibit No. 5 is admitted in evidence as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski only. Does the State care to read it to the jury and show it?

MR. NEW: Your Honor, before Exhibit No. 5 is viewed or heard by the jury, I would like to ask another question.

THE COURT: Alright.

WHEREUPON STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 5 (being a note) WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE,
AND MADE A PART OF THIS RECORD AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:

To Mr. + Mrs. Likens,
I went with a gang of boys in the middle of the night. And they said that they would pay me if I said give them something so. I got in the car and they all got what they wanted and they did and when they got finished they beat me up and left sores on my face and all over my body. And they also put on my stomach, I am a prostitute and proud of it. I have done just about every thing that I could do just to make Gertie mad and cost Gertie more money than she's got. I've torn up a new mattress and peed on it. I have also cost Gertie doctor bills that she really can't pay and made Gertie a nervous wreck. I have broken another wooden chair. I have been making Gertie a nervous wreck and all her kids. I cost $35.00 for a hospital in one day and I wouldn't do nothing around the house. I have done any thing to do things to make things out of the way to make things worse for them.


END STATE'S EXHIBIT NO 5.

DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. Officer, was the defendant Richard Hobbs present at the scene?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he ever arrive at the scene?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. While you were still there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. While the defendant Mrs. Wright was still there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How soon after you arrived would you estimate he came?

A. Approximately fifteen minutes.

Q. Would you identify the person you say is Richard Hobbs to the jury, please?

A. Yes, sir, the boy sitting behind Mr. Nedeff, with glasses. (indicating defendant Richard Hobbs)

Q. How is he dressed?

A. I believe he has on a brown or tan jacket and gray trousers. It is hard to see.

Q. Did you discuss the contents of Exhibit No. 5, or the note you were given by Mrs. Wright, with Richard Hobbs at that time?

A. No, sir.

MR. ERBECKER: I object unless Hobbs is shown Gertrude Baniszewski was there.

THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any discussion with Richard Hobbs concerning the contents of the note, concerning the girl going out with a gang?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. NEW: I will withdraw the question.

MR. BOWMAN: I ask the jury be admonished to disregard the question.

THE COURT: He withdrew.

Q. Did you have conversation with Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Relate what it was.

MR. ERBECKER: We object unless it is shown Mrs. Baniszewski was there within hearing distance.

THE COURT: Sustained unless it is shown she was there.

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained as to said defendants, John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard.

Q. Who was present when you had the conversation?

A. Hobbs, and police officers

Q. Was Mrs. Baniszewski there where she could hear what he said?

A. No, sir.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: Also these two defendants?

THE COURT: Yes. Before you start reading State's Exhibit No. 5, Ladies and Gentlemen, this exhibit has been admitted in evidence only as to defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. You will ignore reading and looking at this exhibit, No. 5, in arriving at a verdict in this case insofar as pertains to defendants John Stephan Baniszewski, Paula Marie Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard. You may read it.

STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 5 (being a note) WAS READ TO THE JURY
BY MR. LEROY NEW, AND WAS EXAMINED BY THE JURY.

THE COURT: Again let me admonish the jury that was read to you only as evidence insofar as pertains to the case of State of Indiana vs Gertrude Baniszewski. You will ignore the reading of that note insofar as it pertains to the defendants Paula Marie Baniszewski, John Stephan Baniszewski, Richard Hobbs and Coy Hubbard, because it has not been admitted in evidence as to those said defendants. Next question, please.

Q. Officer, you have stated you later talked with the defendant Richard Hobbs?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say and what did he say and who was present at the time?

MR. ERBECKER: We object unless it is shown Gertrude Baniszewski was present at the time.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Gertrude Baniszewski.

MR. BOWMAN: These two defendants object.

THE COURT: Sustained as to defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski.

MR. RICE: We object unless she was present.

THE COURT: Sustained as to Paula Maris Baniszewski. Answer the question.

A. I asked him if he was in the house when Sylvia came in the house and he said "Yes, he was".

Q. What else did he say, if anything, and what else did you say?

MR. BOWMAN: We object.

MR. ERBECKER: We object.

THE COURT: Same ruling.

A. I asked him what she was dressed like. He said she had on a pair of slacks and also a sweater.

Q. Was anything else said by the defendant Richard Hobbs?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see any of the other defendants present at that time?

