The Clay Shaw trial testimony of Captain Louis Ivon

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 19, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
. . . . Pursuant to the recess, the proceedings herein were resumed at 1:30 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 1969, appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .
THE COURT: Let it be noted that the Jury is back, all counsel are present for the State and the Defense. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: We are ready, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of Mrs. Parker, the State offers, files and introduces into evidence the document previously marked for identification as "S-55."
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received as offered and filed in evidence in this case.
MR. ALCOCK: Can I open it at the page?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Exhibit S-55 exhibited to the Jury.)
MR. ALCOCK: May I approach the bench with Counsel?
THE COURT: You may.
(Bench conference off the record.)
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, before calling the State's next witness, I might announce to the Court that the matter we are now going into, by law is required to be gone into outside the presence of the Jury, so at this time I would ask the Court to excuse the Jury so that we might enter this area in accordance with the law.
THE COURT: Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs, please.
(Jury excused.)
MR. ALCOCK: The State calls Louis Ivon.
THE COURT: I might state for the record, Mr. Alcock, that prior to taking the bench at 1:30 I was requested by Mr. Panzeca, Associate Defense Counsel, to issue an instanter subpoena for Louis Ivon.
MR. DYMOND: We will cancel it as long as the State is calling him.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He is here now, no use to subpoena him.
LOUIS WILLIAM IVON, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: For the record, would you state your full name, please.
A: Louis William Ivon.
Q: Mr. Ivon, by whom are you employed?
A: New Orleans Police Department.
Q: And how long have you been employed by the New Orleans Police Department?
A: Since 1955.
Q: And at this time, Mr. Ivon, are you assigned to the District Attorney's Office?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: In what capacity?
A: As Chief Investigator.
Q: And how long have you been Chief Investigator for the District Attorney's Office?
A: Since 1966.
Q: Am I correct then, Mr. Ivon, that though you are assigned to the District Attorney's Office, you are still a member of the New Orleans Police Department?
A: Yes.
Q: Mr. Ivon, directing your attention to the date of March 1, 1967, did you have occasion on that date to see the Defendant Clay Shaw?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see Clay Shaw in the courtroom?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Point to him, please.
A: (Indicating) The man with the glasses right there in the blue suit.
MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has identified the Defendant Clay Shaw.
THE COURT: All right. Let it be so noted in the record.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, approximately, if you can recall, what time of the day on March 1, did you first see the Defendant?
A: I would believe between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. on the 1st.
Q: And at the time you first saw the Defendant, in whose presence was he, if you can recall?
A: Andrew Sciambra.
Q: Did you have occasion to see him at any time after that first view of him on that date, the 1st?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you see the Defendant on that date?
A: In the office, the Investigator's office.
Q: And is that in the District Attorney's Office proper?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Did you have occasion to have a conversation with him at that time?
A: I did.
Q: And in whose presence was the conversation had with the Defendant?
A: Andrew Sciambra.
Q: Can you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conversation lasted?
A: Probably half an hour, 45 minutes.
Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, after this conversation to see the Defendant again?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you see him?
A: In the District Attorney's Office.
Q: Now, specifically in what room or office did you see him after this conversation, if you can recall?
A: In a smaller officer directly across from the Investigator's office.
Q: Did you have a conversation with him in that office?
A: Yes.
Q: And approximately, Mr. Ivon, what time did that conversation take place?
A: This was approximately 5:00 p.m.
Q: Mr. Ivon, to your knowledge, do you know where the Defendant was between, say, 1:00 o'clock and 5:00 o'clock p.m.?
A: In the District Attorney's Office.
Q: Do you recall what physical location he was in the office?
A: In the Investigator's office, out in the front office, the main office.
Q: Did you personally, or, to your knowledge, did any other member of the District Attorney's Staff question the Defendant during that entire five-hour period?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you personally question the Defendant?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: During the entire five-hour period?
A: No, no.
Q: Other than the first questioning that you have related to the Court that took approximately a half hour to 45 minutes, did you have occasion again to question the Defendant?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, do you know Salvatore Panzeca when you see him?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Do you see him in the courtroom?
