Folder 9/1: Richard M. Nixon Testimony-Motions and Stipulations/U.S. D.C. Misc. #75-104

8/3/2019 Folder 9/1: Richard M. Nixon Testimony-Motions and Stipulations/U.S. D.C. Misc. #75-104

1/40


2/40

RICHARD M. NIXON TESl'IIDNY - SEA LED U.S. D.C.JUNE 1975.IrnIOOS, an i ffi'IFUrATICN lnot ~ 1 " ' ) MIS:: 175-104


3/40

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974 GRAND JURY - - MISC NO. 75-104(TRANSCRIPTS LABELED - U. S. v . JOHN DOE)

1 . (SEALED) Motion of th e Specia l Prosecu tor(author iz ing Foreman and a member of th eGrand Jury to a t tend a deposi t ion ofRichard M. Nixon under oa th .

2 . (SEALED) ORDER t h a t foreman and a memberof Jan . 7 , 1974 Grand Jury be des ignated

F i l e Date

to a t tend deposi t ion of Richard M. Nixon. June 5 , 1975

3 . STIPULATION t h a t Richard M. Nixonvo lun ta r i ly submit ted to an examinat ionunder oath on June 23 and 24, 1975. June 27, 1975

4. (SEALED) Motion of the Specia l P rosecu torfo r an order author iz ing Spec ia lProsecutor to segregate por t ions oft r a n s c r ip t ... and di sc lose segregatedpor t ions to Deputy Asst . to the Pr es iden tfo r Nat ional Secur i ty Af f a i r s . . . June 27, 1975

5 . (SEALED) ORDER approving above Motion. June 27, 1975

6. (SEALED) MOTION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORfor an order author iz ing him to lodge undersea l por t ions o f t r a n sc r i p t of examinat ionunder oath of Richard M. Nixon onJune 23 and 24, 1975. June 30, 1975

7 . (SEALED) ORDER author iz ing Specia l Prosecu torto lodge under sea l por t ions of t r a n sc r i p tof examinat ion under oath of Richard M.Nixon on June 23 an d 24, 1975. June 30, 1975CROSS REFERENCE:8. MEMORANDUM of th e United S t a t e s in responseto motion by defendan t Mitchel l for in

c ~ m e t g inspec t ion by the Court ofRlchard M. Nixon 's tes t imony.

CoP.i of f i le room record srowin:J receipt of~ t i o n for In camera Examination by the Oourt ofRichard M. Nixon's Testimony rec 'd 7/8/75.Ccpy of f i le room record srowing receiptof ~ t i o n far the Release of a Sealed Transcript . . . rec 'd 7/8/75.

July 16, 1975

turE: Perhaps....-e mould get ccpy of ll'Otions

\ flXlll Court of Appeals or Distr ict Courtto carplete oor f i les ;al&l - what \\as the rutoome ??? Nothin:J" inf i l es on th is .


4/40


5/40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Crim. No . 74-110JOHN N. MITCHELL, e t a l . ,

Defendants .

MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATESIN RESPONSE TO MOT ION BY DEFENDANT MITCHELLFOR IN CAMERA I NSPECTION BY THE COURT OFRICHARD M. NIXON'S TESTIMONY

Th e United Sta tes submits t h i s memorandum in responseto th e motion by defendan t John N. Mitche l l fo r (al an in

in spec t ion by the Cour t o f th e t r a n s c r ip t o f th er ecen t tes t imony of Richard M. Nixon and (b l the d i sc losu r eto defendan t ' s counsel o f " a l l o f such tes t imony whichr e l a t e s in any way to any of th e i s sues l i t i ga t ed in th et r i a l o f United S t a t e s v. Hi t che l l , e t a l . " Since defend--a n t has not presented any theory o r a u t h o r i t y to suppor th is r eques t , and s ince the government i s not a,yare o f any,th e United Sta tes opposes d isc losure o f an y o f Mr. Nixon 'stes t imony to defendan t o r h is counse l . The governme n t hasno ob jec t ion , however, to submit t ing the tes t imony to th eCourt , in ~ e r a , if the Cour t be l ieves t h a t in spec t ion byth e Cour t i s warran ted .

Defendant H i tc h e l l ' s motion i s unusua l in s e v e r a lr e s p e c t s . As noted above, it does no t s t a t e th e bas i s fo rth e r e l i e f ",hich it seeks , nor does it c i t e any a u t h o r i t yin suppor t o f such r e l i e f . In add i t ion , al though th ecap t ion o f defendan t ' s motion i nd ica tes t h a t it i s made in


6/40

- 2 -

connect ion wi th the "Watergate cover-up" t r i a l , United Sta t e sv. M itche l l , D.D.C. Crim. No. 74-110, t ha t case presen t ly i son appeal to the United Sta t e s Court o f Appeals fo r theD i s t r i c t o f Columbia C i r c u i t , see United Sta t e s v. Haldeman,e t a l . , Nos. 75-1381-1384. Thus, it i s exceedingly doubtfu lwhether the d i s t r i c t cour t has j u r i sd ic t ion to en te r ta indefendan t ' s request . See, ~ . ~ . , Berman v. United Sta te s , 30 2U.S. 211, 214 (1937); uni ted Sta t e s v. Mack, 466 F.2d 333,340 (D.C. Ci r . ) , ce r t . denied , 409 u.S . 952 (1972); 9 Moore 'sFedera l P r a c t i c e . 203.11 (2d ed. 1973) .

