◆ SpookStack

L u CBS broadly sought a scientific examination of all of the firearms exhibits, including the expended bullets, the cartridge cases, the live cartridges and the Sirhan weapon. CBS argued that evidentary value in these exhibits would be forthcoming by scien- tific comparison, and would verify whether or not particular expended bullets had come from one gun or from more than one gun. Like Schrade, and criminalists Harper and MacDonell in their supporting affidavits for Schrade's petition, CBS did admit in its memorandum of points and authority that one possible result from the examination and testing might be an inconclusive determination whether the bullets had come from a certain gun. CBS argued that under the First and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee free press and a right to a fair trial, petitioner, as a representative of the news media, had a right of public scrutiny of the administration of justice. Additionally, CBS argued that exhi- bits introduced in a criminal trial were part of the public record, and restrictions of access to such records prevented publication about them. Therefore, First Amendment guarantees would be denied by restricting access to the information. CBS admitted that the scientific examination requested in their petition was for the pur- pose of gathering information to be used in a news documentary for nation-wide broadcast on the subject of the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, and that the testing and examination of the exhibits were needed to supply necessary information to be used in the documentary Declaration of bowelliBradford:, CBS Petition Bradford briefly listed a series of questions and public con- troversies eonoerning the Sirhan matter, stating the problems con- cerning bullets and the weapon. He reviewed the pretrial and trial proceedings, and stated that the issue that the bullet which entered Senator Kennedy's body had come from the Sirhan weapon and in the hands of Sirhan!, had never actually been argued at trial. Furthermore, alleged Bradford, there had been no pretrial discovery contesting this conclusion Sirhan weapon firing the bullets!, and at trial, Bradford continued, there was no cross examination of the scientific testimony offered concerning firearms identification evidence. It should be remembered that, at trial, the major de- fense, and perhaps the only defense, was that of diminished capacity. Defense attorneys Grant Cooper and Emile Zola Berman actually stipulated to the introduction of the mismarked envelope in the hands of wolfer. It was the defense attorneys intent to keep as much ballistics evidence and photographs away from the eyes of the Jury for fear of prejudicing the minds of the Jurors with photographs of the slain Senator . -112-