A: (Indicating) The gentleman that just sat down.
MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated Defense Counsel Mr. Salvatore Panzeca.
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you see Mr. Panzeca at all in the District Attorney's Office on the date of March 1, 1967?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Do you recall approximately what time you saw him?
A: Between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.
Q: And at the time you saw Mr. Panzeca, was anyone with him? That is, the first time you saw him.
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Panzeca con- ferred with the Defendant at that time?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Did he confer with the Defendant in your presence?
A: No, he didn't.
Q: Do you know what physical location within the District Attorney's Office that they conferred in, if you can recall?
A: No, I can't recall.
Q: Can you approximate for us, Mr. Ivon, about how long they conferred?
A: No.
Q: To your knowledge, and only to your knowledge, Mr. Ivon, do you know why Mr. Panzeca was present in the office?
A: He was called by Mr. Shaw.
Q: Was this call made in your presence?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Do you recall approximately what time that call was made?
A: The call was made right after I finished speaking with Mr. Shaw, I would say roughly -- I am approximating -- probably two.
Q: 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall whether or not after this call was made and prior to the arrival of Mr. Sciambra (sic), whether or not you or any other member of the staff questioned Clay Shaw?
A: To my knowledge, no.
Q: In your presence, had he requested assistance of counsel?
A: Yes, and I advised him to have counsel.
Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon -- and again I realize this would be an approximation on your part -- do you recall approximately how long it was between the call made by the Defendant Shaw to Panzeca, before Mr. Panzeca arrived?
A: It was some time -- I just don't know how long -- because he attempted to locate Mr. Wegmann at first; as a last resort he called Mr. Panzeca.
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, did you see Mr. Edward Wegmann in the District Attorney's Office on the evening of March 1, 1967?
A: I seen one of the Wegmanns, (indicating) the gentleman sitting next to Mr. Shaw.
MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated the counsel Mr. Edward Wegmann.
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recall approximately what time Mr. Wegmann arrived at the office?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Do you recall whether or not it was prior to Mr. Panzeca's entrance into the office or subsequent to that?
A: I believe he came after Mr. Panzeca.
Q: Mr. Ivon, do you know as a matter of your own personal knowledge whether Mr. Wegmann was permitted to confer with Mr. Shaw?
A: Yes, sir, he was.
Q: Do you recall where in the office this conversation took place?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Do you recall, Mr. Ivon, approximately how long this conference was?
A: No.
Q: Was Mr. Panzeca still in the District Attorney's Office, to the best of your recollection, at the time that Mr. Wegmann appeared?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with their client?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether, of your own knowledge, both attorneys conferred with their client together?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing your attention again to the date of March 1, 1967, and more specifically to the evening hours, did you have occasion to place the Defendant Clay Shaw under arrest?
A: Yes.
Q: And where were you physically, and where was he physically, at the time the arrest was effected?
A: He was in the small office directly across from the Investigator's office.
Q: Would this have been the same office that you referred to prior in your testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: At the time that you placed the Defendant under arrest, were either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann present?
A: I believe both were present.
Q: At the time you placed the Defendant under arrest, did you advise him of his Constitutional rights?
A: Yes.
Q: Subsequent to placing the Defendant under arrest, Mr. Ivon, did you have occasion to take him anywhere?
A: No.
Q: At the time you advised the Defendant of his Constitutional rights, can you recall now, or at least essentially recall now, what rights you advised him of at that time?
A: I advised him of his right to remain silent, that anything he might say could possibly be used against him. Of course, his attorneys were present at that time, and interjected into this, and advised me that the client did not wish to speak.
Q: Do you recall which of the attorneys interjected this?
A: I think it was Mr. Wegmann, I am not sure.
Q: Now I take it then, Mr. Ivon, that Mr. Wegmann was close at hand at the time that you advised him of his rights?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. Ivon, subsequent to the placing of the Defendant under arrest, to take him to the Central Lockup?
A: Yes.
Q: And who was with you when you took him to the Central Lockup?
A: Officer Loisel, Al Oser, Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Wegmann, and Mr. Shaw.