More i m p o r ~ a n t , defendan t ' s motion i s substan t ive lyde fec t ive . The depos i t ion given by Richard M. Nixon on June23 and 24, 1975, wa s a proceeding anc i l l a ry to the grandyju ry and, as such, i s protec ted from unauthorized d i sc losu reby Rule 6(e) of the Federa l Rules of Crimina l Procedure .While Rule 6(e) allows d i sc losu re "when so d i rec t ed by thecour t prel iminary to o r in connect ion with a j ud i c i a l pro -ceeding," the re must be a s h O \ ~ i n g of a "compell ing neces s i ty"fo r the d i sc losu re , which showing must be made "with pa r t i c u -l a r i t y . " United Sta t e s v. Proctor & Gamble Co. , 356 u . s . 677,681 (1958). See also Pi t t s bu r gh Pla t e Glass Co. v. Uni tedSt a t e s , 36 0 U.S. 395, 399 (1959); Allen v. Uni te d s ta tes , 39 0F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir . 1968) .

In view o f the terminat ion of the "Watergate cover -up"t r i a l and the pendency of the appea l , it i s f a r from c l e a rfo r what j ud i c i a l proceeding d i sc losu re o f Mr . Nixon's t e s t i -mony i s sought . It i s s e t t l ed t ha t a defendant does no t have

1 / See In r e January 7, 1974 Grand Ju ry , D.D.C. Misc.No. 75=104 (Order da ted June 27, 1975, a t t ached as Exhib i tA); United Sta tes v. Krogh , 366 F . Supp . 1255,1256 (D.D.C.1973)


7/40

- 3 -

any p o s t - t r i a l discovery r i g h t s . The language o f Rule 16,F.R.Cr .P , c lea r ly i n d i c a t e s t h a t t he c r imina l discoveryprocess i s to ope r a t e in th e p r e - t r i a l s tage , " to help adefendan t prepare fo r t r i a l , " Hawkes v. I n t e r n a l RevenueSer v ice , 467 F.2d 787, 79 3 (6th Cir . 1972) , and i s thusunava i l ab le to a defendan t , such as Mr. Mitche l l , who has2/been conv ic ted . - Moreover, nothing in the Nixon depos i t ioncould be r e l evan t to th e appea l , s ince th e l e g a l i s sue int h a t proceeding w i l l be whether th e trial judge, on the bas i so f f ac t s then before him, proper ly exerc ised h is d i sc re t ionin denying a cont inuance a t th e r eques t o f defendantsMitche l l , H. R. Haldeman, and John D. Ehrl ichman fo r th e3/purpose of ob ta in ing Mr. Nixon as a t r i a l w i tn e s s . -

Since defendant has presented no theory by which th etes t im on y o f Mr . Nixon could af fo rd him a bas i s fo r r e l i e ffrom h is conv ic t ion , he has fa i led to show a "compell ingneces s i ty" o r "par t i cu la r i zed need" fo r d i s c losure asrequired by Rule 6(e) . Indeed , an examination of the t r a n s c r i p t would show beyond peradven ture t h a t the re i s nothingin Mr. Nixon ' s t es t imony , which focused pr imar i ly on pendinggrand jury i nves t iga t ions , t h a t "might have led the jury toen te r ta in a reasonable doubt about [defendant 's ] gu i l t " inth e Watergate cover-up case , see Levin v. Katzenbach, 363

2 / See Hawkes v . In te rna l Revenue Service , supra ;F a r n e l l v. Sol ICI tOr Genera l , 429 F. 2d 1318 (5th C ~ 9 7 0 ) ;Un1ted Sta tes v. Kessle r , 253 F.2d 290, 29 2 (2 d C i r . 1958) .3 / Although defendants made conc lusory a l l ega t ions a tt r i a l t h a t Mr. Nixon ' s te s t imony would be exculpa tory , th eCourt noted t h a t " [ t ]he re has been no showing by way o f as t a t ement , a f f i d a v i t , or otherwise from Mr. Nixon t h a t hewould, in fac t , t e s t i fy along the l i nes the defendan t s have. pred ic ted . " Memorandum Opinion and Order , United Sta tes v.Mitche l l , D.D.C. Crim. No. 74-110 (December 5, 1974).


