Frustrated Defense

There was no argument with the well-documented facts. On May 16,1974 near Los Angeles, Symbionese Liberation Army Members Bill and Emily Harris got into a sidewalk struggle with employees at Mel's Sporting Goods Store over Bill's alleged shoplifting. Across the street the Harrises' captive-turned-comrade, Patty Hearst, opened up with covering fire. The trio then fled and switched one after another to four vehicles that they appropriated; in two cases the owners were also taken along. The Harrises conceded all that in their current trial for assault, robbery and kidnaping. What then was their defense to be? Last week the answer came: they offered no witnesses at all.

The surprise decision grew out of a series of frustrations for the defense. The violence-preaching Harrises have been largely abandoned by the remnants of the militant left, and at the outset, they themselves ruled out any special fund raising efforts. That left the defense too pinched for elaborate investigation and preparation. The defendants, however, did have as their chief strategist Leonard Weinglass, veteran of the Chicago Seven trial, who was paid out of public funds. In addition, Bill Harris, 31, was permitted to represent himself; Emily, 29, was also active in the defense.

Weinglass and the Harrises had no complaints about Prosecutor Samuel Mayerson, who laid out his case with cool, professional thoroughness. But emotional clashes almost immediately erupted between the defense and Judge Mark Brandler, 66. On occasion Harris lost his temper and once cursed Brandler. A bitter defense disappointment came when Brandler refused to bar admission of a tape sent to an L.A. radio station on which Harris talked about the shootout; both defense and prosecution experts had testified that the tape could have been altered.

Adding to the Harrises' troubles, Patty belatedly offered to testify against them. Weinglass thought that Patty's accusatory testimony might backfire by seeming self-serving. But another of Brandler's unfavorable rulings really boxed the defendants in. If the Harrises took the stand, Brandler held, the prosecution had the right to cross-examine them on some of their writings which discussed Patty's kidnaping and a bank robbery that otherwise could not be mentioned to the jury. Shortly after that decision, Harris stunned the courtroom. "In light of the court's ruling today, I make no opening statement and rest my case." Added his wife: "Like Bill, I rest my case."

Just Joy Riding. Bill Harris did argue his cause to the jury in a closing statement, however, saying the Government is "trying to convict us for our beliefs." For his part, Weinglass contended that the Government had not proved its case. The Harrises, he said, were not guilty of the shooting since Patty was not authorized to use guns by the S.L.A. He also claimed that taking the four vans and cars was more like joy riding than stealing, and that the two owners had been taken along without intent to kidnap. This last argument, especially, was fairly flimsy stuff, since one of the car owners testified that he was held at gunpoint. At week's end, while the jury was still out, Judge Brandler began hearings that the defense hopes will lead to a mistrial or a reversal on appeal. The issue: that before the trial began one member of the jury had declared the Harrises obviously were guilty.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.