27

trial that he departed immediately because of the telephone calls he made from the hotel to his mother and Ms. Williams. When interviewed by the FBI on October 9, 1981, Judge Hastings did not mention any telephone calls.

On Monday, October 12, 1981, three days after Mr. Borders' arrest, at 6:38 a.m., a person placed a telephone call from Judge Hastings' home telephone number (305-731-8176) to William Borders' home telephone number (202-398-6321). The call lasted two minutes. No recording of the conversation was made because the wiretap was no longer in effect.

On October 14, 1981, Ms. Williams wrote to Judge Hastings and told him that she felt "pride and joy as well as horror" as a result of their telephone conversation on Friday, October 9th, when Judge Hastings called her "from Baltimore" and indicated that he wanted her legal assistance in confronting allegations of bribery which Judge Hastings had just learned were being directed against him.

5. Contacts Between Judge Hastings and William Borders

As the Romano case proceeded, there was a series of telephone calls between Judge Hastings and Mr. Borders, which are documented through toll records. Judge Hastings also testified to two additional calls from Mr. Borders. While the content of these calls is not always known, there is a synchronization of contacts between Mr. Borders and Judge Hastings relative to significant documented events in the Romano case. As the Eleventh Circuit Investigating Committee observed, the telephone contacts between Judge Hastings and Mr. Borders were often of brief duration, sometimes at odd hours and on at least one occasion from and to a pay phone. Analysis of these contacts reveals that most of the known calls occurred on or close to days on which (a) Judge Hastings had motions in the Romano case under active consideration, (b) Judge Hastings held hearings relating to the Romanos' forfeiture or sentencing matters, or (c) William Borders was negotiating about the payment of a bribe. The available telephone records for Judge Hastings and Mr. Borders, and Mr. Borders' office message logs reflect only eight other telephone contacts from January through October 1981. Specifically:

1. On February 20, 1981, the day of the forfeiture hearing, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders early in the morning. The call lasted three minutes.

2. On April 9, 1981, the day after the last memoranda relating to the forfeiture issue were filed, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders' office. He left a message for Mr. Borders to call and Isaid he would be "at his office between 12 and 1." At 12:15 p.m. a call was placed from a pay phone in the corridor of the third floor of the federal courthouse in Miami, Florida near Judge Hastings' chambers to a pay phone in the lobby of the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. The call lasted one minute or less and was charged to Judge Hastings' residence. At about the same time, Mr. Borders' secretary made a reservation for Mr. Borders to fly to Miami the following weekend. This call was made within a day or two of when the intermediary relayed Mr. Dredge's message to the Romanos that there

28

was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who might be able to help them with their case.

3. Judge Hastings called William Borders three times within a few days of April 23, 1981, the date the parties were advised the Romano sentencing was scheduled for May 11, 1981.

4. On May 4, 1981, the day Judge Hastings entered his order compelling forfeiture, he called Mr. Borders during a morning recess and left a message that he would be awaiting Mr. Borders' call between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m.

5. Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders four times between the call on May 4 and the scheduled time of sentencing on May 11, 1981 at 1:00 p.m.: once after midnight on May 6 from Madison, New Jersey; once on May 7 at 4:30 p.m. when Judge Hastings left a message for Mr. Borders to call him at 7:00 a.m. the next morning; and twice before 7:00 a.m. on May 11. Two of the calls (on May 6 and May 11) were to the home of Mr. Borders' girlfriend. On May 11, Judge Hastings postponed sentencing. One of the three documented calls lasted less than two minutes; the two others less than one minute each.

6. Judge Hastings sentenced the Romanos on July 8, 1981. On July 5, 7 and 9, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders. The July 5 and 7 calls each lasted less than one minute. On July 9, Judge Hastings left a message for Mr. Borders. The following weekend Mr. Borders met Judge Hastings in Miami.

7. On September 10, 1981, the same day that Mr. Borders arranged a September 12 meeting with Mr. Rico, there were calls back and forth between Judge Hastings and Mr. Borders. The calls occurred both before and after the Borders-Rico meeting had been arranged.

8. On September 11, 1981, the day before Mr. Borders was to meet Mr. Rico, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders twice.