8/40

- 4 -

F.2d 287, 291 (D.C. Cir . 1966); United Sta tes v. Bowles, 488F.2d 1307, 1313 (D.C. Cir . 1973) , c e r t . denied , 415 U.S. 991(1974), and, thus , t ha t the re i s no theory under whichdefendant would be en t i t l ed to product ion of the t r ansc r i p t .

CONCLUSION

In sum, although the government has no ob jec t ion toproducing th e t r a n s c r ip t o f Mr. Nixon ' s examination to theCourt if th e Cour t be l ieves t ha t an in camera review would----be product ive , we contend t ha t on the bas i s o f th e completel a ck o f any showing of need by the defendant , Rule 6(e) i san abso lu t e ba r to the r e l ease o f any p a r t o f these grandju ry mate r ia l s to defendant o r h is counse l .

Dated: July 16, 1975.

Respec t ful ly submi t t ed ,

/5 /HENRY S . RUTH, JR.Spec ia l Prosecutor/ s /PETER M. KREINDLERCoun se l to the Spec ia lProsecutor

lsiENNETH S. GELLERAss i s t an t Spec ia l Prosecutor

/rlPETER F. RIENTA s s i s t a n t Specia l ProsecutorAttorneys fo r the United Sta tesWatergate Specia l Prosecut ionForce1425 K St r e e t , N. W.Washington, D. C. 20005


9/40

UNI'J'ED S'l'Nl'ES DI[;'J.'f:IC'l' cour:'!.'FOR TilE DIS'.i'lUCT OF COLUHDIlI

IN RE JANUlIRY 7 , 1974GMND ;runy

"S'l'IPULl\TION

lVllEREAS on June 23 and 2


10/40

J

- 2 -

l~ 5 t { 1 ~ ~ S l + flErU1ERT ( ~ ~ r " R \ C h i l . r d H . NlX,C O U n S C I

. ,

EXHIBIT A


11/40

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby ce r t i f y t h a t on t h i s 16th day o f Ju ly , 1975,a copy of th e foregoing Memorandum o f th e un i ted States inResponse to Motion by Defendant Mitche l l fo r In CameraInspect ion by th e Cour t of Richard M. Nixon's Testimony wasmai led , pos tage prepa id , to the fol lowing:

William A. Hundley, Esq.Hundley, Cacheris & Sharp1709 New York Avenue, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20006Wm. Snow Fra tes , Esq.Fra tes Floyd Pearson Stewar tProenza & Richman~ ~ e l f t h Floor Concord BuildingMiami, Flor ida 33130John J . Wilson, Esq.White ford , Har t , Carmody & Wilson815 Fi f t een th S t r e e t , N. W.Washington, D. C. 20005David S. Ginsburg, Esq .Ginsburg , Feldman & Bress1700 Pennsylvania Avenue , N. W.Washington , D. C. 20006

/s/PETER M. KREINDLER


12/40

"'lisc. . 7/75

C 1 7/8/75G . Fl.:..1,-J.12.v ' . J l h \ . l C . ' y ) Cacl-"2:ri:; & S!1D.!.? r [ ' ~ s : - d a ' - ~ t ~ n l :J. C.v. JO:lr. ~ t i _ t c r u ~ l l ~ ~ t 1.11 Cri; . _ ; l ) . / ~ - 1 1 ' J

~ # ' : ' ~ i " l : : : ! 1, .. Cl} : ! oE t i le " ' ~ : ) t i 0 n ""'or. T n. CaT1l2ra ::::.'l-::lln.'ltion) 1 7 - 1 - _ ~ Court nE " ' ~ _ i c h ' 1 r d . ';ix:)l)"s T ~ s t i i 7 ! n n y , f i l ~ ( ! in t'l-2. );JV2 C : " ' 3 t ~ 0; 1 behal of nov-qnt .T1)11n 'i'itche.ll i o L ~ ; ? ( ~ ::,y7;1:-lici:E"'"c1.n

0S ..-;: . I i t ~ 1 ~ 1 - ~ - - - - .-------------- .----- ,7- 7-75

Ruth 7- S- 7 5r L t e I ! ' G , P . a r t , C a r m o d y & ~ ; i l s o n ; P a s h i l l g t o n ) U . S .., ... t c ~ l e l l , e t :11 Cr;!1l . i10 . 74-110 D. C.

R2ceived , a copy of t he i o n For The ~ ~ e l e a s e -n !: ,t...Saaled Transcript, f i led in the above C::tSe on b c l 1 : J . l ~ ofd _ e L ~ n d a n t Haldc"'lan .

\ . - . - ~ - - -- -.-.

9/23/76: IDTE: Copies of Motions referred to arove could ro tbe located in '-WSPF Office. The atove rotationsare fran f i le maintained by Mail & Fi le Rcom WSPF.Copies of rrotions can be obtainerl franrecords of U. S. Distr ict Court eventually; a tpresent the f i le in U.s. v. Mitchell, et a lCr. No. 74-110 is with t r e U.s. Ccurt ofAWeals Yhich prevents cur obtaining copy forW ~ F f i les .

