Opinion ID: 1204328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Development of Bergman's Relationship with Porter

Text: Bergman visited Porter in prison in January of 1975. Their ensuing interchange is the basis of respondents' contention that Bergman actually knew Porter's allegations against them were false. Bergman testified that when they met, Porter reiterated that he had lied at Lee's trial due to threats and coercion from respondents and that he had never before done such a thing. He told Bergman he would be willing to testify and to execute a sworn statement to that effect. Porter testified that Bergman told him he represented Richard Lee and that he had come to find out about me testifying in the courtroom ... against Richard Lee. Bergman told Porter he felt that some of the things Porter had testified to were not true. Porter testified Bergman was wondering if Porter would be willing to give another testimony. Porter claimed that when he told Bergman his testimony at the Lee trial was true, Bergman replied that he did not believe it; he thought it was false. According to Porter, Bergman told him that if he changed his testimony, Richard Lee stood a chance of getting out and Porter would not have to do that five to life, referring to the California detainer. Porter testified that when Bergman asked him whether McCoy and Erdelatz had threatened him, he said no; but Bergman then asked him again, like it was  it's not going to work, change of testimony. At that point, Porter changed his story because he felt that Bergman would then help him get released from the detainer. Porter also testified, however, that Bergman never came right out and told him to say certain things; he just made suggestions and used leading questions. According to Porter, Bergman did not say outright that he wanted him to give an untrue statement; Bergman would not just come out and say those words, no. Nor did Bergman just come out and say `recant your statement.' Porter confirmed that he told Bergman he testified falsely at Lee's trial and that it weighed on him. He explained that he was angry at respondents and he saw the meeting with Bergman as an opportunity to get back at them. Bergman testified he told Porter that as part of checking into the story, he would probably be checking into the detainer. He denied that he ever promised Porter any help in exchange for Porter's giving an affidavit and denied that there was any understanding to that effect. [13] While Bergman had questions about some of the information Porter imparted to him, he also believed much of it could be true. He considered Porter to be taking a considerable risk to his personal safety by stepping forward and making allegations of misconduct against the police and prosecutor. He viewed Porter's willingness to give a sworn statement as an indication that he was telling the truth. His and Ramirez's subsequent investigation and discovery of information relating to the conduct of respondents in other cases increased his feeling that Porter's charges were believable. For these reasons and because of Porter's stated willingness to testify as well, it never occurred to Bergman that he was being conned. After his interview with Porter, Bergman worked with William Lee in arranging for Indianapolis Attorney John Manning to take Porter's affidavit. Manning met with Porter in February and again in April of 1975. Based on his notes from these interviews, Manning prepared an affidavit which Porter signed in July of 1975. (See Appendix D.) Bergman did not participate in the preparation of the affidavit. [14] Manning testified that at some point before the articles were published, he indicated to Bergman that he had some doubt about Porter's veracity. Bergman testified that Manning commented only about the lack of weight the testimony of Porter, a convict, would have in a legal proceeding. Between February and June of 1975, Bergman inquired about the status of Porter's detainer, as he indicated he would do, and corresponded with Porter on this issue. Bergman believed there might be a record of any promise made to Porter that he would not have to return to California. Bergman contacted Attorney Bruce Hotchkiss who confirmed that there was a letter in Porter's file reflecting a recommendation from law enforcement officials regarding the detainer. In addition, Bergman was referred through Attorney Halvonik to Alice Lytle in the Governor's office. Bergman contacted Lytle and informed her of Porter's concerns about the detainer. She apparently suggested Porter write to the Governor's office directly; Bergman passed that address on to Porter. In June, Bergman wrote to Porter regarding Porter's concern that unless the detainer were dropped, he might still be in custody when he returned to California to testify on Lee's behalf in connection with the affidavit. Porter was afraid his life would be in danger under those circumstances. Bergman wrote that ... we should be clear about my role: (1) I'm trying to set the record straight and that is my motivation; (2) I can't make promises or go to bat for you in a full scale way until Manning finishes otherwise it will all get very complicated. I thought we had a clear understanding there. According to Bergman, he wrote this letter to Porter because he needed Porter to step forward with his allegations in a sworn affidavit so there would be documentary proof that a deal had been made between Porter and respondents. The understanding was that Porter would go through all the way and sign the affidavit to make up for the lies he told against Lee. Bergman would then try to protect him as much as he could should Porter have to return to California to testify in the Lee matter. Bergman felt that unless Porter were willing to step forward with a sworn statement as he had initially indicated he would, the situation would become complicated because Porter would be put on the spot as to whether or not he had said these things. Bergman testified he was not sure he would have been so concerned about Porter unless Porter had been willing to sign the affidavit. Bergman denied that going to bat in a full scale way meant helping on the detainer; instead it referred to those efforts he would make to ensure Porter's safety once he did commit himself in a sworn statement. [15]