9. On September 20 or 21, 1981, Mr. Borders called Judge Hastings, which was during the 10 day period before the order was to issue. 22

10. On October 2, 1981, after telling Mr. Rico that he would check on the promised order vacating the forfeiture order, Mr. Borders called Judge Hastings' chambers and asked to speak with Judge Hastings.

11. On October 4, 1981, Mr. Borders called Judge Hastings' residence and left a message for the judge to call.23

12. On October 5, 1981, Judge Hastings told his law clerk to get the Romano order out that day. At 5:12 p.m. that day, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders.

13. On October 8, 1981, Judge Hastings called Mr. Borders and arranged to stay at the same hotel when he came to Washington, D.C. on October 9, 1981.24

22 This call is not documented by phone records; however, Judge Hastings testified to the call at trial.

23 This call is also not documented in the phone records; however, Judge Hastings testified to it at trial.

24 See Appendix I to the Subcommittee Hearings at p. 199 n. 47.

29

6. Pre-trial Proceedings

Following William Borders' arrest on October 9, 1981, a subpoena was served on the chambers of Judge Hastings, seeking appointment calendars, telephone logs, and other records. The requested documents were turned over to the FBI at the time of the service of the subpoena.

William Borders was released from jail on Saturday, October 10, 1981. The items subpoenaed from Mr. Borders' office on October 9, 1981, were turned over on October 13, 1981. At least two items from Mr. Borders' office were missing: a telephone message slip from September 9, 1981 and the secretary's desk calendar for September 1981.

On October 13, 1981, a grand jury began hearing evidence, a process it concluded on October 21, 1981. On December 29, 1981, an indictment was returned against Mr. Borders and Judge Hastings, charging both with conspiracy and obstruction of justice.25

On January 4, 1982, the case was assigned to Judge Edward T. Gignoux, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, sitting by designation. He ordered reciprocal discovery, which called for each of the parties to produce for the other side those documents it intended to rely upon at trial. The prosecution produced its documents on January 19, 1982, including the tapes of the intercepted telephone calls between Judge_Hastings and Mr. Borders. The defense produced its materials on February 12, 1982. Judge Hastings did not at that time produce any letters or drafts of letters about or to "Hemp" as referred to in the critical October 5, 1981 conversation.

On February 1, 1982 Judge Hastings filed suit to enjoin his prosecution on the ground that a sitting federal judge had to be impeached before a prosecution could proceed. Although this position was eventually rejected,26 his criminal case was stayed pending the outcome of the litigation, thereby prompting Judge Gignoux to sever Judge Hastings' trial from that of Mr. Borders.

Mr. Borders was tried in Atlanta, Georgia from March 22 until March 29, 1982. Neither Mr. Borders nor Judge Hastings testified. The theory of Mr. Borders' defense was that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy with Judge Hastings. Mr. Borders argued that although the evidence may have been compelling that he solicited and took a bribe on behalf of the judge, there was insufficient evidence that he had acted in concert with Judge Hastings. 27 The jury convicted Mr. Borders on all counts on March 30, 1982. Mr. Borders appealed contesting the introduction of certain evidence supporting a finding that there was a conspiracy, specifically the evidence tending to show that Judge Hastings had fled Washington, D.C. after he had learned of Mr. Borders' arrest. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the evidence of flight was sufficient to support a finding that Judge Hastings had conspired with William Borders and affirmed the conviction. 28

25 Mr. Borders was also charged with two counts of interstate travel to carry out the bribery scheme.

26 United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706 (11th Cir. 1982).

27 United States v. Borders, 693 F.2d 1318, 1319 (11th Cir. 1982).

30

Judge Hastings and his attorneys undertook to prepare his defense. In addition to having one of the defense attorneys attend Mr. Borders' trial as an observer, thereby enabling the judge to gain a preview of the Government's evidence against him, the defense team immediately reviewed the taped conversations.

On January 25, 1982, Hemphill Pride was interviewed by Judge Hastings in Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Hastings' principal attorney at that time, Joel Hirschhorn, was concerned about his client meeting alone with Mr. Pride and therefore arranged for a local attorney, Jack Swerling, to attend the session. When the conference concluded, however, Mr. Pride insisted on driving Judge Hastings to the airport. During that trip, Judge Hastings told Mr. Pride it was important for Mr. Pride to recall that the judge was trying to draft support letters for him. When Mr. Pride told the judge that he knew of no such attempts and, if he had, he would have stopped any such efforts, Judge Hastings replied that Mr. Pride would not have had to know about it. Mr. Pride refused to endorse Judge Hastings' suggestion and disavowed any connection with the letters.