Q: Mr. Ivon, did you walk over to the Central Lockup or ride over in an automobile?
A: In an automobile.
Q: Do you recall whose automobile it was?
A: The District Attorney's.
Q: Do you recall who was in the automobile?
A: Yes. Myself -- I was driving it -- Mr. Oser was sitting in the front with me, Lynn Loisel in the back seat, Mr. Wegmann and Mr. Shaw.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State 56," and I ask you if you recognize the scene depicted in this picture?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Where have you seen that scene before?
A: This is when we were taking Mr. Shaw to Central Lockup.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-56.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize any of the persons depicted in that picture?
A: All of them.
Q: Do you see any of the persons depicted in the picture in the courtroom today?
A: Mr. Shaw and Mr. Wegmann.
Q: Who is the other person in the picture?
A: Officer Loisel.
Q: Do you know where this picture was taken?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Mr. Ivon, do you recall whether or not, to the best of your knowledge, this was the seating arrangement in the back seat of the automobile on the way to the Central Lockup?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Did you go directly to the Central Lockup?
A: Yes.
Q: During the course of your ride from the Criminal District Court Building to the Central Lockup, were there any questions asked of the Defendant?
A: No.
Q: Now, what, if anything, did you do, Mr. Ivon, when you arrived at the Central Lockup?
A: Well, we drove around the rear of the Central Lockup, drove in the Central Lockup itself and took him into the Central Lockup.
Q: Mr. Ivon, did you personally have anything to do with the booking of the Defendant on that occasion?
A: No, I did not.
Q: While at the Central Lockup, did you have occasion to question the Defendant any further?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Can you tell me, Mr. Ivon, what rooms, if any, you entered into personally while over at the Lockup on that occasion?
A: Well, the area where you take prisoners at there, also the area where they fingerprint the prisoners, and behind the booking cage of the Central Lockup.
Q: Were you in a position, Mr. Ivon, to see the actual booking of the Defendant in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you in a position to see the fingerprinting of the Defendant in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see the entire fingerprinting procedure?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did you recognize the officer who fingerprinted the Defendant in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: What is his name?
A: Aloysius Habighorst.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Ivon, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "S-57," and ask you if you recognize the area and the scene depicted in this picture?
A: Yes. This is the doorway to the B of I where they fingerprint the prisoners.
Q: Is that in the Central Lockup?
A: Yes, it is.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-57.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating to your activities on that night, that is, the night of March 1, 1967, did you ever have occasion to go through that doorway and on into the room that it leads to?
A: Yes.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State-58," and I ask you if you recognize this scene.
A: Yes, this is the booking area in Central Lockup.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-58.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you have occasion on the night of March 1 to be in this area at all?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this the area that the Defendant was booked in?
A: Yes.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "State-59," and I ask you if you recognize the area depicted in that photograph.
A: Yes. This is the B of I where they fingerprint prisoners in Central Lockup.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-59.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now relating your testimony back to the night of March 1, 1967, did you have occasion at any time during the fingerprinting of the Defendant to be in that room?
A: I was in and out.
Q: Could you estimate for us the longest period of time that you were in during the fingerprinting of the Defendant?
A: Five, ten minutes.
Q: Do you recall whether or not the physical objects in this picture, that is, the desk and the other objects, were positioned in this position on the night of March 1, 1967, to the best of your recollection?
A: I would think so, because this desk is in the same place. I sat down there to fill out some forms.
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, directing you attention again to State-58, which purports to be, by your testimony, a picture of the booking area of the Central Lockup, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1, 1967, the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within the area shown in S-58?
A: Yes, Mr. Wegmann came into the booking area with us when we drove in.
Q: Now with reference to State-59, which, according to your testimony, is the area in which the Defendant was fingerprinted, do you recall at any time on the night of March 1 the presence of either Mr. Panzeca or Mr. Wegmann within this room?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Again referring you to S-59, which you have testified is the area of the fingerprinting, or the fingerprinting room, do you recall at any time on that night seeing any Assistant District Attorney in that room?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall seeing any member of the New Orleans Police Department assigned to the District Attorney's Office at that time, in this room?