F. L. Ccrnpbell

I

\


13/40----


14/40

L',q '1"':0 ~ ; ' . f , ' l ' r : . : r)r ~ T f . ' . l C1' C( lm'!'FllR THE' ) : ~ ; ' l ' R J C ~ ' Of nLL' I ' IHZ.

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRl\ND ,TUHY Mi sc .

o R D E R 'JAMes F. D:\lJEY. ClerkUpon cons ide r a t ion o f the motion of the Spec i a l Prose-

cu to r dated June 30 , 1975, fo r an order a u thor i z in g th eSpecia l Prose cu to r to lodse under sea l with the Nat iona lSecur i ty Counci l por t ions of the t r ansc r i p t dnd the co r r c s -pondin g s t enographer ' s notes of the examinat ion under oa tho f Richard M. Nixon on June 23 and 24, 1975, anc i l l a r y t othe J a nua ry 7, 1974 Grand J ury o f th e United Sta tes D i s t r i c tCour t fo r the D i s t r i c t o f Colunbia , which por t ions have beenc l ass i f i ed TO P SECRET by the Deputy Ass i s t an t to th e Pr es i -den t fo r Nat iona l Security Affa i r s , and having read th ea fo r emen t ioned por t ions and determ i ned t ha t they con ta inmat te rs re l a t i ng to the foreign a f f a i r s anc1 n a t i o n a l sec u r i t y

..v\,~ \ .

~ " " Il! \ilH\l If-

. of the U n i t e d , s t a t ~ s , the d i sc lo sure o f which might se r /ous ly " " ~ t.ind I f o p j ! l ' v ~ i /."f f l , ~ Y "'"."- no f ,...kvaw'l- fo a .. r , . / . c l ... __ t ;--1.,;1 ...."' j yj e d p ~ r d i z e ,/the na t i6na l secur i ty o f the U n ~ t e d S t a t e ~ , T!UW ,/ f ! ' / j~ ~ / t he re fo re , it i s by the cour t on th i s 30th day o f June , 1975hereby

ORDERED t h a t the Spec ia l Prosecutor i s author iz e d tolodge under s e a l with the Nat iona l Secur i t y Counci l thef o l l mving por t ions of the t r ansc r i p t and the cor respondings t enographer ' s notes o f the examinat ion under oa th o f RichardH. Nixon:


15/40

Pil


16/40


17/40

UNI TED STATES DISTR I CT COURTFO R THE DI STRICT OF COLUI-lEIA

IN RE J AN UARY 7, 197 4GRAND JURY Mi s c . No. 75-104

MOTION OF THE SPECIAL PRO SECUTO R

The Spe c i a l Pr osecu to r hereby moves fo r an o r der au-t ho r i z ing him to lodge under s e a l with the Na t i o n a l Se c u r i t yCounci l the fol lowin g por t ions of the t r an s c r i p t and th ecorresponding s tenographer ' s note s o f th e examina t ion underoa th o f Richard M. Ni xon on Ju ne 23 and 24 , 1 975 , a n c i l l a ryto the January 7, 1974 Grand Jury of th e United Sta tesD i s t r i c t Cour t fo r th e D i s t r i c t of Columbia:

Page 62Page 63Page 22 3Page 225Page 25 0Pages 270-276

l i n e 25l in e s 1-12l i n e s 16-17l ines 17-21l i n e s 1-8a l l

In sup p o r t o f the motion th e Sp e c i a l Prosecu to r r ep r e -sen t s as f ol lows:

1 . Pur suan t to the o rder o f t h i s Cour t d a te d June 27,1975, th e Spec ia l Pro s ecu to r d i s c losed to th e De puty A ss i s t a n tto the P re s i d e n t fo r Nat iona l Secur i ty A f f a i r s th e afo re -mention e d por t ions o f the t r ansc r i p t , which por t ions th eSpec ia l Pros e cu to r be l ieved con ta ined mat te r s r e l a t i n g to th efo r e ign a f f a i r s and the na t iona l s e c u r i t y o f th e UnitedS ta t e s , th e d i sc losu re o f which migh t se r io us ly jeopa rd izeth e na t iona l s e c u r i t y o f the United S ta t e s .

2. On June 27 th e De puty A ss i s t a n t to th e Pres iden tfo r Nat iona l Secur i ty Aff a i r s c la s s i f i ed the afo remen t ionedpor t ions TO P SECRET.


18/40

- 2 -

3. It i s the be l i e f of the Spec ia l Pr osecu to r t ha tnone of the aforement ioned por t ions are r e l e v a n t to the con-s id e r a t ion o f any i nd ic tment t h a t may be presen ted by theSpec ia l Pr osecu to r to th e grand j u ry .

