◆ SpookStack

oe | on Finally, it was argued that since Schrade had already filed a civil personal injury action against Sirhan and others, this would be the appropriate forum for considering new petitions. Such a request for new discovery procedures of the police officers and other witnesses would fall within the normal and ordinary course of that litigation. On February 5, 1976, Judge Wenke ruled on the new petition filed by Paul Schrade and ordered that Schrade's petition to compel the testimony of the percipient witnesses, examine public records, and conduct further scientific tests be denied. The judge reasoned that the entire six month proceeding had been most unusual. However, stated Wenke, it was never contemplated that the court would make a decision in the conventional sense, such as a finding of guilt or innocence or an award of damages. Rather, reasoned the judge, it had been a Discovery proceeding wherein the petitioners had sought to elicit certain information. Wenke cautioned that there had been a misconception throughout the entire proceeding about the court's role in the matter. It had been reported that the court was conducting an investigation. Wenke strongly stated that this was and is not the fact. "This court," stated Wenke, "has taken the position that there {s a legitimate public interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. It recognized that the physical evidence is under the control of the court and that any examination of same would have to be conducted under the court's supervision so as to insure the integrity of the exhibits. The panel reports were incident to the examination and, accordingly, it appeared to be appropriate for the court to oversee the oral presentation of same." But Wenke cautioned that the new petition filed by petitioner Schrade sought something far different. If granted, stated Wenke, the court would then be undertaking an active investigation. "Investigations are conducted by police, District Attorneys, Grand Juries, and other agencies, but not by courts. It is true that where a possible contempt of court is involved, that courts on eecasion undertake investigations on their own initiative. However, what petitioner seeks does not fall within that limited exception." Wenke then concluded that petitioner Schrade has filed a civil action arising out of the events involved. And since California law is liberal respecting a litigant's right to discovery, the petitioner has the opportunity to call witnesses and secure their testimony under oath, and to obtain copies of certain documents, and request neutron activation and spectograph tests of certain exhibits. Concerning the necessity of obtaining a court order for any neutron activation and spectograph tests, Wenke stated that the court was of the opinion that the probability that the results of such tests would be helpful was very slight. Therefore, the court declined to proceed with the petition for neutron activation and Spectographiec tests. However. concluded Wenke, if the petitioner diligently pursued his right to discovery in his civil action, the court would be willing te reconsider its position as to further testing. The court then denied petitioner Schrade's motion for further tests and his motion to examine witnesses. -~ 75 - ee RE as ee eC;