A: No. I believe I was the only one.
Q: Do you recall, of your own knowledge, Mr. Ivon, where Mr. Loisel went when you were over there at the Central Lockup?
A: No, I don't.
MR. ALCOCK: I tender the witness.
THE COURT: Take this for the record -- I should have placed it there before: The evidence being elicited out of the presence of the Jury is for the purpose of laying a predicate for an inculpatory oral statement. I wanted that to go in the record. You may proceed, Mr. Dymond.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, is it not a fact that Mr. Shaw's attorneys on March 1 in the District Attorney's Office instructed him to make no statement at all, and advised you and the other law enforcement officers present that he was to make no statement?
A: He advised me.
Q: I see. Was anyone else within earshot when he advised you?
A: I believe Andrew Sciambra.
Q: I see. And of course Mr. Sciambra was participating in the investigation at that time, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Mr. Ivon, you say that during the fingerprinting procedure you were in and out of the Bureau of Identification room in the Central Lockup?
A: Yes.
Q: Approximately how long did the fingerprinting and mugging procedure take?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Well, were you there during the entire procedure, I mean in the building?
A: I was back in Central -- no, I wasn't there the whole time, I believe I left before he was actually put on the books.
Q: Where were you when he first went into the B of I room, that is, to be printed and mugged?
A: I believe I was right alongside of him.
Q: Did you go in with him or not?
A: I am not sure; I think I did.
Q: Then how long did you stay in there on that occasion?
A: A couple of minutes, in and out.
Q: A couple of minutes in and out. I mean how long did you stay in there upon your first trip in?
A: A couple of minutes.
Q: Then where did you go?
A: Out into the outer room where they book the prisoners.
Q: For any particular reason?
A: No. Actually the prisoner was in custody of the Police Department Central Lockup at that time.
Q: So you were actually finished with the arrest procedure, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, did you have any particular reason for staying around there after he had been turned over to the Central Lockup?
A: To fill out some forms.
Q: What forms did you have to fill out?
A: Arrest Sheet, Rights of Arrestee form.
Q: How about the Field Arrest Report? Did you fill that out?
A: Not in -- I believe the officer in Central Lockup fill those out.
Q: You are familiar with the Field Arrest Report form, are you not, sir?
A: No, not really.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for identification "D-14," purporting to be the New Orleans Police Department Field Arrest Report, and I ask you whether you are familiar with that.
A: I have seen these forms before.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-14.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Have you made arrests before, Mr. Ivon?
A: Many times; not since these forms have been in operation.
Q: In other words, would I be correct in saying that you have never filled out one of these forms?
A: I may have. There is no way I would know.
Q: You don't remember ever having filled one out? Is that right?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we have sent outside for the original Field Report form on this case, which a witness has outside.
MR. PANZECA: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Can I bring that return in, Your Honor?
MR. DYMOND: The original Field Arrest Report on Mr. Shaw.
THE COURT: Do you have it in your presence?
MR. DYMOND: Right out in the hall. Captain Curole has it. We subpoenaed it.
THE COURT: Is it under subpoena duces tecum?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Can't we ask Captain Curole to come in and let him make his return on the subpoena?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, we can. We would like to do that.
THE COURT: Ask Captain Curole to step in.
Testimony resumed later

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, did Mr. Clay Shaw make any statements to you before you took him over to the Central Lockup and delivered him there?
A: Answers to questions I may have asked him?
Q: That is correct.
A: No.
Q: Did you ever examine the original Arrest Register in connection with his arrest?
A: Have I examined it?
Q: That is correct.
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: Did you ever look at it and read it over?
A: I may have.
Q: Do you know what an Arrest Register Sheet looks like?
A: Is that what you just showed me?
Q: No, it is not.
A: Probably I have seen them, I may have even filled some out.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which we have marked for identification "D-17," purporting to be an original Arrest Register Sheet, and I ask you if you are familiar with that form?
A: I have seen them before.
(Whereupon, the document referred to be Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-17.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you examine the original Arrest Register Sheet on Clay Shaw at any time?
