◆ SpookStack

ot + pas tenbae ye bur ca pea TE a ey ety ; iialetrnaa A ite a ‘ ee y Asks for Transcript mee on a wild fishies PX: fn despite instructions given ite the commission that von itist jhave all these specific charees in jBteat detail im fairness to the employe.” Miss DeHaas asked for a copy of the stenografer’s report of the questions and answers. She was. not provided it until seven months after her attorney, Danirl J. An’ dersen, had made repeated de- mands for it. The transcrint carricd numerous deletions and. changes when finally released, Miss DeHaas charged, On March 18 and aeain.on ms 8.3952, Miss DeHans was oy S tibned before 2 Brand jury sitti E ii the criminal division, Distr fe ‘09 Columbia, in a case entitthd| i“Jhe Investigation of Unauthar-! ized Disclosure of Confidential Information.” She answered all questions freely and her testimony! covered 165 pages. , Grand jury proceedings are tra- ditionally cloaked in secreey. From? ‘earliest times, as attorney Ander-. 50n pointed out in a letter to the; commission, it has bren the policy ‘of the law to shield the proceed. ings of grand juries from public iscrutiny, ; | Grand Jury's Function : “The courts have held.” i hated, "that this secrecy exten S$) lo witnesses and it remains within! the discretion of the court as 9! whether or not such procecdings: Shall be made public. The srand| Jury system is designed to protect! persons against unfounded accusa-. tions as well as a means of bringing’ to trial persons accused of offenses of just grounds. The system was nfver intended az an investigatiye agency for the executive prancn og the government.” onetheless, on July 29, Miss DeHaas was summoned back Yo another grilling by Hatcher afd’ Kithbell Johnson, assistant eh} iF of the investigations division. Wi hy & reporter again present, +t c, questioners demanded that she re. veal any information she had, “pertaining to the release of’ confidential information from the loyalty review board.” Astonished, Miss DeHaas re- i minded Hatcher that she had tes- tifted before the grand jury on 'the subejct and that such pro-. ceedings were confidential, She could not discuss any subjects, she: said, which might have been under'| discussion at the grand jury! wweeeiss DeHaas Flere, Hatcher said he didn't wart to Know what she told the erand jury. He conceded that “testimeny before the grand jury is confiden- tial” rut said that faet did not prohibit, a witness from eiving in- formation to the executive de- Partment on oa subtect which might have been discussed before the grand jury. Miss Detfaas dmplicd that fie gotld nat, see the distinclionf A ne argument, lasting 45 minufes, sued but the woman governngnt plave proved adamant. . Two days fater. Miss DeHaar was formally requested by office memorandum whether she would ‘object to a court arder for release’ of her grand jury testimony in! which Hatcher had said the con) mission had no interest, She Te) plicd on Aug. 2 thru her attorney | that she would oppose the partial release of testimony but was agrec-| bie if all the grand jury testi-| ony were to be made public by art order, “Miss DeHaas has consistently rgfusecd to divulge the proceedings hefoye the grand. jury.” attorney Andersen wrote the commission. ‘If the court Jifts the veil of: Secrecy, she will then be at liberty | to tell the public all that she! knows about the subject under; investigation.” | A sworn affidavit on Sept. & whs| | | ‘filed in court bY Miss Deliads.” E She reviewed the case, chargi that the transcript of her ques- tioning by Hatcher had been altered and bore important de- letions. ; "YT am now and alwavs have been willing to cooperate with the commission,” the affidavit endec.: “My preatest ambition is ta vid our fovernment of Communists no Communist sympathizers jn a order to keep America free.” TIMeS HERALD Pare 2 e7Tf 0 1 TQh? apo 0_—_— eee eeeEeEeEeOoer