Word: garrisons
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Should a prosecuting attorney admit that he is beaten when a jury finds the defendant innocent? Or does he have another recourse? (See THE NATION, "Garrison v. the People...
...only clear-cut aspect of the conspiracy case against retired New Orleans Businessman Clay Shaw was the verdict. After pumping the case for two years in public and six weeks in the courtroom, District Attorney Jim Garrison got less than an hour of the jury's time in deliberation before they unanimously acquitted Shaw of plotting to kill President Kennedy. A less obsessed prosecutor might have reasoned from those circumstances that the jury believed he had no case. Not Big Jim. Said he: "The jury verdict simply indicates that the American people don't want to hear...
With the public machinery for prosecution at his disposal, Garrison still has ample means to force his version of the truth into the limelight. Last week he began Round 2 of his increasingly fanatical fight by charging Shaw, 55, with two counts of perjury. Garrison claimed that Shaw had lied when he testified that he knew neither of the two alleged coconspirators, Lee Harvey Oswald and David W. Ferrie. This was the only point in the original case that Garrison could produce credible witnesses to substantiate, though it could prove nothing about a conspiracy. For Shaw, who says that...
Spun-Sugar Story. The ho-hum atmosphere of the trial became almost surreal with the appearance for the defense of Dean Andrews, a pudgy little New Orleans lawyer. Andrews set off the Garrison investigation with a story that he got a phone call from one "Clay Bertrand" the day after Kennedy was shot, asking him to defend Oswald. Andrews had already switched his story so often that he had been convicted of lying to a grand jury. When Assistant D.A. James Alcock tried to pick apart points that helped the defense, Andrews retracted the rest of the tale, swallowing...
...closing argument, Garrison tried to wrap up with sheer demagoguery what he had been unable to deliver in fact: that the Warren Commission report was a "fraud" and that the whole apparatus of the Federal Government was being used to hide the truth. He mentioned the defendant by name only once, all but confirming Defense Attorney F. Irving Dymond's charge that Shaw "was brought in here for no other purpose than to create a forum to present this attack on the Warren Commission." Garrison's last gasp did not impress the jury. The twelve men deliberated just...