52 attorney, John Shorter, refused even to look at the letters, despite the fact that they were potential exculpatory evidence for his client.69 All of this evidence, in its totality, establishes that the letter writing campaign and the testimony at trial was fabricated in an effort to hide the bribery conspiracy. Judge Hastings lied under oath in this respect. Articles X, XI, XII and XIII Articles X through XIII charge Judge Hastings with four additional instances of false testimony. At trial, Judge Hastings testified to three phone calls he made to Hemphill Pride in 1981, identifying the numbers on phone records. He also identified a phone number at which Mr. Pride could allegedly be reached in July 1981. Judge Hastings offered this testimony in support of his assertion that he (and Mr. Borders) frequently spoke to Mr. Pride about his financial condition and desire for reinstatement, which in turn supported Judge Hastings' explanation of the October 5, 1981 conversation. At the conclusion of his direct examination, Judge Hastings testified as follows: Question: Judge, would you tell us about the first call that I indicated with a little check on the front page, there? Answer: The first call would be Item 2 under the second full itemization column, and it is a call... to Columbia, South Carolina. And the call is a five-minute call, and it is placed on September 2nd, at 11 something in the morning. Question: And to whom was that call placed? Answer: I know for a fact that this particular call was placed to Hemphill Pride. Question: Did you speak with Hemphill Pride? Answer: I certainly did. Question: On that day? Answer: I certainly did. Question: All right. Now, would you seek out the second call that I have indicated on those toll records with a little check? Answer: May 5th. Question: May 5th? Answer: '81. I spoke with Mr. Pride.70 Question: Judge, I direct your attention to the August 2nd call. Answer: Yes. Question: The one for eighteen minutes' duration? Answer: Yes. Question: Would you tell us what time that call was placed? 69 Mr. Borders' attorney testified before The Investigating Committee such letters were useless to him because he believed Judge Hastings would not testify and therefore would not be available to authenticate them. 70 Transcript of United States v. Hastings at 2048-2049. 53 Answer: 9:20 in the morning, to Columbia, South Caroli- Question: And did you, in fact, speak with Hemphill Question: Judge, I would like to direct your attention to Answer: The second column, Item No. 11, dated July the Question: Do you recognize that number? Answer: The number is a number where Hemphill Pride may have been working.. I am not certain if he was working there or not, but I have called that number myself. Question: All right. And that call was made by Bill Borders, to Hemphill Pride on July 24th? Answer: On July 24th, correct.72 Only one of the four phone numbers identified by Judge Hastings belonged to Mr. Pride. The other three numbers belonged respectively to a business contact of William Borders, a social acquaintance of Judge Hastings (who was called twice) and Patricia Williams' ex-mother-in-law. The call to Ms. Williams' ex-mother-in-law was, in fact, made from Patricia Williams' home phone and lasted 18 minutes.73 The actual subscribers to the identified numbers testified before the Investigating Committee either that they did not know Mr. Pride or it was not possible that Mr. Pride had received a call on their phone. Finally, Hemphill Pride testified before the Subcommittee that, although he spoke to Judge Hastings in the summer of 1981, he has never received a call at any of the three numbers falsely identified by Judge Hastings in his trial testimony. There is no evidence relating to whether Judge Hastings called any of these numbers in the year immediately preceding trial. He testified at trial, however, without reservation, that each of the four calls was to Hemphill Pride. Article XIV Article XIV charges Judge Hastings with testifying falsely, with the intention of misleading the trier of fact, about two phone calls he claimed at trial to have made from the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel on October 9, 1981 after learning of Mr. Borders' arrest. The evidence before the Committee establishes that Judge Hastings' testimony was knowingly false and given with intent to mislead. While under oath, Judge Hastings testified as follows: 71 Id. at 2051-2052. 72 Id. at 2033. 73 As defense counsel, Ms. Williams asked Judge Hastings whether the identified phone numbers were calls to Hemphill Pride, including the call to her ex-mother-in-law with whom she was in contact. 54 Question:... What did you do when you got down to your room? Answer: The very first thing I did, walked straight into the room and picked up the telephone and called my mother. Question: And when you called your mother, what did you learn? Answer: When I called my mother, she was-I do not wish to exaggerate-I have never known her to be as hysterical as she was. It is just that simple. And I couldn't calm her down. Question: Did you make any other calls? Answer: Yes, I did. Question: Had Hemphill arrived at your room by this time? Answer: No he had not. Question: Who did you call? Answer: I called you [Patricia Williams]. Question: All right. And what happened there? Answer: I called you at your office at the Economic Opportunities Commission here at the Dupont Plaza Hotel and I learned you had been interviewed by the FBI and the particulars, at least in part, as to what had transpired in your interview with the FBI. Ånd in addition to that I learned that you had called my office and had learned that the FBI was there for the express purpose, among other things, of interviewing my staff.74 Question: You are certain that sitting in the hotel room after Mr. Pride gave you the news, that you made two long distance calls to Florida and you charged them to your room? Answer: Right.75... The evidence establishes that not only could Judge Hastings not have learned the specific information he testified to at the time he alleged, but also that no phone calls were made. There is no documentary evidence whatsoever of the phone calls. The hotel phone records contain no record of any calls made to Florida from the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel (let alone from Judge Hastings' room) during the relevant time period. No such calls appear on Judge Hastings' home or business phone records. While it is true that the computer records do not reflect any calls charged to the guest rooms between 2:54 pm and 4:10 pm on the afternoon of October 9, 1981, the Committee does not find that fact to be persuasive evidence that the system was "down". For, although it may be unlikely that there would be no long distance calls by guests during that time, the computer system does not record all calls by guests-it records only those calls moreover, witnesses who were thoroughly familiar 74Transcript of United States v. Hastings at 1914-1916. 