The Shooters

Sergeant Daniel Groth had testified at so many legal proceedings and press conferences that there were major inconsistencies he could not reconcile. This was partly because the theory of the defense had changed. Originally the raiders claimed they did not know that they were raiding a Panther apartment. Later, when indicted, they tried to justify being so heavily armed and firing so many shots by asserting they had detailed foreknowledge of the dangerousness of Hampton and the other Panthers at the apartment. Groth’s lawyers’ strategy was to have him recall as few details as possible and then harass Flint when he confronted Groth with his prior testimony. Groth was Flint’s first major witness.

Groth testified he “could not remember” being told by his informant that it was a Panther crib, or that weapons came and went there. When Flint read his prior testimony to refresh his recollection, his standard answer was “No, that doesn’t refresh my recollection.” When Flint asked him if his memory had been better when he gave his prior testimony, often within days of the incident, Groth responded cutely, “I don’t know that it is or not.” When Flint then attempted to read the prior testimony as a statement of a party or to impeach his feigned lack of memory, Witkowski, a Coghlan wannabe, would consistently argue that the prior testimony was not impeaching and move that what was read be struck. Three other defense lawyers would echo his objections. The result was that every ounce of information Groth gave up took ten times longer than necessary. The jury was getting annoyed and bored and Flint was increasingly frustrated.

Taylor [referring to Groth’s former testimony]: “You sketched out a rough draft of the floor plan of the apartment, did you not?”

Groth: “I don’t recall that I did.”

Taylor: “Do you recall that you did not?”

Groth: “No, sir.”

Taylor: “You numbered those rooms, didn’t you.”

Groth: “As I sit here now, I can’t recall that I did.”

Groth had previously testified that he told Hanrahan that Hampton had a .45 and that he showed Hanrahan the search warrant. In court he could not recall this. In his deposition he said Hanrahan had approved the raid plan, but in court when Flint confronted him with his prior statement, Witkowski objected, and Perry sustained the objection.

Flint, who had indexed all of Groth’s statements, shook his head in disgust as Groth’s lawyers and Perry protected his lack of recall. Adding to his pique, on his first question to Groth about his alleged informant, Groth responded he could not answer because of instructions from his attorneys and “because of a promise to his informant.” This was the first time that Groth had mentioned this “promise.” It smelled like a Coghlan twist to win the jury’s sympathy.

Flint asked more questions to probe whether Groth had an informant. Perry intervened, “The identity of the informant is not relevant anymore because the reliability has been fully established by the facts of the case that the weapons described were found there.”

I jumped up and cited a Supreme Court case that said items found in the search could not prove reliability for the search warrant, but Perry ignored me.

Flint kept at it. “You knew Roy Mitchell was Jalovec’s reliable informant. Did you have an informant?”

Perry: “I will terminate your questioning if you don’t proceed and don’t come back to it.”

Taylor: “Our position is he is hiding it.”

Perry: “I don’t care what your position is. An informant has the right to protect his family, even if he is dead.”

I had to chuckle at this twisted bit of legal reasoning and newly found right. I still managed to reply, “That’s not what the law says. We don’t even know if he has a family.”

Taylor: “You didn’t have an informant, did you, Mr. Groth and still don’t?”

Groth: “That is a total untruth.”

Taylor: “Well, who is he?”

As the defense lawyers rose to protest, Perry ordered, “Objection sustained. I am terminating your examination of this witness.”

Flint was allowed to continue only after an apology and a promise that he would avoid challenging Groth about the existence or identity of his informant.

Groth eventually recalled that he knew it was a Panther apartment where Fred spent many nights, that he told his men that Fred slept with a .45 near him, and that his informant gave him a description of the apartment.

Montgomery asked the last questions. Groth had originally testified that Brenda fired at him from the southeast corner of the living room. What Zimmers had made clear in his testimony and what the model demonstrated was that a shot from the southeast corner would have had to strike a living room wall or door and leave impact points, and none were found. So now Groth claimed Brenda moved.

Montgomery read Groth his testimony at the coroner’s inquest.

Question: “Where was Brenda Harris when she fired the shot?”

Answer: “In the very southeast corner of the living room. Yes sir, she was in a semisitting position which is the position she held throughout the time I was in the apartment.”

With a straight face, Coghlan rose and objected, arguing this testimony was not impeaching. Perry declared, “Overruled.”

Finally, Montgomery asked Groth if he was familiar with the Chicago police regulation that stated, “The following practices are specifically forbidden: firing into buildings or through doors when the person fired at is not clearly visible.” Groth, who had fired through the front door and who directed Gorman and Davis to stitch the living room wall, claimed he was not.

Edward Carmody was the only officer to enter from the rear and fire a gun of the caliber that could have caused bullet holes of the size found in Fred’s head. We believed he was the officer who shot Fred from inside the doorway to Fred’s bedroom. The people in the back of the apartment testified that they heard a thump shortly after hearing shots and then saw Carmody dragging Fred’s body out. Carmody admitted he had pulled Fred’s body off the bed and into the dining room.

Right after the raid, Carmody had told a TV reporter that as soon as he entered the apartment, Fred Hampton fired at him three times with a .45 from the rear bedroom and that another shot was fired at him from there a few moments later when he was in the kitchen. Carmody’s description was the basis of Hanrahan’s claim that Fred had shot at the police. It was clear from Zimmers’s model that from Carmody’s location—either at the back door or in the kitchen—the dining room wall blocked any view of the back bedroom. At the federal grand jury, where Zimmers’s model was on view, Carmody admitted his earlier story was a lie. “You didn’t see any shots come from the bedroom, sir,” I said, “not the one where Hampton was found, no one could shoot from the rear bedroom to the kitchen door?”

He again admitted during my cross-examination that he never saw Hampton fire at him but now claimed he’d never told anyone that.

In his court testimony, Carmody denied shooting anyone. But in his firearms use report, mysteriously never produced for the federal grand jury, Carmody indicated he had “critically wounded” someone. Next to the inquiry “How many feet were you from your assailant or the person you wounded?” he put a question mark.

“And is the reason you put the question mark in there, sir, that you didn’t want to put in the two feet away you were from Fred Hampton’s head when you fired your shot?”

I’ve never seen a trial where the prosecutor doesn’t confront the defendant with the criminal act he is charged with, but my question upset Perry. Before Carmody could respond to me, Perry defended him: “There is no evidence that would warrant that question and the jury is instructed to disregard it.”

I protested, “This was cross-examination.”

I asked Carmody if he knew Fred was dead when he dragged him out. “I didn’t know,” he answered.

“Did he do anything that made him appear alive?” I asked.

“He didn’t do anything to appear dead,” he snapped back sarcastically.

“Did you do anything to determine if Fred was alive?” I asked.

“No,” he replied.

“Did you check his breathing?”

“Sir, I was in a hurry, no.”

The evidence was there. In closing argument, we could explain that the reason Carmody never checked to see if Fred was alive was because he had just shot him two times in the head and knew he was dead.