A: I don't know if I did.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I now show you an exhibit marked for identification "D-15," being the Field Arrest Report on Clay Shaw, which purports to bear your signature, and I ask you whether or not that is your signature on the document.
A: It is.
Q: Now, in view of your previous testimony that you did not know whether you had ever filled out one of these forms and were not familiar with the form, do you now recall having filled out this form?
A: Yes, I filled it out, it is in my handwriting.
Q: When did you fill that out?
A: The night of the arrest.
Q: Before or after you delivered him to Central Lockup?
A: This was after I delivered him to Central Lockup. I believe I got the form from Central Lockup.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if this was after Central Lockup delivery, this is on a predi- cate, this isn't relevant.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you remember where you went --
MR. ALCOCK: I made an objection, Mr. Dymond.
THE COURT: Let me see if I understand your objection. Would you repeat it, please?
MR. ALCOCK: The objection is, No. 1, whether he filled these out or not is really irrelevant to the predicate on freeness and voluntariness of any inculpatory statement, especially as he has just testified he probably filled it out after the booking procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, he said he didn't know when he filled it out, whether before or after. The only way to find out is to pursue it.
THE COURT: I remember Officer Ivon stated -- this is out of the presence of the Jury -- the only reason he hung around, to use the vernacular, in Central Lockup was to fill out reports after -- this report after he had been turned over to the Police.
MR. DYMOND: He didn't even know what this document --
MR. ALCOCK: That is irrelevant to the predicate, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you alleging certain information made and information filled out prior to him being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department?
MR. DYMOND: I am not alleging anything, Your Honor, I am just examining the witness.
THE COURT: The kind of predicate they are laying, or attempting to lay, as I understand at this moment occurred prior to the time Mr. Shaw was physically turned over to the New Orleans Police Department.
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: If you are questioning the witness about some events which occurred after Mr. Shaw being turned over to the New Orleans Police Department, it is immaterial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the predicate.
Is that your objection?
MR. ALCOCK: No, Your Honor, I would like to clarify for the Court, if I may. As the Court knows, the law has been changed and of course you cannot mention any confession or inculpatory statement in the opening statement. If the State could put that in, the Court would be more oriented as to the time the State is alleging the statement was made. This alleged statement was made during the fingerprinting procedure of the Defendant, so he had been turned over, as I appreciate Officer Ivon's testimony, to the New Orleans Police Department, the alleged statement being made to Habighorst, not to Ivon. My objection is to the relevancy of how he filled out forms when that forms no basis or gives this Court no indication of whether or not the Defendant made the alleged statement freely and voluntarily and after having been advised of his Constitutional rights, which is the sole purpose for the laying of a predicate.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we have no way of knowing as of right now when the form was filled out. That is what we are trying to find out. The Officer has stated in his testimony that probably it was after Mr. Shaw was turned over to Central Lockup. He has not been positive in it, and I think we are entitled to inquire into it.
THE COURT: Let me ask the witness one or two questions that may clarify the situation.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Officer Ivon, since you have been attached to the District Attorney's Office, you do not act -- normally or ordinarily the scope of your business affairs is not the same as ordinary police officers, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: So that you would not have the opportunity, as other officers do, to fill out these forms?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, this particular night in question of March 1, 1967, were you present when Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting Mr. Shaw?
A: No, I was not.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Alcock, why, except out of an abundance of precaution, why are you using this witness on a predicate if he wasn't there when the statement was made?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am simply using this witness to show the presence of counsel throughout any questioning that might have taken place, to destroy any possible taint that might creep into the alleged statement because of prior abuse or coercion. I am merely attempting to give this Court a complete picture of what transpired on that night, to show the Court that any statement that might have been made was made freely and voluntarily and after the man had been duly advised of his Constitutional rights.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, if the State is going to give the Court a complete picture, we are certainly entitled to cross-examine on that complete picture.
MR. ALCOCK: Not unless it deals with relevancy to the predicate, and not unless it deals with whether or not he gave the statement freely and voluntarily after being duly advised of his rights. That is the only issue before the Court at this time.