4. Pete r M. Kreind le r , Counsel to the Spec ia l Pr ose -cu to r , informed the grand ju ry on June 3D, 1 975, t ha t th eaforement ioned por t ions h ad been c l a s s i f i e d a nd would n o tbe presen ted to the grand ju ry unle s s th e grand ju ry i n d i -ca ted a d e s i r e to hear them and they were t h e r e a f t e rd e c l a s s i f i e d . The grand ju ry r a i sed no ob jec t ion .

Whercfore th e Spec ia l P r osecu to r re spec t fu l ly submitsth a t t h i s motion should be gr an ted .

Dated: June 3D, 1975.

HENRY S. RUTH, JR .Spec ia l P r osecu to r


19/40

UNITED STA'rES DISTRIC T COU RTFO R THE DISTRICT OF COLUNBIA

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JU RY Misc. No. 75-104

NOTION OF THE SPECIAI. PROSECUTOR

The Spec ia l Prosecutor hereby moves fo r an order au-t ho r i z ing him to lodge under sea l with the Nat iona l Secur i tyCounci l th e fo l lowing por t ions o f the t r an sc r ip t and thecorresponding s t enogr aphe r ' s note s o f th e examinat ion underoath o f Richard M. Nixon on June 23 and 24, 1975, anc i l l a r yto the January 7 , 1974 Grand Jury of the United Sta tesD i s t r i c t Court fo r th e D i s t r i c t of Columbia:

Page 62Page 63Page 22 3Page 22 5Page 25 0Pages 270-276

l ine 25l i n e s 1-12l i n e s 16-17l ine s 17-21l i n e s 1-8a l lIn suppor t o f th e motion th e Spec ia l Prosecutor r ep re -

sen t s as fo l lows :1 . Pur suan t to the order o f t h i s Court dated June 27,

1975, the Spec ia l P rosecu to r disclosed to th e Deputy Ass is tan tto the Pres iden t fo r National Secur i ty Affa i r s the afo re -mentioned por t ions of th e t r a n s c r i p t , which por t ions theSpec ia l P rosecu to r be l ieved conta ined mat te r s r e la t ing to th efo re ign a f f a i r s and th e n a t i o n a l secur i ty o f th e uni tedS ta t e s , th e d i sc losu re o f which might se r ious ly jeopard izethe n a t i o n a l secur i ty of the un i ted S ta t e s .

2 . On June 27 th e Deputy Ass i s t an t to th e Pre s i den tfo r Nat iona l Secur i ty Affa i r s c l a s s i f i ed th e aforementionedpor t ions TOP SECRET.

I-;", I


20/40

- 2 -

3. It i s th e b e l i e f o f th e Spec ia l Pr osecu to r t h a tnone o f th e aforement ioned por t ions a r e r e l evan t t o th e con-s id e r a t i o n o f any indictm e n t th a t may be pr e sen ted by th eSpeci a l Prose cuto r to th e grand ju ry .

4. P e t e r M. Kreind l e r , Couns e l to th e Spec i a l Prose-c u t o r , in fo rmed th e grand ju ry on June 30 , 1975 , th a t th eafo rement ioned por t ions h ad been c l a s s i f i ed and \-IQuld n o tbe pres en t ed to th e grand jury unle s s th e g rand ju ry i n d i -ca ted a de s i r e to hea r t hem and th ey \vere t h e r e a f t e rd e c l a s s i f i e d . The grand ju ry r a i sed no obj ec t i o n .

Iherefore th e Spec i a l Prosecu to r r e s p e c t f u l l y submitst ha t t h i s motion should be g r an t e d .

Dated : June 30 , 1975.

HENRY S. RUTH, JR.Spec ia l P r osecu to r


21/40

UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRIC'l' OF COLUMBIA

IN RE JANUnRY 7, 1974GRAND JURY Misc. No. 75-104

MOTION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

The Spec ia l P rosecu to r hereby moves fo r an order au -tho r iz ing him to lodge under s e a l \v i th the Nationa l Secur i tyCounci l th e fo l lowing por t ions o f the t r an s c r i p t and th ecorresponding s tenographer's n o tes o f th e examinat ion underoa th of Richard H. Nixon on June 23 and 24, 1975, anc i llaryto the January 7, 197 4 Grand Jury of the United Sta t e sD i s t r i c t Court fo r th e D i s t r i c t of Columbia:

Page 62Page 63Page 223Page 225Page 250Pages 270-276

l ine 25l in es 1-12l i n e s 16-17l ines 17-21l i nes 1-8a l l

In suppor t o f th e motion th e Spec ia l P rosecu to r repre -sen ts as fo l lows :

1 . Pursuant to the order of th i s Court dated June 27,1975, th e Spec ia l P rosecu to r disclosed to th e Deputy A s s i s t a n tto the Pres iden t fo r Nat iona l Secur i ty Af fa i r s th e a f o r e -mentioned por t ions of th e t r a n s c r i p t , which por t ions th eSpec ia l P rosecu to r be l ieved conta ined mat te r s relaot ing to thefo re ign a f f a i r s and th e n a t i o n a l security o f th e un i tedSta tes , th e d isc losu r e o f which might se r ious ly j eopard izeth e n a t i o n a l secur i ty of th e United S ta t es .