75 Id. at 2216. 55 with the operator of the computer record system and who reviewed the relevant hotel phone records did not suggest there was any problem with the system's operation charged to the room, not the calls charged to another number or to a credit card. Hemphill Pride unequivocally testified before the Subcommittee he was with Judge Hastings from the time the judge learned of Mr. Borders' arrest until the time the judge was in the hotel lobby ready to depart. According to Mr. Pride, during that time, Judge Hastings did not make any phone calls. FBI agents testified before the Investigating Committee that on October 9, 1981 both Ms. Williams and Judge Hastings' staff were being interviewed by the FBI at the time of Judge Hastings' alleged calls. Thus, contrary to his testimony, Judge Hastings could not have learned from a call to Ms. Williams that she had already been interviewed by the FBI. An FBI agent testified that the logs for Mrs. Hastings' apartment indicated that no reporters had arrived at the complex at the time of Judge Hastings' alleged call to his mother. Again, Judge Hastings could not have learned from his mother the information to which he testified. The only documented call between Judge Hastings and his mother on October 9 is from BWI. Finally, in a letter dated October 14, 1981, confirming Judge Hastings' request that she assist in his legal representation, Ms. Williams stated that she was horrified, yet pleased to assist him, as the judge had asked when calling "from Baltimore." The only documented phone calls from Judge Hastings to Ms. Williams on the afternoon of October 9, 1981 are from BWI. No telephone calls were made by Judge Hastings from the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel to his mother and Ms. Williams. He testified falsely in this regard, intending to mislead the trier of fact, by offering an innocent explanation for his hasty and incriminating flight from Washington, D.C. Article XV Article XV charges Judge Hastings with testifying falsely at his trial as to why, on October 9, 1981, he flew from BWI rather than National in an attempt to return to Florida immediately. The evidence before the Committee establishes that Judge Hastings' testimony was knowingly false and given with intent to mislead the trier of fact. The prosecution argued at trial that Judge Hastings' hasty departure from the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel and return to Florida from BWI was flight and evidence of the judge's guilt. To counter that argument, Judge Hastings testified that he went to BWI because he did not think he could obtain a direct flight from National and denied going to BWI in order to avoid law enforcement officers. At trial, Judge Hastings testified under oath as follows: Question: Why did you not go to the airport, the nearer airport? Answer: There was never any question in my mind but that at that time in the evening I thought that all flights that left Washington, D.C. at that particular point in time, 56 either went through Atlanta en route to Miami, but I was Question: Did you consider that there might be FBI agents looking for you at the National Airport? Answer: It was of no concern to me had there been FBI agents at the National Airport, Dallas [Dulles] or at Baltimore Airport... I had no desire or design to not cooperate with any authorities.77 Question: And your thinking was there would be no flights from National Airport that would fly you non-stop from Washington National Airport Question: That was my thinking. Answer: -to Miami? Even though two months ago you had taken one? Question: Yes, sir. That was my thinking at that particular time. I have traveled that way an awful lot, an awful lot.78 All the evidence in the record with respect to Judge Hastings' actions after he learned of Mr. Borders' arrest establishes that the judge was, in fact, attempting to avoid law enforcement officers when he took a $50 cab ride to BWI during rush hour on Friday, October 9, 1981.79 Moreover, Judge Hastings knew that he could obtain a direct flight from National, for in July 1981 he took a 5:30 p.m. nonstop Eastern flight from National to Miami.80 Judge Hastings lied under oath with the intention of misleading the trier of fact in explaining his decision to fly out of BWI. Article XVI Article XVI charges that on September 6, 1985, Judge Hastings disclosed to Stephen Clark, the Mayor of Dade County, confidential information Judge Hastings learned in his capacity as supervising judge of a wiretap pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2516. The evidence before the Committee establishes that on that day Judge Hastings told Mayor Clark to "stay away from Kevin 'Waxy' Gordon" because Mr. Gordon was "hot" and had been using Mayor Clark's name in Hialeah, Florida. Six witnesses testified before the Subcommittee about this matter: (1) Roberto Martinez, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the underlying investigation for which the wiretap was sought; (2) Mayor Clark, to whom the confidential information was disclosed; (3) Geoffrey Santini, the FBI case agent for the underlying investigation; (4) Christopher Mazzella, the FBI special agent assigned to the underlying investigation and the subsequent investigation of the "leak"; (5) Monsignor Bryan Walsh, who was 76 Id. at 1922-1923. 77 Id. at 1923-1924. * Id at 2224. Daragraph 9 in support of Article I. |