Chapter 7 – Delay, Delay, Delay
Saturday January 1, 1966 – Wednesday August 24, 1966
Dennis Terry Sites’s arraignment was scheduled for Friday January 7, 1966.
Except it wasn’t.
A couple days before the arraignment was to take place before Judge G. Thomas Gates, the Honorable Judge Gates patiently explained to anyone who would listen that defendants in criminal cases other than homicide are given preliminary arraignments in order to make sure that defendants have counsel if necessary. But in a formal arraignment a defendant enters a plea to an indictment, as defense counsel H. Rank Bickel Jr. pointed out, and an indictment can be handed down only by a grand jury.
Got that?
So now everyone was waiting for the grand jury to meet on February 21.
Well, not everyone.
On January 7, Stanley Katz asked Judge Gates for permission to withdraw as counsel for the defense on the grounds that his legal practice had taken off and he could earn zillions more from all the whales coming into his office now, thank you judge for all the free publicity. Actually that’s not what he said, I just read between the lines. Perhaps I read too much into them.
Judge Gates named Edward H. Miller as his successor. H. Rank Bickel Jr. would continue as Sites’s attorney.
On January 28 it was reported that Sites was to be taken to Harrisburg State Hospital for an electroencephalogram to determine whether he suffered from a brain disorder. Judge Gates granted the request of Sites’s counsel at a hearing where he denied several other of their requests and held in abeyance their request for medical reports which were not yet completed.
During the hearing there were allusions to recent high court rulings on the rights of defendants that have made court and prosecutors uncertain of the action to be taken in certain matters. Bickel said the decisions are like trying to land a 1966 model jet plane on an 1806 type landing field. “The high courts didn’t make clarity one of the features of their decisions,” said Judge Gates.
To no one’s surprise the grand jury (all of whose members’ names and addresses had been published in the newspaper) indicted Sites for murder. Also not too surprising, his attorneys asked that the trial be delayed until June; this was granted. And they presented three motions to suppress evidence including the statements made by Sites. The motions were based on the accused persons right to be represented by counsel before making statements and also his constitutional rights were violated by illegal search and seizure. Judge Gates said he would set a date for hearing the motions which would be closed to the public. The hearing was set for April 26.
On May 6 it was reported that the bill for the Harrisburg psychiatrist came to $275.
On May 28 the Lebanon Daily News reported that 70 potential jurors had been drawn in anticipation of the June murder trial. All 70 were named with their addresses. The only one from Richland was Rufus Phillipy.
On June 6 the counsel for defense asked for a continuance until September. This was granted by Judge Gates, and as a result the June term criminal court was canceled. So 70 potential jurors would not have to serve after all.
On August 24 the Sites murder trial was scheduled for September 19.
Interlude
Monday June 13, 1966, Washington D.C.
Ernie’s conviction was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supremes issued their famous ruling on June 13, 1966.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion, and the decision was in favor of Ernesto Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona stated that:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Because of the decision, police departments throughout the U.S. started to issue Miranda warning cards for their officers to recite. They read:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?
| Previous | Next |