‘404-10107-10008 Eee ae an? ~O a . 3 F _. C 2 RETURN TO CIA Ce Background Use Only an re Do Not Reproduce 11 January 1977 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, SE Division ATTENTION : Division Security Officer 2 z @ FROM 3 » SE/X/IA SSCS SUBJECT . : Appearance As Witness In Behalf of the ; United States Government REFERENCE : USA V. Gerald P. Hemming, Et Al. (76-371-CR-CA) 1. During the périod of my employment as a-Special Agent. at the ‘interview of Gérald Patrick Hemming (DPOB: 1 March 1937, at Los Angeles, California) on 23 May 1975 at DEA Headquarters .in Washington, D.C. ' My report. concerning that interview has become part of the case file zpy -in-USA v. Gerald P. Hemming, Et Al., Case Number 76-371-CR-CA, Southern District of Florida, Miami, Florida. 2. Upon my entrance on duty in SE Division on 5 January 1977, I orally informed the Division Security Officer, Billy Hix, about the information in paragraph 1 above. Mr. Hix asked me to submit the information in writing as soon as I was settled in the Division. On 7 January 1977, however,,Special Agent Robert Fredericks telephonically contacted] DC/SE/X/LA, and told her that the United States Attornery, Southern District of Florida, had requested that I appear. at the U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida on 10 January 1977 to confer with the Assistant United States Attorney, Karen L. Atkinson, regarding my appearance as a witness in behalf of the U.S. Government in the trial of Gerald P. Hemming. 3. During the afternoon of 7 January 1977 I conferred with Mr. Hix who advised me to contact the Office of the General Counsel. I talked to Mr. Edmund Cohen who advised me to get in touch with the Office of Security, External Activities Branch (OS/EAB). I completed an Outside Activity Approval Request (Form 879), obtained the concurrence of DC/SE, Mr. John Stein, and submitted the Form 879 to OS/EAB. OS/EAB sent me to Central Cover Staff (Mr. Blandford) and then to the Office of the General Counsel. After discussions with Mr. Cohen, I called be oe PL, _ antes ccemmniaed Pe Ne Sete Ma eee gate EGR IE RY tebe stl epee yt oe Teen ahi gs Ae Bag ete St ome g gany RE ry “oo A eae TE tien fice ngs T he Mi : . eh tenia te
14-00000 ey : S/A Fredericks in Miami at Mr. Cohen's Suggestion. S/A Fredericks was not available. Mr. Cohen then advised me to return to my office and he would contact. me with further instructions. Mr. Cohen retained the Form 879. Subsequently, Mr. Cohen advised me that I-should travel - to Miami as requested and that CIA would reimburse me for expenses connected with my activities in behalf of the U.S. Government. He further advised me that being in an overt cover status I should State, © if asked under oath, that I am currently a CIA employee. 4. On 10 January 1977 I traveled to Miami where I met and conferred with AUSA Karen Atkinson and DEA S/A Robert Fredericks. They informed me that Gerald P. Hemming's case had been severed and his trial would not begin on 11 January. AUSA Atkinson told me she wanted me as a rebuttal witness if Gerald P. Hemming presented the defense that he had been working at the direction of DEA. She said they would not call me until and unless that defense was presented. She also said that she felt that any attempt to question me concerning my current place of employment was irrelevent and she would object to any such line of questioning. She said she would only ask me where I was employed at the time I interviewed Hemming. I returned to ; Washina: nT Distribution: i -~ ccs” i1-0os 1 - OC pd
14-00000 f Gl 16 January 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM: Edmund Cohen Assistant General Counsel SUBJECT: U.S. v. Hemming On 22 November 1977 the undersigned accompanied by Messrs. u Gary Mattocks and Robert Barteaux, travelled to Miami to confer with ge Hoeveler, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas M. Sherouse, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, about subject case. Messrs. Jand Mattocks had dealt with Mr. Hemming while they were employed by the Drug Enforcement Administration and Mr. Sherouse wanted them available as rebuttal witnesses. Mr. Barteaux also was sought as a possible rebuttal witness to describe the Agency's relationship with Mr. Hemming in the event that Hemming raised a CIA defense. Q 2. On 