◆ SpookStack

l 92. 92¢ _ Arguments against any further examination were made before Judge wenke by Deputy District Attorneys Bozanich and Kranz and Deputy Attorney General Russell Iungerich. These arguments essentially stated that the original requests, as filed in the August petitions of Paul Schrade and CBS, had been followed, and that the court lacked juridsiction to move into an area of independent investigation. Furthermore, since the court only had jurisdiction over exhibits filed with the trial court and under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Superior Court and County Clerk's Office, it was argued that the request in the new.petition filed by Schrade and his attorneys concerned matters not under the jurisdiction of the trial court. Moreover, the ballistics panels testimony, both in working papers and on cross examination, revealed that the seven experts had been thoroughly satisfied that they had exhausted every possible ballistics examination and test procedure to answer the original questions requested by petitioners Schrade and CBS. Therefore, any pursuit of the hearings and ex- amination would be frivolous, and contrary to the original purpose of the court order for testing and examination of the exhibits. Additionally, Deputy Attorney General Iungerich charged that petitioner Schrade wanted to ,use the court as a "roving commission," and Iungerich felt that the objective of the new petition was to create doubt and not eliminate it. Finally, stated Iungerich, "Some individuals have demonstrated an insatiable appetite to pursue a red herring at taxpayers expense when any rational human being would concede this hearing had gotten to the bottom of it. There is no doubt that Sirhan acted alone." Deputy District Attorney Bozanich argued that any and all allegations concerning the Sirhan prosecution should always be presented, and decided, within the judicial process. While cautioning petitioner Schrade on the question of jurisdiction, Bozanich argued that judicial authority, as to jurisdiction over the subject matter, was not contingent upon the desires of the prospective litigants to be in or out of court. Eozanich stated that both the court and counsel of record had an obligation to consider the existence of or lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter raised by the particular litigation. And since the original Schrade petition had been an examination of exhibits within the custody of the Superior Court a request made pursuant to the contention that the exhibits within the custody of the court, in and of themselves, suggested or established that two guns had been used at the scene of the assassination of Senator Kennedy! therefore, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the Discovery proceeding recently concluded. However, concluded Bozanich, the fact that the District Attorney and other counsel of record agreed to the principle of testing, examination and inspection of exhibits within the jurisdiction of the court, could not in and of itself confer jurisdiction on exhibits not under the custody of the Superior Court. Therefore, to introduce testimony concerning new areas of trajectory and ballistics would go into an area of jurisdiction that neither the District Attorney's Office, nor counsel of record, nor the court itself could confer. "Simply stated," said Bozanich, "the new Schrade petition filed in December °°mDletely avoided the question of jurisdiction." -11}-