2. On June 27 th e Deputy A ss i s t a n t to th e Pre s iden tfo r Nat iona l Secur i ty Affa i r s c l a s s i f i ed th e aforement ionedpor t ions TOP SECRET.

II!


22/40

- 2 -

3. It i s th e be l i e f o f th e Spec ia l P rosecu to r t h a tnone of the aforementioned por t ions a re re levan t to th e con-s ide ra t ion of any indictment t h a t may be presen ted by th eSpec ia l Prosecutor to the grand j u ry .

4. Pete r M. Kreind le r , Counse l to the Spec ia l P rose-cu to r , informed the grand jury on June 3D , 1975, t h a t th eaforementioned por t ions had been c l a s s i f i ed and would no tbe presen ted to th e grand jury un les s th e grand jury i nd i -ca ted a des i re to hear them and they were t he r ea f t e rd e c l a s s i f i e d . The grand jury ra i sed no ob jec t ion .

Wherefore th e Spec ia l P rosecu to r r e s p e c t f u l l y submitst h a t t h i s motion should be granted .

Dated: June 3D, 1975.

HENRY S. RUTH, JR.Speci a l Prosecutor


23/40

J


24/40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF C O L U ~ r n I A

I N RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JURY

o R D ER

Misc. No.

WHEREAS on June 23 and 24, 1975, Richard M. Nixonvo lun ta r i ly submi t ted to an exrunination under oath a t th eSo.n Mateo Loran S t a t i o n , United Sta tes Coast Guard, SanDiego County, Cal i fo rn ia , sa id examinat ion conducted byth e Watergate Specia l Prosecu t ion Force on mat t e r s s u b j e c tto pending Grand Jury i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , s a id examinat iona n c i l l a r y to and with th e consen t (b ased on th e hea l th o fRichard M. Nixon and o t h e r l e g a l cons idera t ions ) o f th eJanuary 7, 19 7 4 Grand Jury o f th e United Sta tes D is t r i c tCour t fo r th e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia , and sa id exruninationa t t ended by tlvO Grand Jurors Ivith th e approval o f theChief Judge o f t h i s Court ; and

WHEREAS the Spec ia l Prosecu tor be l i eves t h a t ce r t a inpor t ions o f th e t r a n s c r ip t of sa id examinat ion con ta inm ~ t t e r s r e l a t ing to th e fo re ign a f f a i r s and th e n a t i o n a lsecur i ty o f th e United S t a t e s , t he d i sc losur e o f ~ l h i c h might se r ious ly j eopard ize theUnited S t a t e s ;

a t iona l s ecur i ty o f th e

NOW, THEREFORE, it i s by th e Cour t on t h i s 2 ~ t h dayo f June , 1975, hereby ORDERED:

1. Tha t the Specia l Prosecu tor nlay segregate thosepor t ions o f th e t r a n sc r i p t o f the examinat ion t h a t hebe l i eves may appr opr i a t e ly be sub jec t to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ;


25/40

- 2 -

2. That the Specia l Prosecu tor may d isc lose th esegregated por t ions o f th e t r a n s c r ip t to th e DeputyAss is tan t to th e Pr es iden t fo r Nat ional Secur i ty Affa i r sf o r th e purpose o f determin ing which por t ions should bec l a s s i f i e d ; and

3. Th a t th e Sp ec i a l Prosecu tor sh a l l r epor t to theCour t on any ac t ion taken by the Deputy Ass is tan t to th ePr e s iden t fo r Nat ional Secur i ty A f f a i r s .

CHut JUDGE'loT 7)'


26/40


27/40

'.

I '..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF C O L U ~ m I A

IN RE JANUARY 7 , 1974GRAND JtlRY Misc. No .

MO'I'ION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Th e Specia l Prosecu tor moves t h i s Court fo r an or de r :(1) author iz ing th e Specia l Prosecu tor to segregate thosepor t ions o f th e t r a n sc r i p t o f an examinat ion under oath o fRichard M. Nixon t h a t the Specia l Prosecu tor be l i eves mayappr opr i a t e ly be s u b j e c t to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n because theyconta in mat te rs r e l a t ing to the fo re ign a f f a i r s and na t iona lsecur i ty of the un i t ed S t a t e s , the di sc losur e o f which mightse r ious ly j eopard ize the n a t i o n a l secur i ty of the UnitedSta tes ; and (2 ) au thor iz ing the Sp ec i a l Prosecu tor to d i s -c lose th e segregated por t ions o f the t r a n sc r i p t to th eDeputy A s s i s t a n t to the Pr e s iden t fo r Nat ional Secur i tyAf f a i r s fo r th e purpose o f determining ",hich p o r t i onsshou l d be c l a s s i f i e d . The a f or e sa id examinat ion was anc i l -l a ry to th e p ~ o c e e d i n g s of th e January 7, 1 97 4 Grru1d Juryo f t h i s Cour t and was conducted by the Watergate Sp ec i a lPro secu t ion Force on June 23 and 24, 1975, in th e presenceo f t \ ~ O Grand J urors .