Following the Court of Appeals' rejection of his challenge to the prosecution, Judge Hastings' case was set for trial. Approximately one month before trial, on December 13, 1982, Judge Hastings (now represented only by himself and Patricia Williams) for the first time disclosed to the prosecution the "Hemp letters," which consisted of three yellow legal pad sheets, comprising three handwritten letters, one addressed to Hemphill Pride, and the other two addressed generally to friends and supporters from whom Judge Hastings was requesting either financial assistance for Mr. Pride or letters of support to be sent to the South Carolina Supreme Court, to be used to assist Mr. Pride in gaining readmission to the South Carolina bar.

The prosecution submitted the letters to forensic experts in an attempt to date the creation of the letters. The Committee did so as well. None of the forensic experts, however, could date the papers. The paper and ink employed were such that it was impossible to conclude when the letters were written. Likewise, tests to reveal impressions on the paper other than the visible writing revealed nothing that could date the papers.

B. JUDGE HASTINGS' FALSE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL

Judge Hastings' criminal trial, conducted in Miami, Florida, began on January 19, 1983 and continued for 12 days. Judge Hastings took the stand as the final witness in his defense. During his testimony, Judge Hastings testified falsely in 14 different instances. Three instances of false statements pertain directly to Judge Hastings' testimony that he did not participate in a conspiracy with William Borders: (1) Judge Hastings' assertion that he and Mr. Borders did not agree to solicit a bribe from the Romanos; (2) Judge Hastings' assertion that he and Mr. Borders did not agree that Judge Hastings would modify the Romanos' sentences from a prison term to probation in exchange for the bribe; and (3) Judge Hastings assertion that he and Mr. Borders had never agreed that

31

Judge Hastings would set aside the May 4, 1981 forfeiture order after a payment on the bribe.

The 11 other instances of false testimony pertain to Judge Hastings' attempt to explain away specific incriminating evidence. Judge Hastings knowingly testified that:

1. He expected to meet William Borders at the Fontainebleau Hotel on September 16, 1981.

2. He was surprised by Mr. Borders' arrival at his room at the Sheraton Hotel on September 12, 1981.

3. On October 5, 1981, he told his law clerk to prepare the order in the Romano case primarily because the law clerk would be leaving his employment shortly.

4. His October 5, 1981 telephone conversation with William Borders was about writing letters for Hemphill Pride rather than about the conspiracy to solicit a bribe in the Romano

case.

5. The "Hemp letters" were written on October 5, 1981, when, in fact, they were fabricated by Judge Hastings after that date in an effort to conceal his participation in the bribery scheme.

6. On May 5, 1981 he talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Carolina. 7. On August 2, 1981 he talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-782-9387 in Columbia, South Carolina. 8. On September 2, 1981 he talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Caroli

na.

9. The telephone number 803-777-7716 was the number at a place where Hemphill Pride could be contacted in July 1981. 10. On the afternoon of October 9, 1981, he called his mother and Patricia Williams from his room at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel.

11. He took a plane from BWI rather than National because he did not think there were direct flights to Miami from National at that time.

C. DISCLOSURE OF WIRETAP INFORMATION

In the fall of 1984, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began an investigation of Local 1922 of the International Longshoremen's Association ["ILA”] in Miami, Florida. In early 1985, the FBI decided to penetrate the local with an undercover person. At that point the Public Corruption Section of the United States Attorney's Office in Miami joined in the investigation of public and union corruption in connection with the Port of Miami. By July 1985, a confidential source, 29 Johnny Rivero, was in place and had reported a broad variety of illegal activities-including labor racketeering, extortion, narcotics offenses, and bribery-involving union officials, public employees, police officers, and organized crime figures. Efforts were made to get Mr. Rivero admitted to Local 1922. It was

29 A confidential source is a private cooperating individual, under the supervision of the FBI, but not a special agent. Mr. Rivero, the confidential source, has authorized the disclosure of his

name.