Opinion ID: 347528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: evidence of the ellsberg break-in and ehrlichman's involvement

Text: 123 Both Ehrlichman and Haldeman contend that the trial court committed error in allowing the Government to introduce evidence that Ehrlichman had authorized an illegal break-in at the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist, for the purpose of examining the psychiatric records of one of his patients, Daniel Ellsberg, who had misused some classified defense documents. 143 The warrantless entry was carried out by some of the persons who were later involved in the Watergate break-in. 144
124 Objection was made to the introduction of evidence of the Ellsberg break-in on the ground that the prejudice engendered by the admission into evidence of such prior acts of criminal misconduct outweighed their legitimate probative value. Ehrlichman br. at 45-53a; Haldeman br. at 4. Rejecting this objection, the court admitted the evidence as being probative of motive. The Government now contends it was properly admitted on two grounds: 125 (1) to show a central motive for the conspiracy by proving the occurrence of activity the conspirators desperately wanted to conceal, and (2) to explain the background and meaning of Hunt's threats to expose the seamy things he had done for the White House if his money demands were not met. 126 Govt. br. at 222. As Mr. James Neal, the Government prosecutor, explained to the court in arguing for the admission of the evidence in question: 127 MR. NEAL: Your Honor, we say the purpose of the conspiracy was to conceal those involved in the planning and implementation of the break-in as well as other matters. 128 Now, our contention and theory in this case and we will put on proof this was one of the reasons for covering up was that if they really got into this matter, if the investigation of the planning and implementation of the break-in was explored and divulged, it would lead them to the operations of Hunt and Liddy and others with respect to the Ellsberg affair. 129 Tr. 2298-2299. 130 The general rule in this country is that evidence of other crimes is admissible to show, inter alia, motive, so long as its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. 145 As Dean Wigmore pointed out, this is basically a question of relevancy, 146 and the fact that the circumstance offered also involves another crime by the defendant charged is in itself no objection, if the circumstance is relevant (to show motive). 147 We do not understand Haldeman and Ehrlichman to challenge this statement of the law; rather, as we have noted above, they argue that (w)hen balanced against the lengthy, inflammatory evidence of Ehrlichman's involvement in the Ellsberg matter    the probative value of this prior criminal activity was outweighed by the prejudice which it caused to Mr. Ehrlichman's defense. Ehrlichman br. at 50. Having reviewed the facts carefully, we disagree and find the balance to lie clearly in favor of the probative value of the evidence with only minimal danger of improper prejudice. 131 Appellants list four factors which, they contend, made this evidence unduly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible: (1) the tenuous connection between the Ellsberg affair and the Watergate cover-up; 148 (2) the adduction of a large quantum of evidence which went to the very heart of Mr. Ehrlichman's conviction in the 'Plumber's Trial' ; 149 (3) the introduction and reading of an August 11, 1971, memorandum from David Young and Egil Krogh to Ehrlichman which bore Ehrlichman's initialed approval of a proposed covert operation    to examine all the medical files still held by Ellsberg's psychoanalyst    ; 150 and (4) the fact that the prior crime was mentioned in the Government's opening statement, contrary to United States v. Bailey, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 505 F.2d 417 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 961, 95 S.Ct. 1350, 43 L.Ed.2d 438 (1975).
132 As regards the first source of claimed prejudice, the tenuous connection between the Ellsberg-Fielding break-in and the Watergate cover-up, we find evidence introduced at the instant trial which could well have allowed the jury to find a definite link between the two events. It could be concluded from the Hunt Memorandum, Tr. 7554-58, and the payment of money thereafter that concealing responsibility for the Ellsberg break-in was part of the motivation for the payment of money to those involved in Watergate. 151 The desire on the part of appellants to conceal the Ellsberg break-in was clearly indicative of a motive to conceal the identities of higher-ups involved in the Watergate break-in as charged in Count 1, paragraph 11 of the indictment 152 because some of those who participated in the former operation were also in the latter and any reasonable person would suspect that if the names of the participants in either venture were discovered, such fact might lead investigators to the identities of those persons participating in the planning, execution, or concealment of the other crime. 133 Evidence of the Ellsberg-Fielding break-in also casts light upon the meaning of Hunt's threat to reveal the seamy things he had done for the White House if he were not paid certain sums of money. This incident came about during Hunt's conversation with co-conspirator Colson, which was generally referred to in Overt Act 22 of the indictment. 134 In addition, the evidence of Ehrlichman's connection to the Ellsberg break-in was also probative on the issue of whether he had consistently urged full disclosure about Watergate as he contended. 153 Thus, far from requiring the jury to reach highly speculative inferential and deductive conclusions, Ehrlichman br. at 46, the Ellsberg-Fielding break-in evidence was tied directly to the Watergate cover-up by the statements and defenses which were placed before the jury of the co-conspirators themselves. 135 Second, Ehrlichman asserts that the prosecution presented an  avalanche of evidence concerning the Ellsberg operation which in effect resulted in his retrial and reconviction on the Ellsberg charges. 154 We find such allegations to be a very substantial overstatement of the record. Actually the testimony concerning the Ellsberg matter was rather limited. It was confined to two Government witnesses, Hunt and Krogh. Hunt answered only four questions which referred to the surreptitious entry at Dr. Fielding's office, and at no time mentioned Ehrlichman. Krogh's direct testimony was relatively minimal, Tr. 7653-7681, with only a part referring to the Special Investigations Unit and the Ellsberg matter. Furthermore, the testimony only went to Ehrlichman's connection with the event and did not concern Ehrlichman's conviction of a crime in connection therewith. 155 It is also noteworthy that appellants did not request a limiting instruction and objected to the court giving the cautionary instruction suggested by the Government. Tr. 7745-7747, 7847, 7863-7870. See 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 216 (3d ed. 1940). 136 Third, we find no impropriety in the introduction and reading of the August 11 memorandum from Krogh to Ehrlichman to the jury. Tr. 7668-7672. Given that there was evidence linking the Ellsberg-Fielding break-in to the Watergate cover-up, it was certainly appropriate to introduce the one piece of documentary evidence which clearly tied Ehrlichman, who was accused of the cover-up, to the California break-in. It is exactly because the memorandum went to the very heart of the Government's (Ellsberg break-in) case and was one of the principal instruments employed to bring about Mr. Ehrlichman's conviction, Ehrlichman br. at 53, that its use was so apposite. The alternative would have been the use of more speculative and less probative evidence which would undoubtedly have prejudiced appellants far more. 137 Finally, we reject the argument that our holding in Bailey,supra, was violated. 156 Here, unlike Bailey, both the court and the defendants were warned in advance by Count 1, paragraph 13 of the indictment and paragraph B(1) of the Bill of Particulars 157 and the Government's Trial Memorandum 158 that this evidence would be offered. In fact, prior to the opening statement, Ehrlichman did object on double jeopardy grounds to the use of the Ellsberg break-in evidence, and this objection was denied. 159 Moreover, even if reference in the opening statement to the evidence would be held to be improper, the error would be harmless here because, as we have observed above, in this case the evidence was admissible. (L)ater government efforts to introduce evidence of the prior offenses were not unavailing in this case. Bailey, supra, 164 U.S.App.D.C. at 313, 505 F.2d at 420. No harm was thus done to appellants by its inclusion in the opening remarks, even if Bailey could be read to bar such mention. 138 We therefore conclude that the probative value of the Ellsberg-Fielding break-in evidence far outweighed its prejudicial effect, 160 and we hold that evidence of Ehrlichman's relation to that venture was properly admitted into evidence. 139