The Specia l Prosecu tor w i l l r epor t to th e Cour t onan y ac t ion t aken by th e Depu ty A s s i s t a n t to the Pres ident

---


28/40

- 2 -

fo r Nat ional Secur i ty Af f a i r s I ' lith r e spec t to the segregated. por t ions of the t r a n sc r i p t .

Da t e d: J un e 27, 1975 .

Respect fu l ly submi t ted ,

~ ~ ~ -HENRy\S. RUTH, JR.Specia l Prosecu tor


29/40


30/40

\


..

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JURY

SUPULATION

WHEREAS on June 23 an d 24, 1975, Richard M. Nixonvoluntari ly submitted to an examination under oath a t theSan Mateo Loran Stat ion, United States Coast Guard, SanDiego County, California, said examination conducted bythe Watergate Special Prosecution Force on matters subjec tto pending Grand Jury invest igat ions, said examinationanci l lary to and with the c o n s e n ~ (based on the hea l th ofRichard M. Nixon an d other legal considerat ions) of theJanuary 7, 1974 Grand Jury of the United States Distr ic tCourt for the Dis t r i c t of Columbia, and said examinationattended by two Grand Jurors with the approval of theChief Judge of this Court; and

WHEREAS said examination was taken for presenta t ionto an d to be made a par t of the minutes of the aforesa idGrand Jury; and

WHEREAS Richard M. Nixon, because inqui r ies have beenmade concerning th i s 'matter , desires tha t the fact of thisproceeding be made publ ic , but only with the consent ofthe Court; andWHEREAS the Special Prosecutor has no objectionthere to;

NOW, THEREFORE, counsel for Richard M. Nixon and theSpecial Prosecutor on this 26th day of June, 1975, herebys t ipula te tha t th i s statement sha l l be f i led with the C o ~ t .


31/40

- 2 -

Dated:

s. RUTH, JR.i a l Prosecutor

<


32/40

CLERK 'S OF F ICEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

U. S. COURT HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D. C . 20001

OFF ICIAL BUSINESSPENAl.TY FOR PRIVATE USE $3 00

Henry S. Ruth, Esq .Special Prosecutor1425 K. St NoW.Washington, D.C.

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDUNITED STATES COURTS00


33/40

f Iisd IV[ I (' / V ' Z!~ ~ ~ wC)}AW) \

UNITED STATES DIS'EIUC'r COU RTOE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE JANUARY 7 , 1974GRAN D JURY Hisc .

No.1. 'S'rrpULATION

WHEREAS on Ju ne 23 and 24 , 1975, Richard H. Nixonvo lun tari ly submit ted to an examinat ion unde r oath a t th eSan Hateo Loran Sta t ion , United S t a t e s Coas t Guard , SanDiego County, C a l i f o r n i a , sa id examinat ion conducted byth e Waterga te Spec ia l Prosecut ion Force 0:1 mat te r s su b j e c tto pending Grand Jury in ves t i g a t i o ns , sa id examinat iona n c i l l a r y to and ,,,i th th e consen t (b ased on th e hea l th o f'Richard H. Nixon and o ther l eg a l con s i d e r a t i o ns ) o f theJanua ry 7 , 1974 Grand Jury o f the United S t a t e s D i s t r i c tCourt fo r th e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, and sa id examina t iona t tended by b lo Grand Ju ro r s " , i th the approva l o f th eChie f Judge o f t h is Court ; and

WHEREAS sa id exa:mination \Vas t aken fo r p resen ta t ionto and to be made a p a r t o f th e minutes of the afo resa idGrand Jur y ; and

WHEREAS Ri chard M. Nixon , bec a use i n q u i r i e s have beenmade conce rn in g th i s l1:at ter , d e s i r e s t ha t th e fac t o f t h i sproceeding be made pub l ic , b u t only vli th th e cons en t o fth e Cour t ; and

l"iHE:REAS th e Specia l Prosecu to r has no ob jec t ionthe re to ;

o \ THEREFORE , counse l fo r Richard H. Nixon and th eSpecia l Prosecu to r on th i s 26th day o f June, 1975 , herebys t i p u l a t e t h a t t h i s s ta tement s h a l l be f i l ed wi th th e Cour t .