A. I am sorry - somebody coughed.

Q. Did you see any of the other defendants present in the home at about the time you are testifying?

A. Mrs. Wright, as far as I know.

Q. And Hobbs?

A. Hobbs came later.

Q. Did you later see any of the defendants seated at the defense table?

A. The little girl with a purple sweater on.

Q. Did you see this girl?

A. I could not be sure, no, I retract that.

Q. Did you talk with the lady with the purple sweater?

A. No, I don't believe I did.

Q. Now, Officer, did you remain there till the coroner came?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the coroner who arrived, if you know?

A. Dr. Kebel.

Q. And did you remain there while Dr, Kebel examined the body?

MR. BOWMAN: We object. It is suggestive and leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What part of the house did you view, besides the upstairs?

A. I was in the front room and also the kitchen.

Q. Did you go in the basement?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you look down in the basement?

A. No, sir.

Q. How do you get to the basement, if you know?

A. I am not certain. I believe off the kitchen.

Q. Now, Officer, how long did you say you remained on the premises at 3850 East New York?

A. Close to an hour.

Q. Did you remain there till Officer Kaiser came?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you go then?

A. From that home?

Q. From the premises about which you have been testifying?

A. Police headquarters.

Q. Did anyone accompany you?

A. Mrs. Wright and one of the daughters. I am not too certain who the daughter was.

Q. Did anyone else go?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was anything said by either of those passengers in your presence on your route to headquarters?

A. No, sir, I asked no questions.

Q. They stated nothing?

A. That is right.

Q. Do you see this young lady behind me in the blue sweater?

A. Yes.

Q. Was she at the scene?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to her?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you recall what she said?

A. She did state she -

THE COURT: Answer yes or no. The question is "do you recall what she said".

A. Partially.

Q. Who was present when she made the statement - within hearing?

A. Sgt. Kaiser.

Q. Were any of the defendants present?

A. No, sir.

Q. Alright, now, Officer, was anything else said by Mrs. Wright or any of these defendants that you have not testified to the jury, as you best recall?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was there anything at the scene you have not described to the jury?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. What did you do with the note marked State's Exhibit No. 5?

A. Gave it to Sgt. Kaiser.

Q. While you were still at the home?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Officer, based upon your observation of the defendant Richard Hobbs and based upon your observation of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, alias Gertrude Wright, have you formed an opinion as to whether they, or either of them, were sane at the time you saw them and talked to them?

MR. ERBECKER: I object for the reason the officer testified he was there a limited time, no time for any extended observation of the conduct, demeanor, mannerisms and deportment of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski. The record is barren of any special training in psychology or psychiatry of the arresting officer. There is no evidence of any prior experience of the arresting officer in a similar situation, where he was called upon to decide the sanity or insanity of any person within the purview of his duties as an arresting officer, a police officer. For the further reasons, the record is barren of any question and answer by the officer with reference to any psychosis or as to any abnormality of Gertrude Baniszewski and any testimony by the officer by virtue of his capacity as an officer and limited time she was in his observation would certainly be not a basis on which to predicate an opinion.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question calls for a yes or no answer.

A. I formed no opinion, no.

Q. Based upon your observation of the defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, alias Wright, do you have an opinion now as to whether she was sane on October 26, 1965, was she sane or insane?

MR. ERBECKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: It calls for yes or no.

A. No opinion.

Q. Have you any opinion now?

A. No opinion.

Q. Have all the facts you have testified occurred in Marion County, Indiana, on or about October 26, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Before you commence, there are things yet to be done in this case with reference to what Forrest Bowman wanted a hearing out of the presence of the jury. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury and Alternate Jurors as far as the jury is concerned, we are going to recess for you until 10:30 tomorrow morning. You will report to the jury room tomorrow morning at 10:30. By agreement of counsel and with consent of the State and defendant given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. You will go about your business. Be sure to return at 10:30 tomorrow morning. I am to tell you every adjournment, every recess, don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case on any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion thereon till the case is finally submitted to you. Don't read any newspaper articles that may appear about the case and don't watch anything or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case. Court will remain in session. Jury and alternate jurors are excused till 10:30 tomorrow morning.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: Your witness is on the stand, Mr. Bowman, if you care to go into the matter of suppression of evidence.

MR. BOWMAN: At the risk of being repetitious, I don't know where I was. I am going to start over.

THE COURT: I thought you wanted to call another witness.

MR. BOWMAN: I do. I want to use him. Since the testimony, I have some other questions.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nekit and 4 guests