◆ SpookStack

( NN nd 1. Analysis of the specific charges contained in the Grand Jury Report. 2. Evaluation of County Clerk management and effectiveness of the department in providing essential services. 3. In depth review of criminal division procedures and operations. . Arthur Will, Chief Administrative Officer, concluded that on the basis of his office review, it was his conclusion that the office of the County Clerk was being effectively administered by the present departmental management. However, Will felt that in the case of the Sirhan trial specifically, inadequate attention was given to the magnitude and importance of the trial by top manage- ment in the County Clerk's Office, and that the department needed to establish an effective mechanism for identifying cases of major significance. Also, Will felt there was a need to create appro- priate procedures to ensure foolproof handling of all aspects of the clerk's responsibilities. The summary of the findings highlighted the following: 1. The Grand Jury had felt that the Superior Court orders intended that the fragile ballistics evidence be specifically pack~ aged but the County Clerk did not comply with this wish, resulting in doubts as to the integrity of the bullets entered as evidence in the Sirhan trial. The C.A.0. task force found that no special instructions were given by the Court in this regard. Storage of the bullets in the austody of the County Clerk remained in the same package that they had originally been placed in by the L.A.P.D. This was con- sistent with the standard operating procedure of the storage of ballistics exhibits. 2. The Grand Jury had been very critical of the manner of enforcement of court-imposed restrictions on viewing and handling of Sirhan exhibits, particularly ballistics evidence, charging that the County Clerk had allowed unauthorized persons access to the exhibits, and had failed to keep an accurate record of visits to the exhibit viewing room and failed to provide adequate security and supervision over the Sirhan exhibits. The Grand Jury’ also noted that several pages of copies of notebooks of Sirhan's notes were missing. ; In rebuttal, the C.A.O. task force found that the person who was permitted access to the ballistics evidence was admitted by the criminal division staff on the basis of telephonic and written ver- ification that the person was a representative of defense. Allowing representatives of counsel to view exhibits had been standard operating procedure for the division. However, it was evident that furthur inquiry and consultation with the court would have been in order in this particular case. Furthermore, in recon- structing the events discussed in the Grand Jury charges, the C.A.0. task force found that the systems, records, and security measures in effect, at that time, were deficient. Improvements were implemented by the department. - 29 -