34/40

So ordered :

G w ~ L H w J J ~ . CHIEF JUDGE

Dated:

- 2 -

j.. './' }......, - -

II

;J.,I -----'I':1!

\


35/40


36/40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLut1I3U,

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JURY

o R D E R

Misc. No .

WHEREAS the January 7, 1974 Grand Jur y , through itscounse l , th e Sp ec i a l Prosecu tor , advised couns e l fo r RichardM. Nixon t h a t it des i r ed to obta in Hr. Nixon's test imony indes ignated areas o f ongoing inqui ry;

ViliEREAS Hr. Nixon responded t h a t he wa s w i l l i n g tosubmit to ques t ioning under oa th , bu t t h a t h is doctor hadadvised him t h a t t r ave l to Washington, D. C. t o t e s t i f y b e-fore th e grand jury might p r e s e n t a r i sk to h is hea l th ; and

WHEREAS the Grand Jury has determined to accep t Hr.Nixon ' s o f f e r t h a t he give a depos i t i on under oath in th eS t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , s a i d deposi t ion to be anc i l l a ry to th eproceed ings o f the January 7, 1974 Grand Jury o f the UnitedS t a t e s D i s t r i c t Cour t fo r th e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, but onthe condi t ion t h a t tvlO grand ju ro r s a t tend sa id depos i t i on ;nov], t h e r e f o r e , it i s by th e Cour t on t h i s day o fJune 1975 hereby

ORDE RED t h a t the Foreman of the January 7, 1974 GrandJury and a member of the Grand Jury to be d es igna ted by th eGrand Jury a re author ized to a t tend a depos i t i on o f RichardM. Nixon under oa th , to be conducted by the Watergate Specia lProsecu t ion Force in a government f ac i l i t y in th e S t a te o fCal i fo rn ia on June 23 an d 24, 1975; an d it i s f u r t h e r


37/40

- 2 -

ORDERED t h a t sa i d grand j u r o r s s ha l l r e ce ive appro-p r i a t e compensat ion fo r and re imbursement o f expensesincu r red in a t tend ing sa id depos i t i on .

ffIEF JUDGE


38/40


39/40


IN RE J .l'.NUARY 7, 197 4GRAND JURY

Misc. No.

MOTION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Th e Spec i a l Prosecu tor hereby moves t h i s Court fo r anor de r : (1 ) author iz ing the Foreman o f th e Janua ry 7, 197 4Grand Jury and a member of th e Grand Jury to b e d e s ig n a tedby th e Grand Jury to a t tend a deposi t ion o f Richard M. Nixonunder o a th , to be c o nducted by th e \vaterga te Specia l Prose -cu t ion Force in a government f ac i l i t y in the Sta te o fC a l i f o r n ia o n June 23 and 24, 1975; and (2 ) d i r ec t ing t h a tthe s a id grand ju ro r s rece ive appropr ia te compensat ion fo rand re imbursement o f expenses incur red in a t t end ing sa idd e p o s i t i o n .

In suppor t o f t h i s motion th e Spec ia l Prosecu torrepre sen t s as fo l lo ws :

1. The Janua ry 7, 1974 Grand Jury, through i t scounse l , th e Sp e c i a l Prosecutor , advised coun se l fo r RichardM. Nixon t h a t it d e s i r e d to obta in Mr. Nixon ' s tes t imony indes igna te d a reas o f ongoing inqu i ry .

2. Mr . Nixon responded t h a t h e v;as \vil l in g to submitto ques t ioning under oa th , bu t t h a t h is do c to r had a dvi sedhim t h a t t r a v e l to Wash ing ton , D. C. to t e s ti fy before th eGrand Ju ry mi g h t p resen t a r i s k to h i s h e a l t h .

3. The Grand Jury determined to accep t Mr . Nixon ' so f f e r th a t h e g ive a deposi t ion unde r o a t h in th e Sta te o fCal i fo rn ia , s a id depos i t i on to be a n c i l l a ry to the proceedings


40/40

- 2 -

of th e January 7, 1974 Grand Jury o f th e United Sta tes D i s t r i c tCour t fo r th e Di s t r i c t of Columbia, bu t on the cond i t ion t h a ttwo grand j u ro r s a t tend sa id depos i t ion .

Wherefore the Spec ia l Prosecutor r espec t fu l l y submitst h a t t h i s motion should be granted .

Respec t ful ly submit ted ,

~ E N R Y S. RUTH, JR .Specia l Prosecutor

Watergate Spec ia l Prosecut ionForce1425 K St r e e t , N. W.Washington , D. C . 20005

Folder 9/1: Richard M. Nixon Testimony-Motions and Stipulations/U.S. D.C. Misc. #75-104

Documents

Transcript of Folder 9/1: Richard M. Nixon Testimony-Motions and Stipulations/U.S. D.C. Misc. #75-104