THE COURT: There is no question about that, I think we all agree.
MR. DYMOND: There is no argument about that, we all know that.
THE COURT: Are you seeking, Mr. Dymond, to find out when the Officer filled out the report?
MR. DYMOND: Correct.
BY THE COURT:
Q: Can you come up with an answer? I am not trying to force you, but can you tell us when you made this report out?
A: I made it out on March 1.
Q: That is a whole day; we want to know the hour and minute if possible.
A: No, I can't remember.
Q: Well, how would you have gotten the information that was on that report unless you had to speak to somebody to get it? Right?
A: No, not necessarily. I had enough information about Mr. Shaw I believe to fill out a form, get it from the Booking Sergeant at the Central Lockup.
Q: Wouldn't you have filled out this report prior to you turning Mr. Shaw over physically to the New Orleans Police Department?
A: No, it was after I turned him over to Central Lockup.
Q: That is what I have been trying to get you to say, was it before or after.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Ivon, isn't it a fact that a prisoner isn't booked until you fill out this Field Arrest form?
A: I don't know the procedure back there -- they gave me that form that night to fill out -- I don't know what procedure they have back in Central Lockup.
Q: Did you also sign the affidavit for a search warrant in this case?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will permit it at this time, out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: It is outside of the scope of the predicate also.
THE COURT: I know it is. What does the search warrant have to do with a free and voluntary --
MR. DYMOND: Are you going to permit it? You said you would permit it.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you also make the affidavit for the search warrant in connection with this case?
A: For Mr. Shaw's house?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't remember if I did or not.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object to any questions relative to this document. An application for a search warrant has no relevancy in the matter before the Court at this time.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor --
MR. ALCOCK: -- unless they can establish that it was made out at approximately the same time that Officer Habighorst was fingerprinting the Defendant.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please --
THE COURT: What is the purpose of going into the search warrant at this time?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor said he would permit the question as to whether he made the search warrant out. He answered that, said he didn't know whether he had or not. I want to now submit the warrant to him and ask him whether his signature is on it.
THE COURT: I will permit that, but I am not going to permit you to go into details of the application.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you an exhibit which has been marked for identification "D-18," purporting to be an application for a search warrant to search the home of the Defendant, being under date of March 1, 1967, and I refer you to the last page of this document and ask you whether you executed that.
A: Yes, that is my signature.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-18.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, was this search warrant executed -- at what time on March 1?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, unless this man was present when it was executed. You mean exe- cution of the search or --
MR. DYMOND: No, the affidavit.
THE COURT: What time of day was the application signed?
MR. DYMOND: By this witness?
THE COURT: When did you sign that?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember what time it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was it before or after Mr. Shaw was delivered to Central Lockup?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Was it in the daytime or nighttime?
A: I believe it would have to be in the afternoon, I am not sure.
Q: Mr. Ivon, you say you were in and out of the B of I room while the fingerprinting and the mugging was taking place, is that right, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Mr. Edward Wegmann present in the Bureau of Identification room during this procedure?
A: I seen him by the door; I don't know if he was in the room himself.
Q: Was Mr. Panzeca in the Bureau of Identification room at this time?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know of any of Mr. Clay Shaw's attorneys who were present in the B of I room when he was being printed and mugged?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down. Call your next witness.
(Witness excused.)
MR. ALCOCK: Call Officer Habighorst.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we would ask that Mr. Ivon remain under the subpoena.
THE COURT: You are still under the subpoena.
MR. ALCOCK: We have to put him back on before the Jury anyway.
MR. DYMOND: As long as that is going to be done, it is all right.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Judge, at this time we would move for an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III, V-o-g-t.
THE COURT: Draw up an instanter subpoena for Officer George Vogt, III. Let the Sheriff call the Personnel Office of the New Orleans Police Department. I think they can do it by telephone quicker than running him down.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I agree with you. He may be over in Central Lockup.
THE COURT: Put down on the instanter subpoena the address of the person as possibly or probably the Central Lockup. Are you ready to proceed with this witness?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.