◆ SpookStack

s) ‘a! ro L Statement of the facts of People v. Sirhan & subsequent questions In an indictment returned by the Grand Jury of Los -Angeles County, defendant Sirhan was charged in Count I with the miiyeAanw a Bahan’ BPeanntia VYannanyu in wtiknlatian aft Danal Mada Murwuci Wh Suwa Praltivwiw ACLS uy ili oe ee ee | wh A VlLIGAQL he SA Section 187. In Counts II - VI defendant Sirhan was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder of Paul Sechrade, Owen Stroll, William Weisel, Elizabeth Evans, and fra Goldstein, in violation of Penal Code Section 217. Defendant Sirhan pleaded not guilty. The trial court denied defendant's motion to surpress certain physical evidence obtained from his residence by means of search and seizure. Defendant's motion for separate juries on the issue of guilt and the possible issue of penalty was denied. Defendant's motion to quash and set aside the petit jury list was denied, as was his motion to quash the indictment. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged on all counts, the jury fixing the degree of the offense charged in Count I at murder in the first degree. After further proceedings on the issue of penalty, the jury fixed the punishment on Count I at death. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, and the California Supreme Court modified the judgment to provide a punishment of life imprisonment instead of death for the murder of Senator Kennedy. Thereafter, every appeal and writ filed by the defendant Sirhan was denied by both California appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. Most recently, in January 1975, Sirhan's attorney, Mr. Godfrey Isaac, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus, and a writ of Error Coram Nobis before the Supreme Court of California alleging that ballistics evidence indicated that two guns had been fired at the murder scene, and that there had been a knowing supression of evidence by the prosecution at trial. Tris application for writ was denied by the California Supreme Court in February, 1975. But despite the affirmation of the trial court and jury's judgment by all appellate courts, the past several years have seen tremendous pressure and demands in many quarters to re-open the investigation of the Senator Kennedy assassination. Specifically, besides the demands of the assassination and conspiracy buffs, there were legitimate requests in the press and by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences that called for a re-examination of the physical evidence in the case. It must be kept in mind that the assassination of a public leader, especially one who commands the extraordinary following as did Senator Kennedy, is an event which produces a profound public reaction. Media coverage of such an event evokes a feeling of shock and indignation similar to the reaction people have to the murder of a friend. The widespread sense of tragedy which followed such an assassination made it a topic for much public discussion and a subject that guaranteed a mass audience for anyone who chose to publicly discuss it.