23 November Mr poy Mr.. Barteaux and the undersigned met in chambers with Judge Hoeveler, Mr. Sherouse, Mr. Roger Howard, law clerk to Judge Hoeveler, and Mr. Ted Sakowitz, Public Defender for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Sherouse decided that Mr. Mattocks would not be required to testify and he did not attend the meeting. The Judge initially expressed some reluc- tance to have an ex parte conference because Mr. Hemming had assumed primary responsibility for his own defense with only limited assistance from the Public Defender. The Judge insisted that a transcript of the meeting be made but he promised that the transcript would be sealed and, in fact, would not be transcribed. 3. The undersigned indicated that the Agency had no interest in the outcome of the case and interposed no objection, fo the introduction of any relevant information. Our sole concern was to protect Mr aims his relationship with’CIA both before and after his DEA employment. The Judge was informed that Mr? sole con- nection with Hemming was on 23 May 1975 and that he had no contact with Hemming during any period of Agency employment. The national security consequences of exposure of Mr? { _s well as the career consequences were outlined. In addition, the Judge was informed that Mr. Barteaux was prepared to testify as an overt Agency employee about any relationship between Hemming and CIA. SEORET e=Q.IMPDET ch avP3S44 |
14-00000 6 Q 4. Judge Hoeveler asked Mr. Sakowitz to cross-examine Mr to determine whether he had any information which might be relevant to Hemming's defense. Mr. Sakowitz stated that although he was aware that Mr. Hemming wished to call Mr as a witness, he was not fully informed of all aspects of the case and, therefc re, reluctant to question Mr. 3Thereupon, Judge Hoeveler, swore in Mr nd proceeded to ask him a series of questions to determine whether Mr. interaction with Mr. Hemming had been in any way connected with his CIA employment. At the conclusion of this examination the Judge gave Mr. Sakowitz a second opportunity to question Mr= and when Mr. Sakowitz again declined, he stated that in light of the national Séctrity consequences which had been oe to his attention he was not inclined to permit questions relating to Mr SIA employment. 5. At the conclusion of the conference in chambers, but before the jury was admitted into the courtroom, Mr. Sherouse informed Mr. Hemming that Mr. was available as a witness. When the trial proceeded Mr. Hemming concluded is defense without calling Mr Mr. Sherouse, however, did call Mr. as a rebuttal witness, On cross-examination Mr. Hemming asked Mr| whether he was with CIA. Mr. Sherouse promptly objected to the question, thé Judge sustained the objection and Mr. Hemming went on to the next question. The trial concluded soon afterwards without Mr. Barteaux being called as a witness. It was subsequently learned that Mr. Hemming was found guilty as charged. Edmund Cohen EC: jz Distribution: Original LITIGATION-CRIMINAL » Hemming Gerald P. ~ EC Signer 1 - Chrono
CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE _ OUTSIDE ACTIVITY APPROVAL REQUEST COMPLETE AND FORWARD ORIGINAL AND 2 COPIES TO EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH DIRECTOR OF SECURITY; ATTN: EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH (Staff, division or office head and security officer, where assigned) ney & gat < yao, a ee or re S2 Divisio: erenuraty OFfie . COMPONENT AND BLDG. NAME AND GRADE OF EMPLOYEE (Print or ROOM NO. type) fe s39S) 1. FULL DESCRIPTION OF OUTSIDE ACTIVITY FOR WHICH APPROVAL 1S REQUESTED INCLUDING NAMES OF ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS! CONCERNED. DATES. LOCALE. ETc. (Refer to HR 10-7 before completing) a Jamuery LP)? g2- REMARKS BY REQUESTOR ony IN ENGAGING IN THE REQUESTED ACTIVITY, I WILL MAKE NO REFERENCE TO OR DISCUSS 7 SIGNATURE OF REQUESTING EMPLOYEE i 3. COMMENTS AND CONCURRENCE OF STAFF. DIVISION OR OFFICE HEAD DATE SIGNATURE OF OPERATING OFFICIAL FOR COMPLETION BY EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH AND RETURN OF ORIGINAL TO EMPLOYEE DATE: SECURITY. APPROVAL HAS BEEN (GRANTED, DENIED) FOR THE ACTIVITY CONTEMPLATED BY THIS REQUEST. l7Al (ror) CHIEF, SECURITY SUPPORT DIVISION FORM OR use PREVEOUS CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE