Edward Bennett William's Close Argument

all the

'OUS to
1t. The
text in
~torical
ursting
.sifying
to the
. up a
vere of

)W.

tvinced
ibvious
scene 1
merican
Chapter Five, Part II
Closing Argument. An Example
This is Williams's summation in the Connally trial. In the

trial, the AMPI representatives had testified that they gave
Jacobsen money to give to Connally. Jacobsen had said he
gave $10,000 of the money to Connally. He had described a
day in Houston when Connally, in a meeting at Connally's
Houston office, gave him back $10,000 to put in his safedeposit box so that he could claim that he had never given
the money to Connally.
Nineteen witnesses from the Federal Reserve and related
entities had said that the money in Jacobsen's box could have
been in circulation on the date Jacobsen said he got the
money from Connally. It was clear, though, that much of the
money could not have been in circulation at the time Jacobsen
got funds from AMPI and that Connally of all people would
have known that. Forty-nine of the bills Jacobsen said he got
from Connally bore the signature of George P. Schultz, who
succeeded Connally as Secretary of the Treasury.
Jacobsen also claimed that Connally, having given him the
$10,000, became worried that the bills were not old enough
to make the sto1y plausible and so gave him another $10,000
more than a month later at the home of George Christian, a
Connally friend and former press secretary to President
Johnson.
In the defense case, Connally testified, and a parade of
character witnesses appeared.
*******
175
Persuasion
176
May it please the court and ladies and gentlemen of the

jury.
You have been sitting here for almost three weeks in
what has been up to now a silent role as the triers of the
facts in this somewhat unique criminal trial.
Following the argument of counsel and the instructions
which His Honor will give to you, you will take this case
to your jury room to begin your deliberations, all to the
end of arriving at a verdict that is fair and right and just.
It is my purpose in the time that is allotted to me to
review with you the significant parts of the evidence, and
to superimpose, as it were, over that evidence the instructions on the law which His Honor will give to you, so that
together we may see the points of coincidence, because I
believe in that way I can be of maximum help to you in
your deliberations.
COMMENTARY
In every summation, as Williams notes, you must put together
the law and the facts. Note where Williams begins. He is going
to be "of maximum help." He is going to "superimpose"-using
a gesture of one hand over the other-the instructions over the
evidence.
First of all, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for

the attention that you have given to this case for the past
three weeks. At times the evidence was tedious and at
times it was complex and almost incomprehensible.
COMMENTARY
He is referring to the Federal Reserve evidence on money in circulation. It was at times mind numbing. I had done the research
on this issue and prepared cross-examination outlines and
exhibits for the banking witnesses. At one point even Williams
became frustrated with how long it was taking. He came over to
counsel table and whispered, "I'm dying out there. Is this go(ng
anywhere?" I said things looked fine, and he continued. Many
times, in complex cross-examinations, we all get that feeling that
we will never get through it to the point we are trying to make.
Closing Argument-An Example

177
nen of the
weeks in
iers of the
1structions
: this case
all to the
and just.
to me to
:!nee, and
e instrucu, so that
Jecause I
:o you in
ogether
s going
-using
,ver the
: you for
the past
; and at
le.
in cirsearch
sand
illiams
,ver to
going
Many
.g that
make.
Most of the time you will get through it, because your plan of
attack gives you several places to fall back and gives you a good
ending no matter what happens.
And I know I speak for all the parties when I say to you
we are deeply grateful to you for your service.
I have never served as a juror and I suppose I never
shall, because I am a trial lawyer, _but I have always deeply
believed that it is the highest form of public service, that
it is the highest function a citizen can perform. It is the
most God-like function that you will ever be asked to perform in your lives, because you are being asked to make
judgments on a fellow human being.
COMMENTARY
Note the progression here. He thanks the jurors, without sycophancy. Jurors do believe their job is important. Even those
reluctant to serve come away with a sense of pride and a new
attitude toward service. In a celebrated cas~, jurors feel this sense
of pride more easily. Indeed, during voir dire you may want to
weed out those who are too eager to serve. You will seldom
want a juror who comes to the case with an agenda already
fix.ed.
In a case that has not attracted media attention, one purpose
of voir dire is to tell jurors just how important the case is-to
your client and to the justice system. You pick up this theme in
argument.
The final step in this progression is to speak of the "God-like
function," which one would do often in criminal cases but less
often in civil ones. This jury included deeply religious people.
Their faith may cause them to hesitate to "judge" another human
being. If you were not going to use this image, you could use a
softer one to the same effect: "The importance of this case is
shown by the very fact you are here. For all the most important
decisions in our society, in all disputes between individuals, or
between individuals and corporations, or individuals and the
government; we don't trust the lawyers, the judges, and the
bureaucrats. We trust you. We ask for people from the community to come and give up their time and render judgment."
Persuasion
178
G. K. Chesterton apotheosized the jury by saying that all

important matters are resolved by calling twelve ordinary citizens
from different walks of life. As he recalled, the "father of
Christianity" had done the same thing. I have never used this
image, because l think it might be offensive to some jurors. The
image of Jesus calling on the apostles may strike some as more
talk about male-dominated institutions. Some devout Christians
may think that equating juries with the apostles borders on sacrilege. Non-Christians will think the image inapt for other reasons.
On the day when we first met I said to you when I

made the opening statement on behalf of the defense, that
an opening statement by a trial lawyer is not like a politician's speech, because a politician seeking high office
could stand before you and promise the moon, knowing
that he didn't have to deliver on his promises or his commitments until after the votes were cast.
I said to you that day a trial lawyer has to deliver on his
commitments, that he has to prove to the jury before they
begin their deliberations, before they begin their consideration of the case and before they ballot.
I say to you, I hope with humility, and I know with sincerity that I think we have met that responsibility.
COMMENTARY
Here Williams is reminding the jurors of the promise.
I want now to canvass the evidence with you, so that

you can make your own determination.
first is 1
the Tre:
Jacobs<:
And
charge,
He ii
24th-,
Septern
Now
when l
burden
you, m
that Jol
He~
jurors t
by all <
that roe
ecution
a reasc
and to,
you m,
same tl
How
word
chos{
tion.
This is empowering-you make up your mind whether we have

met our obligation.
Unle
Connal
bargair
under 1
verdict
Let's look in the first instance at the charges that have

been filed here. There are two charges against John
Connally which you will consider in your jury room. The
~
~
COMMENTARY

179
.I
1at
tice
1g
ntis
~y
d-
n-
first is that on May 14th, 1971, while he was Secretary of

the Treasury of the United States, he took $5,000 from Jake
Jacobsen.
And the second, members of the jury, is the identical
charge, except only the date is different.
He is charged with having taken another $5,000 on May
24th-on September 24th, I misspoke myself-on
September 24th .
. Now, His Honor is going to tell you as a matter of law
when he gives you your instructions on the law, that the
burden rests squarely upon the prosecutors to prove to
you, members of the jury, beyond any reasonable doubt
that John Connally is guilty of those charges.
He will tell you also that under your sacred oaths as
jurors taken on the very first day when you were selected
by all counsel from all the prospective jurors who sat in
that room, that under your oaths as jurors, unless the prosecution has carried the burden of proving to you beyond
a reasonable doubt that John Connally betrayed his trust
and took $5,000 on May 14, 1971, that under your oath
you must return a verdict of not guilty; and that the very
same thing is true with respect to the second charge.
COMMENTARY - - - - - - ~
How many times does he say "oath", and "law"-two evocative
words? And he couples that with a reminder that all the lawyers
chose these jurors from among all those assembled for jury selection.
at
Unless they have proven in this court of law that John

Connally betrayed his trust on September 24, 1971, and
bargained away his honor to Jacobsen, it is your duty,
under the oaths that you took on the first day, to return a
verdict in this case of not guilty.
COMMENTARY
re
m
1e
The charge is accepting a gratuity "for or because of" an official

act performed. There is no allegation of bribery, which would
Persuasion
180
involve "corrupt" intent and a quid pro quo. But Williams is

upping the ante-making this a question of "honor" and "bargain." He is doing so because the defense rests critically on the
difference between Connally as person (and public servant) of
honor and Jacobsen as liar and thief. To make the distinction
work, Williams intensifies the rhetoric of the charge. In the next
two paragraphs, Williams contrasts the image of Connally with
that of Jacobsen.
Now, I ask you members of the jury at the very outset

before we go any farther, can you say in your minds and
in your hearts that the quality of the evidence offered in
this courtroom by the prosecution has met that burden,
that the quality of the evidence offered by the government
through the lips of a man whom they have characterized
in an indictment as a fraud and a swindler, whom they
have characterized on two occasions, once in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and
once in this very courthouse here as a perjurer?
Can you say that a witness, branded by the government
in those terms, who proclaims himself to be a liar under
oath, can you say that that evidence meets the burden of
satisfying you beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of a
man who came into this courtroom with an impeccable
reputation for honor and integrity after almost three scores
of his life? I don't think you can say that.
I don't think you can say that. I don't think right at the
threshold, you say thatTHE COURT: Mr. Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: -the government has sustained that
burden.
THE COURT: You may suggest, you may not think.
COMMENTARY
Williams continues unfazed by this. He adjusts his language. Did
he step over the line by saying "I don't think"? An advocate can-
note
how(
not,:
point
This :
A~
a per
dusk
Tr.
usual:
ing ir
did n,
MR.
offered
to avoi<
misdee<
been 4!
bore wi
I say
den tha
justice,,
happen
Supp
nal con
told, oh
sequenc
lay culp
Have
scoundr
pate ot
today it
This is
though
X; the

181
lS is
'barthe
:) of
tion
1ext
with
)utset .
sand
ed in
rden,
tIIlent
irized
they
nited
, and
ment
:nder
~n of
of a
:able
:ores
t
the
that
not express a personal belief in the client's cause. He or she may,

however, say what the evidence shows. What Williams said does
not, in my view, cross that line. He is admonishing the jurors,
pointing them to a result based on evidence-or the lack of it.
This is not expression of personal belief.
As a matter of tactics, however, one should be careful to inject
a personal view. You want the jurors to see their way to a conclusion, the better to hold on to it.
The most common form of the error, to which objection must
usually be made, is "vouching" for a witness's credibility by saying in effect that you would not have put the witness on if you
did not think her credible.
MR. WILLIAMS: I say, members of the jury, that they

offered a witness here who cut a cynical deal for himself
to avoid his misdeeds, to avoid the punishment for those
misdeeds, a punishment that in the aggregate might have
been 40 years in the penitentiary, and came in here and
bore witness against this defendant.
I say that if that kind of evidence can support the burden that the prosecution must meet in a court of criminal
justice, God rest the American Bill of Rights, because it can
happen to you and me.
Supposing one of our co-workers was caught in criminal conduct and, faced with the penitentiary, could be
told, oh, you can mitigate this, you can eliminate the consequences of your misdeed if only you give evidence and
lay culpability on another.
Have we reached that point in our society where
scoundrels can escape their punishment if only they inculpate others? If so, we should mark it well, that although
today it is John Connally, tomorrow it may be you or me.
COMMENTARY
This is a necessary attack on the turncoat witness. Remember,
though, the usual reply by the adversary: We did not select Mr.
X; the defendant did.
Persuasion
182
Now, I want to talk to you about Mr. Jacobsen. I want

to talk to you about Mr. Jacobsen the man, and about Mr.
Jacobsen the witness. I want to talk to you about Mr.
Jacobsen the witness before he had an interest to falsify,
and about Mr. Jacobsen the witness after he had a motive
to falsify.
COMMENTARY
For Jacobsen, it is "before and after. " That is the key duality
whenever a key witness has changed his story. In this paragraph,
Williams characterizes the prosecution's case. You will do the
same in every summation, civil and criminal: You will in a deft
paragraph state a key to understanding the opponent's caseand its flaws . Here the government's case rests on Jacobsen. The
prosecutors would deny this, pointing to what they claim to be
corroboration. The defense says none of that corroboration rises
higher than Jacobsen's credibility. For example, if it be proved
that AMP! gave Jacobsen money, we have only the latter's word
that he gave it to Connally.
Standard jury instructions include a charge that the testimony
of an admitted perjurer be received with caution and weighed
with care. They include a similar instruction for an alleged accomplice and for a plea bargainer or immunized witness. We asked
for, and got, all three instructions in this case, so the jury was told
in three different ways to be careful of Jacobsen's testimony.
Then I want to talk to you about John Connally the

man, and then John Connally the accused, and the nature
of the case against him.
COMMENTARY
This, too, is classic. Your case is in triplets-the person, what
happened to that person, and what are we going to do.
First of all, let's look at Mr. Jacobsen, the man. The evidence has shown, members of the jury, that on February
6th, 1974, he was indicted. Normally it wouldn't have significance in a case that a witness had been indicted, but it

183
[ want
,ut Mr.
ut Mr.
falsify,
native
1ality
-aph,
I the
deft
.seThe
o be
rises
: )Ved
;vord
nony
ghed
com.sked
; told
lly the
nature
he evi!bruary
Lve sigl, but it
COMMENTARY
Williams is careful here. An indictment is not proof. Jacobsen is
still .presumed innocent of these charges. One cannot undercut
that presumption, for it is important to Connally as well.
has significance here, members of the jury, because he

was excused from this indictment when he agreed to give
evidence.
What does the government which offers him as a witness before you say about him in this indictment?
Covering a time, precisely the time frame with which we
are concerned and interested here.
It said in that indictment, members of the jury, that Mr.
Jacobsen and his associate, Mr. Cowan, and a man named
Herring, conspired to misapply for their own personal
gain the monies of the First San Angelo Savings and Loan
Association, of which Jacobsen was a controlling shareholder, board member, chairman of the board, with the
intent to injure and defraud that association; that they did
it by false documentation; that they fraudulently took
funds from the depositors and shareholders of that bank
over a period of time, precisely coincident with the time
with which we are dealing here.
COMMENTARY
The government did indeed dismiss these cases against Jacobsen
as a part of its bargain. The district judge in Texas was offended
by this, and tried to keep the cases alive. He appointed special
prosecutors to continue the case because the Justice Department
would not. The Fifth Circuit held that the court did not have the
power under these circumstances to deny the government's
motion to dismiss. The court likened the dismissal power to the
common law nolle prosequi, and said that judicial supervision of
such action is quite limited. See United States v. Cowan &
Jacobsen, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975).
Persuasion
184
And it becomes highly relevant, members of the jury,

because at the very time, as I will show you as we move
along when he was embezzling his client, stealing his
client's money in 1971, he was misapplying the funds of
this bank in 1971.
In Count Two he is charged with misapplying $825,000
of their funds.
In Count Three it is recited that he and his partner, Mr.
Cowan, diverted $115,600 to Mr. Cowan.
Count Four, $93,677 to Mr. Jacobsen.
Count Six, $10,000 to Mr. Jacobsen.
And it is a litany of fraudulent conversion by Mr.
Jacobsen during 1971. That's what the government said
about him in this indictment,
at
it '
ha
th~
lip
me
We
WC
pe1
l
COMMENTARY
Is an indictment an admission by the government that certain
conduct happened? If so, this is evidence under FED. R. Evm.
801(d)(2)(D). The cases say that the indictment is usually not evidence in that sense, but that many other statements by government counsel, such as those in jury argument, would be. See
United States v. GAF Corp., 928 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1991); United
States v. Salerno, 937 F.2d 797 (2d Cir. 1991), rev'd on other
grounds, 505 U.S. 317 (1992). When the government-or any
adversary-takes an inconsistent position, even through counsel,
this is a powerful subject of comment. We are not contradicting
the presumption of innocence here, only raking the adversary for
its own inconsistency.
that he was betraying his trust to his shareholders and to

his depositors, and pilfering their funds.
Now, two weeks later they brought another indictment
against him. They brought that indictment right here in the
District of Columbia, and what did they say about him then?
They said that he had committed perjury before the
grand jury here because he had testified that the money
which he received from Mr. Lilly was still in his safe-
deposit box in the Citizens National Bank in Austin, Texas,
of C
can
or a
con
but
rais(
trutl
des1
Closing Argument-An F.xample

185
he jury,
e move
ling his
unds of
825,000
ner, Mr.
by Mr.
~nt said
:ertain
Evm.
ot evi)Vern-
e. See
Jnited
other
ir any
unset,
licting
1ry for
at the time he testified before the grand jury, when in fact

it was not.
This was the second time the United States government
had indicted Mr. Jacobsen for perjury in two weeks; and
that only a year ago.
Now, what is perjury? Perjury is lying under oath.
The words "lie" and "liar" do not flow easily from my
lips, and I think they flow very uneasily from the lips of
most people. They are words at which most of us recoil.
We don't like those ugly words, and, so, we use softer
words all the time when we can.
We say falsehood, and untruth and prevaricator, we say
perjury, when we mean liar under oath.
I think perjury may be one of the most heinous forms
COMMENTARY
In a re-creation of the Jacobsen cross-examination in 1992, I
began with "You are a liar, are you not, Mr. Jacobsen?" It was an
approach that seemed to work, given the amount of follow-up
material there was. See generally James McElhaney, LITIGATION 175
0995). Williams is right, however. You need to be careful when
calling somebody a liar. Maybe the jurors will think the person is
merely mistaken, and if you can win on that theory so much the
better for your case. Here, however, Jacobsen's falsehood is a
centerpiece of the defense. Why, then, is Williams being careful?
He is letting the jurors see the evidence and make their own judgment. He is trying not to appear to be dictating what they should
think about the evidence. My mock cross was designed to get to
the same place by letting the jurors see Jacobsen admit many lies
and then wiggle around about the characterization.
and to
lictment
e in the
m then?
ore the
money
is safe' Texas,
of crime in the whole United States Criminal Code. We all

can understand when someone in a moment of weakness
or a transport of anger or passion may break the rules of
conduct that are proscribed in our federal criminal code,
but for a man to walk up there, put his hand on the Bible,
raise his hand, swear to God that he is going to tell the
truth and then to spew forth a litany of lies, is conduct so
despicable to be beyond description.
Persuasion
186
COMMENTARY
The characterization of perjury is a rich vein in the history of trial
law. The perjurer is, in one view, worse than the assassin, for he
commits his crime by sullying his oath to God. Williams evokes
the biblical tradition in the next paragraph with "false witness."
Of course, the "informer" in Irish literature is the most
despised . of creatures. And Irish advocates have given us the
richest rhetoric on the subject. In our play, WARRIOR BARDS (1989),
Kevin McCarthy and I put these words in the mouth of Daniel
O'Connell, the great Irish advocate, though in truth we took
them from the actual arguments of both O'Connell and his colleague John Philpott Curran. They are typical of Irish lawyers'
attacks on informers:
If it was not known by unfortunate experience, and
particularly in many recent instances, it could scarcely be
conceived that such abominable turpitude could find place
in any human being. It could scarcely be conceived, that
any being, imbued with a rational and immortal soul,
would deliberately come forward to forswear himself in
the a court of justice when if he is believed the life or liberty of the accused will be forfeited.
Look at him. He admits to treason and proudly carries
the pardon in his pocket. Yes, his pardon in his pocket, so
that he will not be executed as a traitor. And more, his
bribe-not yet in his pocket. Yes, yielding up the tie of
friendship, to watch the steps of his friends for the bribe
of government.
I have heard of assassination by sword, by pistol, and
by dagger; but here is a wretch who would dip the
Evangelists in blood; if he thinks he has not sworn his victim to death, he is ready to swear, without mercy and without end: but oh! do not, I conjure you, suffer him to take
an oath; the hand of the murderer should not pollute the
purity of the gospel: if he will swear, let it be on the knife,
the proper symbol of his profession!
And another example:

I speak not now of the public proclamation for informers, with .a promise of secrecy, and of extravagant reward.
a
s
C
I)

187
story of trial .
assin, for he
iams evokes
;e witness."
s the most
:iven us the
,ARDS (1989),
th of Daniel
.th we took
and his col'ish lawyers'
nee, and
arcely be
ind place
ived, that
rtal soul,
,imself in
ife or libly carries
,ocket, so
nore, his
:he tie of
the bribe
istol, and
dip the
n his vieand withn to take
ollute the
the knife,
Jr informit reward.
I speak of what your own eyes have seen, from the box
where you are now sitting; the number of horrid miscreants, who acknowledged, upon their oaths, that they had
come from the seat of government-from the very
Chambers of Dublin Castle [headquarters of British rule in
Ireland]-where they had been worked upon, by the fear
of death and the hope of compensation, to give evidence
against their fellows . Oh, yes, the mild, the wholesome,
the merciful councils of this government are perched over
catacombs of living death, where the wretch that is buried
a man, entombed till his heart has had time to fester and
dissolve, is then dug up a witness!
Especially so when those lies are false witness against

another.
Now, the government said he was a liar. What does he
say about himself? What does this man say in this very
case? Not under hostile cross-examination by me, not
under the fire of rapid questioning, but under the friend-
ly interrogation of the prosecution.
COMMENTARY
The power of the symbol. Williams insisted that the transcript as
delivered by the court reporter, with a blue ribbon and cover
sheets, be left in its pristine condition. You could make a copy,
but you had to put it back just the way it was. No pencil marks
on it, no highlighting. Thus, when he picked up the transcript,
he was handling the official record, imbued by its appearance
with authority. The same idea is often used with deposition transcripts or key exhibits.
. At page 264 of the rec::ord:

"QUESTION: Did you appear before the grand jury that
week?
"ANSWER: On November 2nd.
" QUESTION: Did you testify falsely on that occasion?
"ANSWER: Yes, I did."
Page 265:
Persuasion
188
"QUESTION: The day after your grand jury appearance

did you talk to Mr. Weitz?"
That's the lawyer for the Ervin Committee.
"ANSWER: Yes, I did.
"QUESTION: Did Mr. Weitz talk to you about the
money?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Did you lie to him?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Later on in the next week, I think
November 2nd, which was a Friday, the following week,
did you testify in depositions in Texas in a lawsuit, Nader
v. Butz?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Were you asked about money on that
occasion?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Did you tell the truth about it?
"ANSWER: No, I did not."
At page 280:
"QUESTION: Did there come a time subsequently when
you testified before the Senate committee under oath?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Once again, did you lie?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Did there come a time when you
appeared before the grand jury here in Washington for a
second time?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Do you remember when that was?
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"QUESTION: Was it in January '74?
"ANSWER: I believe so.
"QUESTION: Did you testify falsely on that occasion?
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Were you questioned about the $10,000
which was in your safe-deposit box?

189
ppearance
about the
., I think
ring week,
;uit, Nader
y on that
::ntly when
~r oath?
Nhen you
1gton for a
vas?
::>ecasion?
he $10,000
"ANSWER: Yes.
"QUESTION: Did you say that the .$10,000 which was in
your safe-deposit box was the same $10,000 that you
received from Mr. Lilly in May, 1971, and you left it there
untouched?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Was that truthful?
"ANSWER: No, sir."
Now, you will all remember that Jacobsen went into
bankruptcy in June of 1972 .
COMMENTARY - - - - - - - - ,
Williams is turning the corner here. First, we have the government and Jacobsen admitting he is a liar. The specific lie Williams
chooses is about whether or not Jacobsen left the AMPI money
"untouched." Of course Jacobsen went on to say that in fact he
took the money and gave it to Connally. That is the problem
with many examples of turncoat testimony-the proponent can
claim that there is a simple change of story occasioned by nothing more than a desire to "come clean." Williams is going to
argue that Jacobsen lied about touching the money to protect
himself from charges of embezzlement, not to protect Connally.
Hence, the transition from lying to bankruptcy. He will now
show just how desperate were Jacobsen's financial straits.
Now, he had been asked before the grand jury at a time

when he now says he was telling the truth about his
assets, and of course the purpose of it was to show that
Jacobsen was a very wealthy man, and he had no need for
funds, and wouldn't have considered embezzling his
client's funds.
He was asked what his net worth was, what his assets
over his debts were, in January of '71 and he said $3 million.
Then they asked him if it was about the same in January
'72 and he said, "Maybe less than $3 million, but around
there."
Now, members of the jury, just six months later he filed
a petition in bankruptcy in the Western District of Texas,
and he said that his debts exceeded his assets by $8 mil-
Persuasion
190
lion, and I asked him about that, and he said, oh, well all
this had taken place in six months.
He had gone from plus $3 million to minus $8 million.
And then I showed him a letter and I asked him if in
fact he hadn't begun his bankruptcy in March, and at page
309, he said: "Yes, that refreshes my recollection."
Now, I'm not surprised that counsel for the government spoke for almost two hours this morning to you
reviewing the facts of this case without ever referring to
this document which is in evidence for reasons that you
will see.
COMMENTARY
These bankruptcy exhibits are "markers." Williams wants the jury
to remember them. He is handling, among other exhibits,
Jacobsen's bankruptcy petition and its attachments. These show
a detailed history of Jacobsen's finances during the months just
before his 1972 filing. The jury will remember these papers, and
ask to have them identified for them during their deliberations.
We were heartened when the jurors focused in a note on the
very payments that Williams is now discussing. Note that he
repeats the identification of the crucial section. As it happened,
the exhibit went to the jury room with the paper clip still
attached to the important page.
First of all, in this document he was asked, members of

the jury, about his various safe-deposit boxes. What did he
say?
"Safe-deposit box Number 865 has been empty for the
last two years."
This is the box referred to in Government's 7-B which
he went into on October 16, 1970, April '71, May 4, '71,
May 13, '71, October 5, 1971, June 12, '72. Empty said he.
And you will see, members of the jury, that he had areason for using those boxes.
Empty all the time he was going in and out, said he,
under oath, in his petition for bankruptcy in the Western
District of Texas.
Sigr
after h
gave r
even r
tion fc
empty
he we
ruptcy
Tha1
We
Attach1
a note
wild e<
from Iv
$100,0(
of Corr
It sh
he tool
in fron
nowsa
say, on
did he
Hep
Bank,~
At tl
Connall
$10,000
Bank ir
Mem
pages l<
being fc
in Texa:
and did
Schee
because
four pa!
order tc

191
oh, well all

s $8 million.
.ed him if in
and at page
:ion."
the governning to you
: referring to
ons that you
rants the jury

:ier exhibits,
These show
: months just
! papers, and
jeliberations.
note on the
Note that he
it happened,
.per clip still
i, members of
;. What did he
empty for the

1t's 7-B which
1, May 4, '71,
~mpty said he.
. he had areai out, said he,
in the Western
Significant. Significant, that on October 5, 1971, right

after he came back from Washington, after he says that he
gave money to Mr. Connally, he went into that box. And
even more significant: four days before he filed the petition for bankruptcy in which he said that box had been
empty for two years, he went back in. Why do you think
he went in? To clean it out before the trustee in bankruptcy saw what was there.
That's not all in this document which tells a whole tale.
We find, members of the jury, that during 1971
Attachment Ten shows you that almost every week he had
a note coming due. It shows, members of the jury, by a
wild coincidence, on the very day that he took $10,000
from Mr. Lilly, allegedly for John Connally, he borrowed
$100,000. He borrowed $100,000 from the National Bank
of Commerce in Dallas, Texas.
It shows, members of the jury, that on the very day that
he took the last $5,000 from Mr. Lilly, which he lied about
in front of the grand jury and the Ervin Committee, and
now says he remembers about which I shall have much to
say, on the very day he took that $5,000 from Lilly, what
did he do?
He paid $5,000 on an indebtedness to the Security State
Bank, 201 West Main Street, Fredericksburg, Texas.
At the very time that he says he was giving John
Connally $10,000 in the summer of 1971, he paid off
$10,000 on another indebtedness at the Capital National
Bank in Austin, Texas.
Members of the jury, Schedule 10 of this petition is ten
pages long of notes that were in default, on which he was
being forced to pay during an of 1971 to a roster of banks
in Texas. There was no chance that this man took $10,000
and didn't apply it to this cascade of debts that he had .
Schedule 11. Schedule 11 is even more interesting,
because Schedule 11 shows in this petition in bankruptcy,
four pages of forced sales that he was making of stocks in
order to meet note payments that were in default.
Persuasion
192
The house was crumbling. His financial empire was

gone. The sheriff was practically at the door during 1971.
And he was in constant default on his indebtednesses, all
during those very months when he says he was taking
money from Mr. Lilly for Mr. Connally.
Small wonder that this document played no part in the
government's case, Defendant's Exhibit Number 2,
because it tells the story of financial disaster. Because it
shows that the man told a falsehood on May 25 , 1974, in
this courthouse, at a time when he swore in this case he
was telling the truth, because he said, during that '71 period he had a net worth of $3 millions of dollars.
Jacobsen was a desperate man. He was embattled and
beleaguered.
If you will recall at the very end of my cross-examination of him, I asked him at page 513:
"QUESTION: Now, I asked you yesterday whether or
not you were indicted on February 6th in San Angelo. I
now want to ask you, Mr. Jacobsen, when you were negotiating with the prosecutor with respect to your testimony
and the disposition of the pending criminal cases against
you, you asked the prosecutor, did you not, whether they
would dispose of the other cases in which you were being
investigated in Texas, did you not?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir. I did.
"QUESTION: And you asked them that right at the end,
did you not?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: You were talking, were you not, about the
Los Lomas case, were you not?
"ANSWER: I don't remember what cases I was talking
about. My lawyer in Austin asked me to ask him that.
"QUESTION: Well, did you mean the Robert Taft case,
the Harold Hill case, the Patchett Bus and Transportation
Company case, the Los Lomas case; and the Sharpstown .
Loan case?
"
wh,
whc
whi
cas<
"
abo
nun
oth<
kno
wer
T
e:
fr
cl
SC
tl:
S(
d,
ar
cc
D
th
w
H
m
bt
tit
te.
in

193
:mpire was
uring 1971.
dnesses, all
was taking
part in the
\J"umber 2,
Because it
25, 1974, in
:his case he
1.at '71 peris.
tbattled and
ss-examinawhether or
.n Angelo. I
were nego1r testimony
ases against
,rhether they
t were being
tat the end,
::>t, about the

was talking
him that.
=rt Taft case,
ansportation
Sharpstown
"ANSWER: I don't remember what I was referring to.

"QUESTION: Is it your testimony, Mr. Jacobsen, that
when you asked Mr. Tuerkheimer
COMMENTARY
Frank Tuerkheimer was the lead prosecutor on this case and a
member of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's office.
whether your plea bargain ended the . Texas cases on

which you were being investigated, you don't know what
cases you were talking about?
"ANSWER: No, Mr. Williams. I knew that I was talking
about a number of cases, because they had investigated a
number of cases. And I knew they had investigated cases
other than the ones you mentioned. But I just wanted to
know if the plea bargain took care of all the cases they
were investigating in Texas.
COMMENTARY
This had been a calculated risk on Williams's part during crossexamination. Jacobsen had been indicted in the case Williams
first mentioned, involving Cowan and Herring. He had not been
charged in the other cases, but at least his lawyer felt there was
some risk there. We did not have really solid information about
these other cases, but enough to open the subject on cross and
see what Jacobsen would do. The risk was that Jacobsen would
deny everything about any investigations except those in which
an indictment had been returned. The principal witnesses who
could contradict him were part of a discredited Justice
Department that had been tainted by the Watergate scandals.
Williams is not deterred by Jacobsen's repeated efforts to end
the inquiry by pleading that he doesn't remember. So Williams is
willing to accept the risk that Jacobsen will continue in this vein.
He decides to list every case that was the subject of investigation,
making it less and less credible that Jacobsen would not remember some of them. Finally, Jacobsen sees that he has lost the battle and he caves in. Had Jacobsen persisted, the "is it your
testimony" answer could have been used as an example of an
incredible answer.
Persuasion
194
In short, members of the jury, the man who was

brought here upon whom the prosecution asks you to
predicate a verdict of guilty in this case, beyond all reasonable doubt, it is a man whom they have charged with
swindling and fraud, a man whom they have charged with
perjury, a self confessed habitual liar and I suggest to you
a proven embezzler.
But I will go into that in more detail in a moment.
What does the prosecution do about this man? Well,
first they agree to drop all the felony charges pending
against him down in Texas. Then they agree to drop the
charges here in District of Columbia. And they agree not
to prosecute him for that $5,000, about which we will
speak in just a moment.
And then what do they do? They put him on the stand.
He takes the same oath that he says he has defiled a hundred times.
And they asked of you, the jury, to bring in a verdict of
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of
Jacobsen.
Inscribed across the portico of the Supreme Court of the
United States are the magnificent words, the bedrock of
our system of government, "Equal Justice Under Law."
Rich or poor, old or young, friend or foe, neighbor or
stranger, man or woman, red or yellow, brown or white,
black, whatever. "Equal justice under law."
Before the law, we all stand equal in justice. I see no
equal justice under law when the government asks the
return of a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on
the testimony of an alleged swindler, an alleged and
avowed perjurer, a man who has bargained hls way out of
the consequences of his misdeeds, and about whom the
prosecutors are concerned with respect to his law license.
COMMENTARY
Another transition. Williams is moving on to capitalize on the
startling-to us, at any rate-revelation that the prosecutors did
resea1
plead
Texas
woul<
sure J
Defe
felony
case th:
And De
lowing
Wet
cerrn
told
have
quen
scant
pleac
time
mear
into,
This I<
terms
ing th
era! fr
crime
unlaw
the let
misde1
which
that tl
Jacobs
I say
practicil
Closing Argument-An F.:xample
195
m who was
asks you to
:yond all reacharged with
charged with
uggest to you
moment.
is man? Well,
rges pending
e to drop the
1ey agree not
foch we will
on the stand.
jefiled a hunin a verdict of
testimony of
.e Court of the
te bedrock of
Under Law."
, neighbor or
)Wn or white,
;tice. I see no
nent asks the
able doubt on
alleged and
his way out of
mt whom the
is law license.
>italize on the
rosecutors did
research to establish that the federal felony to which Jacobsen

pleaded guilty deals with conduct that is a misdemeanor in the
Texas Penal Code. Thus, Jacobsen had some assurance that he
would not be disbarred, and this assurance came in large measure from the prosecutors.
Defendant's 5. Jacobsen wasn't satisfied getting the

felony charges dropped, he wanted a disposition of his
case that would help him save his license to practice law.
And Defendant's 5 shows that the prosecutors said the following to him:
We told Jacobsen we could understand he was concerned about disbarment proceedings in Texas. We
told him we were not his attorneys, that he would
have to conduct his own research on the consequences of a 20l(f) plea, b.ut that our preliminary and
scanty research shows that the conduct he was
pleading guilty to was not a crime in Texas at the
time he committed it and was made a class A misdemeanor by the new Texas Penal Code, which went
into effect on January 1, 1974.
COMMENTARY
This letter was producible in discovery because it discussed the
terms on which Jacobsen would plead. In it, prosecutors are saying that giving an unlawful gratuity, which was a two-year federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 201(f) as it then stood, was not a
crime in Texas. Under the Texas Penal Code, a payment was
unlawful only if corruptly made with a quid pro quo. Later, as
the letter reflects, gift or receipt of such a gratuity was made a
misdemeanor. There probably were election law violations to
which Jacobsen would be. liable as well. The important thing is
that the prosecutors are coming as close as can be to giving
Jacobsen an assurance that he can continue to practice law.
I say for shame. I blush in embarrassment at that man

practicing law, and I blush in embarrassment that the
Persuasion
196
prosecution would be concerned that a man who was an

avowed perjurer, a man who was an alleged defrauder
and a swindler, I blush in embarrassment that they would
be concerned that he stay in the practice of law.
That's the kind of deal that Mr. Jacobsen made for himself-tried to make for himself-and that's the kind of
concern that the prosecution showed for this man. They
agreed to drop that piranha back in the tank.
COMMENTARY
At this point, Williams was on the move. He approached the
prosecutor's table and brandished the letter. Of necessity, he was
standing behind the prosecutors. They could either continue to
look straight ahead at the jurors, or they could turn and look at
Williams. They chose the former alternative. In either instance,
he was in their territory as he leveled the accusation. As he held
the letter in his left hand, with his right hand he enacted picking
up a fish and dropping it into a tank.
Nm
ask,
a S<
vie,
had
that
use
He
Nove
"It
want<
to do
ed to
"W
"W
Or
"AJ
I say, members of the jury, that if that is equal justice
Secre
under the law, we should strike from the portico of that

grand building, that magnificent expression embedded in
those words.
I want to talk to you about Mr. Jacobsen, the witness.
"Y<
"AJ
COMMENTARY
A transition-the before and after of Jacobsen is a basic contradiction, but the treatment of Jacobsen is a triplet-the man, the
witness before, the witness after. Williams has finished one topic
and uses a transition to introduce the next one. This is essential
to the flow of the argumentSometimes you will add to _the verbal transition by turning a page of notes and sometimes by some
other gesture.
You have seen the evidence on Mr. Jacobsen, the man.

Let's look quickly at his testimony before he had an interest to falsify, before he was cutting that cynical, sordid
deal that he finally made on May 23 of 1974, which is
spelled out in Government's Exhibit 12.
"Tl
"Q
"A
got a
Or
"~
form
"N
Th
Selec
view,
Chiru
WI
"Ir
$10,C
able

197
) was an
!efrauder
y would
for himkind of
m. They
ed the
h.ewas
nue to
ook at
,tance,
.e held
>icking
l justice
of that
dded in
jtness.
ontran, the
topic
;ential
eversome
e man.
n intersordid
hich is
COMMENTARY
Now Williams will read from a series of prior statements. He
asked Jacobsen about each of them. He did not simply single out
a sentence or paragraph of each Jacobsen appearance of interview. He read from them at length and simply asked Jacobsen if
had said these things. This was the part of the cross-examination
that some found dull. Now, in closing argument, is the time to
use them and make the point.
He went before the grand jury. He went there on

November 2nd of 1973. What did he say?
"I talked to Secretary Connally about whether or not he
wanted to give money to somebody, or what he wanted
to do with it, and he said he didn't have anybody he wanted to give any money to, so he didn't use it.
"What did you do with it?
"Well, I kept it."
On that same day:
"Are you saying on the second occasion you asked
Secretary Connally if he wanted the money?
"Yes.
"And again he said no?
"That is right.
"QUESTION: Then what did you do?
"ANSWER: I just left it in my safe-deposit box and forgot about it. Frankly, for a little while."
One of the grand jurors suggested a question.
"Without any formal meaning to this word, isn't that a
form of stealing Mr. Lilly's money or deceiving him?
"No, I am going to return it to Mr. Lilly."
The very next day, on November 3rd, he went to the
Select Committee for an informal interview. He was interviewed by Mr. Weitz, and he was interviewed by Mr.
Chinny of the Ervin Committee.
What did he say to them?
"In mid-1971 Jacobsen asked Lilly if he could provide
$10,000 in cash which Jacobsen was going to make available for Connally's disposal.
Persuasion
198
"Shortly thereafter Lilly gave $10,000 in cash to

Jacobsen, who put it in one of his two safe-deposit boxes
in the Citizens National Bank. Jacobsen told Connally that
he had $10,000 in cash from AMPI for his use. He says that
Connally told him he didn't want to give any money either
to Democrats or to Republicans. As a result Jacobsen said
he just kept it in his box. A year later, after Connally left
office and headed Democrats for Nixon, Jacobsen says he
asked Connally again about the money, and Connally did
not use it. Jacobsen said he broke the bills into smaller
denominations, and that the money is still in his box."
What did he tell the Ervin Committee under oath? First
he went into a deposition, in Nader v. Butz. Under oath:
"Do you know of any money being transmitted by Bob
Lilly to John Connally?
"ANSWER: No.
"QUESTION: Have you ever heard of any such transaction?
"ANSWER: No.
"QUESTION: Do you know of any AMPI or TAPE
money ever being delivered to Connally?
"ANSWER: No.
"QUESTION: In any way?
"ANSWER: No."
Under oath.
Under oath again before the Select Committee on
Capitol Hill, December 14, 1973:
"When did you talk to Mr. Connally about this?
"ANSWER: I think it was in June or July.
"QUESTION: What did you tell him?
"ANSWER: I told him I had $10,000 that was available
for him to give to any politician he wanted to give it to."
"What was his response?
"His response was that he did not want to make any
contributions.
"Was anything said about the transaction or the availability of the money?
h
I
n
R
rr
jL
C
p
C,
ti
st
tc
al
199
cash to
sit boxes
1ally that
says that
ey either
,sen said
nally left
1 says he
nally did
> smaller
box."
1th? First
er oath:
l by Bob
transac-
)r
TAPE
ittee on
tvailable
e it to."
ake any
1e avail-
"ANSWER: No. Except that he did not want it.

"QUESTION: But he didn't tell you to return it?
"ANSWER: No, he did not tell me to return it.
"QUESTION: Did he give any reasons to explain why
he didn't want it?
"ANSWER: He did explain why. Briefly he said, 'I'm a
Democrat and in a Republican administration, and I do
not want to be giving money to Democrats since I'm in a
Republican administration, and I do not want to be giving
money to Republicans since I'm a Democrat, so I would
just not rather give anything.'
"QUESTION: Did you ever deliver any money to Mr.
Connally?
"ANSWER: No, sir. I did not.
"QUESTION: The matter of $10,000, was that ever discussed again by you and Mr. Connally?
"ANSWER: Only during the Democrats for Nixon campaign.
"MR. WEITZ: When was that? Not the campaign, the
conversation?
"MR. JACOBSEN: I do not remember.
"QUESTION: Was it in '72?
"ANSWER: Yes, in '72.
"In the second half of '72?
"Yes, sir.
"Sometime between August, for example, and the election?
"Yes.
"What was Mr. Connally's position at that time? Was he
still in government?
"No, he was head of Democrats for Nixon.
"And you brought up the subject spontaneously?
"I told him I still had that $10,000 and I would be glad
to put it in the Democrats for Nixon campaign.
"Did he ask you about what $10,000 you were talking
about?
"I do not remember if he did.
Persuasion
200
"What was his response?

"He didn't want it.
"Did he say why?
"He didn't want any money from AMPI because I suppose, the publicity they had received as a result of a series
of small donations."
Then he came before the grand jury here.
"What do you remember about what you said to
Secretary Connally about the money, and what he said to
you?
"Well, I remember I said that I had $10,000 available from
AMPI, and that he could do with it what he wanted, thinking he might want to make political contributions with it.
And he said he did not want to make political contributions,
he was a Democrat in a Republican administration, and that
as a Democrat he didn't want to make contributions to
Republicans, and his being in the Republican administration
he didn't want to contribute to Democrats.
"QUESTION: And what did Secretary Connally say and
what did you say, on the second occasion?
"ANSWER: Well, I said, after he formed Democrats for
Nixon, I asked him if he wanted the $10,000 in that capacity in the Democrats for Nixon, and he said he didn't want
it."
That's his testimony before he had any motive to falsify.
One more time he gave evidence, the day after he was
indicted in West Texas for conspiracy and fraud. He was
interviewed by a lawyer of AMPI, Mr. Edward Wright,
COMMENTARY
Note that Williams is not being so fulsome in .his description of
Mr. Wright as he was in opening, when Chief Judge Hart stopped
him.
and he was asked about the money that had been given
to him by Lilly in 1971, and this is what he said:
"In May or June of 1971 I received $10,000 in cash from
Bob Lilly. This was delivered to me personally. I still have
this mo:
to AMP
Mitchel:
Nationa
to Johr.
wanted
money
cal pur
didn't~
"Late
for a cc
Connal
"I w:
John G
going t
That
Now, n
Let's
tence, i
~
~
I thit
poet, S
what a
deceiv<
when,
Not i
will.
in hi:
the C
thes~
That
jury.

201
1se I sup)f a series
1 said to
1e said to
able from
ed, thinkis with it.
:ributions,
1, and that
,utions to
inistration
f
say and
:)Crats for
tat capacdn't want
to falsify.
~r he was
. He was
'right,
ption of
stopped
!en given
:ash from
still have
this money in my safe-deposit box. I will return the money

to AMP! when I get clearance from my attorney, Arthur
Mitchell of Austin. The safe-depcisit box is in the Citize.n s
National Bank of Austin. This money was made available
to John Connally for political purposes. Connally never
wanted the money. I set it up with Connally. I got the
money on the theory that Connally could use it for political purposes. When I told Connally 1 had it, he said he
didn't want to make any political contributions.
"Later I offered the money to Connally again. This was
for a contribution to the Democrats for Nixon campaign.
Connally again refused.
"I was never a party to giving any money whatever to
John Connally, and I have no knowledge of milk money
going to him."
That's what he said before he had a motive to falsify.
Now, members of the jury, let's look at his switch.
Let's look at this case and see how it came into existence, its origin, its beginning and its development.
COMMENTARY
Another transition, coupled with an invitation to the jury: "let's
look."
I think it was the beginning of the last century when the

poet, Sir Walter Scott, wrote the often-quoted lines, "Oh,
what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to
deceive!" Oh, how many problems we build for ourselves
when we tell the first significant lie.
COMMENTARY
Not every juror knows of Sir Walter Scott, but on average a few
will. Williams's theory is that Jacobsen got himself so ensnared
in his own lies that he had to keep inventing. He wants to use
the complexity and detail of Jacobsen's story against him. For
these purposes, the imagery is perfect.
That's how this case came into being, members of the

jury.
Persuasion
202
Jacobsen told two lies in November of 1973, and they

have spawned thousands more, and he can't extricate
himself.
I want to show you how it came about, and how he
now finds himself in the horrible, horrible, despicable
. state of bearing false .witness against another man under
oath in a court of justice.
On November 2nd he was called to the grand jury, and
he told his first lie. They asked him about the $10,000 that
he got from Lilly.
"And then what did you do with it, after Secretary
Connally turned it down?
"Well, I kept it.
"Where is it now?
"It's in my safe-deposit box.
"Still in the same bank?
"Yes, sir."
Then, members of the jury he told the second lie. The
second lie was this:
"Is that the only payment made by Mr. Lilly to you
which was ostensibly for Mr. Connally?
"Yes, that's the only one.
"Was there not a later $5,000 payment also made for the
same purpose?
"Not that I recall, sir. All I got was $10,000."
In that same appearance before the grand jury they
asked him again:
"What did you do with the money?
"ANSWER: I just left it"-meaning the $10,000-"in my
safe-deposit box and forgot about it.
"Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Lilly's intention was
that the money got to Secretary Connally, not to your safedeposit box?
"Certainly, that was Mr. Lilly's intention.
."Without any formal meaning to this word, isn't that a
form of stealing Mr. Lilly's money?
"OJ
"Be
excus
whetr
1971,
"Ne
He
indee
got w
He
zling
so, a
Thii
To i
clai:
Will
that
ffiOJ
hoc
diff,
zlin
Jacc
app
Lill)
Will
Cor.
illef
mis:
WO!
nee
mai
No
before
troubl
indict

203
, and they
t extricate
dhow he
:iespicable
nan under
i jury, and
.0,000 that
Secretary
"Oh, no, I'm going to return it to Mr. Lilly.

"Before we excuse you"-they asked him-"before we
excuse you, does anything refresh your recollection as to
whether or not the following October or November of
1971, Mr. Lilly gave you another $5,000?
"No, sir, he didn't give me $5,000."
He told two lies. He said he still had the $10,000, when
indeed he didn't because he used it, and he said he never
got what has now been called the third $5,000 .
He feared, members of the jury, the charge of embezzling his client's funds. He feared that with a passion. And,
so, a case that was conceived in greed, was born in lies.
COMMENTARY
d lie. The
ly to you
de for the
jury they
)-"in my
This is a truly masterful gloss on those grand jury appearances.

To be sure, Jacobsen's denial about the $5,000, which he never
claimed he gave to Connally, is significant. But look how
Williams has reinterpreted the matter. The government admits
that Jacobsen lied, but its version is that he lied about giving
money to Connally and that his difficulties began with that falsehood. Williams must convince the jury that Jacobsen's lies had a
different purpose-to shield him from prosecution for embezzling AMP! funds. He is thus able to concede that the money
Jacobsen had in his safe-deposit box at the time of his grand jury
appearance was not the original AMP! money received from Mr.
Lilly. This, too, meshes with the government's theory. But
Williams suggests that the money came into the box not because
Connally gave it to Jacobsen to put there as a cover-up of the
illegal gratuity, but rather that Jacobsen put it there to cover his
misappropriation. This is the theory of minimal contradiction at
work: Williams has accounted for all the conceded facts and
needs only a relatively slight perceptual shift to put the entire
matter in a different light.
1tion was
{our safe-
;n't that a
Now, he was trapped, trapped by his own mendacity

before the grand jury on November 2nd. Two lies, his
troubles began to pyramid. Soon he was indicted. He was
indicted for his swindle down in West Texas.
Persuasion
204
MR. TUERKHEIMER: Objection, Your Honor. That

assumes facts, and that's an allegation, only.
MR. WILLIAMS: He was indicted for swindling.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. I expected you to bring
this up some time ago, but you didn't. As I told you, ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Jacobsen was indicted in
Texas. The matter is still pending. He is still presumed to
be innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, as any defendant in any case.
However, with regard to his credibility you can consider the facts that he did have an agreement that that case
would be dropped if he pled to the charges here.
Now, go ahead, Mr. Williams.
COMMENTARY
The net effect of this judicial interjection is not hurtful to the
defense. One can avoid the entire issue by telling the jury just
what the judge tells them here. Of course, the indictment is just
a charge, but it is a charge brought by the same government that
is charging Mr. Connally, and it was worrisome enough to Mr.
Jacobsen that he wanted it settled. And therefore, as the judge
will instruct the jury, it gives him a motive to lie and may, nay
must, be considered for that purpose.
Mr.
law
ing,
cee
me<
Md
h
it
(
p
j(
tl
p
b
p
C<
ti:
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, l said he was indicted for

fraud. He was indicted in West Texas on February 6, 1974,
and he was indicted here in the District of Columbia on
February 21, 1974.
He was indicted for the falsehood of saying that the
money that he got from Lilly was still in his box. And he
saw the walls coming in on him. And one week from that
day, one week from that day, he was in the prosecutor's
office negotiating a deal.
What was the deal? Get the Texas case dropped. Get the
District of Columbia case terminated. Get the $5,000 transaction eliminated. Try to save his license. And lo and
behold what else? He came in and he told the story about
John Connally, but he told the story with these conditions.
o:
F,
hi
H
ec
C.
\l(
ing i
abo1
and
didr
H
and
witn

205
mor. That
1g.
,u to bring
you, ladies
indicted in
esumed to
reasonable
:an considt that case
:re.
Fu! to the
: jury just
ent is just
ment that
gh to Mr.
the judge
may, nay
1dicted for
ry 6, 1974,
lumbia on
g that the
And he
: from that
:osecutor's
Defendant's Exhibit Number 34, a memorandum from

Mr. Tuerkheimer, to the files.
"Initially I told Morgan and McNellis, Mr. Jacobsen's
lawyers, that the only restrictions, as a result of this meeting, would be that none of us would testify in any proceeding against Jacobsen about what was said during the
meeting, and that we would not subpoena Morgan and
McNellis to testify either."
COMMENTARY
I still wonder at times how we ever got this document. A prosecutor's notes about a tentative proffer like the one Jacobsen and
his lawyers, Morgan and McNellis, were making may be off limits as attorney work product. The Supreme Court's decision in
Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 (1976), holds that work
product claims do not shield material from production under the
Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, but Jencks material includes only
"statements" of the witness. 18 U.S.C. 3500(e). We argued that
the entire record of the plea bargain, including the sessions
where potential testimony was proffered, were producible as
potentially exculpatory. When such material is produced, it can
be very helpful, because most plea bargains for testimony in complex cases take place in stages as the prosecutors and the turncoat's lawyer explore what each side will gain from the bargain.
In the Nichols case, we did not have the prosecutors' notes of
the bargaining sessions, but we did have a number of FBI reports
of interviews that tracked the changes in Michael Fortier's story.
Fortier was the witness who said that Timothy McVeigh had told
him that our client Terry Nichols was in on the bombing plot.
However, Fortier brought Nichols into his rendition only belatedly. In summation, I summarized this progression: "The Marine
Corps builds men. The FBI builds witnesses."
X.
:d. Get the

,000 transid lo and
tory about
:onditions.
What does that tell you? He was tentative, he was trying it out. But if it didn't work, he didn't ever want to hear
about it again. He didn't ever want anyone coming forth
and saying he told this story about John Connally if he
didn't wash himself out of all his troubles.
Here was an embattled, beleaguered man, bankrupt
and indicted, driven by his initial lies, even bearing false
witness against his friend, but only if it worked.
Persuasion
206
Nobody must say a word unless the deal is cut. And

how did it go thereafter?
Well, the evidence shows that they had him there day
after day for hours. This is long prior to preparing him for
this trial. Government's Exhibit 13 shows all his visits over
there. He was there for ten solid days before they put him
in front of the grand jury.
COMMENTARY
Williams is handling an exhibit as he says this-the record of
Jacobsen's visits with the prosecutors. These days all sorts of
records are kept of comings and goings, especially in public
offices. This sort of material can be very important in recounting
the construction of the witness's tale.
Finally, on the 21st of March the deal was made.

Government's Exhibit 12. They dropped the Texas case.
They dropped the District of Columbia matter. The $5,000
will not be a subject of a11y indictment. And Jacobsen now
has gotten himself freed from the prospect of an aggregate
possible 40 years in the penitentiary, on a plea to an
offense, the maximum punishment for which is two years,
and which gives him encouragement that he may hopefully keep his law license.
He came to the stand, he testified. He testified, I say,
like a programmed robot. It took him one hour and 20
minutes on that clock to tell you in staccato fashion, things
that happened over a three-year period.
COMMENTARY
This is accurate. It is important not to overtry one's case, and the
prosecutors were trying to make Jacobsen a small target. But he
made a terrible appearance on the stand-reluctant, withdrawn,
quiet. The prosecutors had clearly failed to work with him to
make his demeanor confident, his expression clear, his voice natural. Jacobsen was, after all, an experienced lawyer and lobbyist. He knew how to persuade. The cross-examination took five
times as long as the direct.
Th
inatic
the tt
Th
is rec
the C
exam
Susar
accm
detail
beau1
demr
exam
Tht
but
abc
Bib
twc
unc
cor
Jarr
Is;
of Ja1
natio1
been
happ1
I h:
elm
diff.
pot
to 1
Let
meml

207
tl is cut. And
tim there day
,aring him for
his visits over
they put him
he record of
, all sorts of
lly in public
n recounting
made.
.e Texas case.
r. The $5,000
acobsen now
an aggregate
1 plea to an
is two years,
e may hopestified, I say,
hour and 20
tshion, things
:ase, and the

1rget. But he
, withdrawn,
with him to
1is voice natr and lobby.on took five
Thank goodness there is the instrument of cross examination, the oldest instrument in the world for getting at
the truth.
The first cross-examination in the history of the world
is recorded in that book on which you took your oaths in
the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, when he cross
examined the accuser of Susannah, the famous episode of
Susannah and the Elders. He showed by the fact that her
accusers couldn't tell a straight story when pressed for
details, that they were bearing false witness against a
beautiful and virtuous women who was about to be condemned under the law of Moses. The first recorded crossexamination in the history of the world.
COMMENTARY
The story of Susannah and the Elders, not a part of King James
but in other editions of the Bible, was Williams's favorite story
about cross-examination. See Daniel 13:51-62 (Oxford Annotated
Bible, 1962). This is an abbreviated version. Daniel separates the
two witnesses and asks one where the act took place. He says
under one tree, while the other says under a different tree. The
contradiction dooms the accusation. The story is not in the King
James version.
I say to you, members of the jury, in every single detail

of Jake Jacobsen's story, he collapsed under cross-examination. And I want to show it to you because it may have
been so subtle as not to be apparent immediately as it was
happening.
COMMENTARY
I have stressed that cross-examination cannot do the work of
closing argument. Now we are learning the same lesson from a
different perspective. Do not assume that the jurors got every
point you were making in cross-examination. Use final argument
to put it together.
Let's look at every significant date in this case. He said,

members of the jury to you that on April 28th of 1971,
Persuasion
208
John Connally asked for money, sitting in the Treasury

office of the Secretary of the Treasury.
COMMENTARY~~~~~~~
We are well into this summation, and this is the first nod given
to the details of these accusations. All that precedes has been to
prepare you to disbelieve the government's version, which
Williams is now beginning to recount.
And he said:
"I fixed the amount in my mind of $10,000."
It doesn't say that John Connally said any amount. He
says:
"He asked me for some money for the help he gave on
the price support question."
He doesn't explain to you why this conversation was
put on April 28th, a month and three days after price supports were raised, when he had seen John Connally on
March 30th for an hour, on April 16th and talked to him
on April 19th.
Now, explain that. He has to put it on April 28th
because he has to tailor his sto1y to fit as closely as possible to the time he took the $10,000 from Lilly which
was May 4th. The same day he made a $100,000 loan
from the bank in Dallas about which the bankruptcy
shows you.
He says he fixed $10,000. Then why in the name of reason did he take $15,000 from Lilly if he fixed $10,000? And
if he fixed $10,000, why in the name of reason did he
carry $5,000 to Connally? Oh, well, he came up with two
envelopes and one was .empty and one was full, and we
heard the greatest mumbo-jumbo on that to which you
were exposed during the trial.
And what does he say $10,000 for? Because at that time
when he first told the story, he didn't know that they
knew that Lilly was talking about the third five. That's why
he said ten. He was trying to explain that ten that he got,
and that he said he kept.
Nm
whole
the re,
by dat
to do,
corrot
Let'
1971,
hande
came
This
Jaco
retai
sum
the,
the i
sion
whil
inst,
Jaco
He
whyt
He
Securi
box a:
Wh
Sale? l
straigl
No,
with t
The
bys
dep,

209
Treasury
od given
, been to
1, which
tount. He
!
gave on
ltion was
>rice -supmally on
d to him
oril 28th
r as posy which
)00 loan
1kruptcy
e of realOO? And
l did he
vith two
and we
.ich you
hat time
tat they
tt's why
he got,
Now, the other five popped out, and he explodes his

whole story of April 28th, 1971. He tailored his story to fit
the records. And you will see as we go through this date
by date, that he architected a story every foot of the way
to dovetail as closely as possible to records that would
corroborate some facet of the falsehood.
Let's look at the next one. He says he went on May 14,
1971, to the Secretary's office, he took $5,000 out and
handed it to him. Mr. Connally went into the lavatory and
came out with no money. That's the story that he told.
COMMENTARY
This is, of course, a dramatic story. The media had been full of
Jacobsen's version, including money changing hands in the secretary's office, and Connally going into his private bathroom, presumably to flush the wrappers down the toilet. In preparing for
the case, Williams and I went to the Treasury Department (when
the incumbent was absent), and reenacted Jacobsen's alleged version, even to finding out whether one could hear the toilet flush
while sitting in the guest chair at the secretary's desk. This is one
instance of Williams's devotion to detail. You read later that
Jacobsen disavowed the toilet flush on cross-examination.
He didn't quite explain satisfactorily, I should think,

why he held back the other five.
He said after he gave him five, he went to the American
Security and Trust Company and opened a safe-deposit
box and put the other five in.
What did he say when he was telling his story to Mr.
Sale? He told Mr. Sale because he couldn't keep the facts
straight, "I purchased a box, put five in, took five with me."
Now, he found out that the box entry didn't quite jibe
with that so his story was changed, and he tailored it.
COMMENTARY
The government claimed that Jacobsen's story was corroborated
by such things as his safe-deposit records and his opening a safedeposit box the same day as the first alleged turnover to
Persuasion
210
Connally. This evidence was difficult, for Jacobsen had no

apparent need for a safe-deposit box in Washington except as a
home for the Connally money. Yet even this piece of favorable
news for the prosecution is blighted by Jacobsen's unaccountable statement that he decided for an unexpressed reason to give
the money in two payments and by his having changed his story
as to the order of things when it turned out that the bank's
record of his gaining access to the box was at a later time of day
than the Treasury log of his visit to Connally.
'
i
i:
(
Now, what about the rest of that? At page 434 of the

record
COMMENTARY
Whenever speaking of the record, Williams is handling the actual transcript.
I asked him the following:

"QUESTION: When Mr. McNellis submitted a proffer of
what you would say on March 4, 1974, you said you
would say that when you gave Secretary Connally the
$5,000 it was in wrappers, and that he went into the lavatory in his office and he flushed the wrappers down the
toilet bowl. Isn't that what Mr. McNellis said?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: But your testimony here in Court is that
you never told Mr. McNellis, your lawyer, that.
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"QUESTION: You never mentioned that to him?
"ANSWER: No, sir."
And then I said, and His Honor rebuked me for saying
it to him in cross-examination, but I may say it to you in
argument, I said that had to be a figment of his imagination. He disclaimed his lawyer.
Now, why the [safe-deposit] box? Why the box? We
have heard so much about the box. Because the box is the
thing upon which the prosecutors lean so heavily as such
d
tr
tt
V.
g,
h,
D
ra
pl
at
St
kc
la1
wl
en
tw
co
Oc
211
i no
: as .a
rable
JUnt-
, give
story
ank's
f day
of the
)ffer of
id you
.Uy the
te lavawn the
is that
saying
you .in
nagina)X? We
xis the
as such
vital corroborative evidence. They say, well, he wouldn't

be going in and out of that box. That's what they said this
morning, if it were empty.
Well, I say he would. I say he would have had a ve1y,
very good reason. I say he kept this box after he said it was
empty and that's proven from government's Exhibit 6-A.
If it be true, that he went in there in May and put $5,000
in after seeing John Connally, and that he went back there
in September and took $5,000 out before seeing John
Connally, and if it was empty why in the name of reason
did he pay rent on it for the following year in May of 1972?
Why? Because he was worried then.
He wasn't plotting against John Connally in 1971. He
was worried about explaining to Mr. Lilly what he had
done with the money that he kept, and he was building a
trail. He was building and architecting a defense.
I say to you members of the jury, as I said to you on
the opening day, he knew perfectly well John Connally
wouldn't take $10,000 or $10, from him. And, so, when he
got $10,000 from Mr. Lilly it was a bonanza at a time when
he desperately needed it, as you will see from the
Defendant's Exhibit the petition in bankruptcy.
He was still worried about it. So, just in case, down
range he always wanted to have some record tying it in as
proof that he hadn't taken it. And if you will look with me
at September 24th, you will see that his whole story of
September 24 is tailored around an entry into this box.
If it was empty after September 24, 1971, why did he
keep paying rent on it until it was blown open two years
later?
And look, members of the jury, at the other box, 865,
. which he says in his petition for bankruptcy had been
empty for two years. Six entries into that box during the
two-year period.
The most significant one, however, being after he
comes back from Washington to Austin, when he enters in
October '71, at a time when he swore it was empty, and
Persuasion
212
back he goes in there four days before he files his petition

for bankruptcy in the Texas Court.
What does he say about September 24, 1971? He told
Mr. Sale, "I called him." Meaning John Connally.
"I asked him, are you ready for the rest of what I had
for you?"
Members of the jury, you know that's false . All you
have to do is look at John Connally's logs for September
24, 1971. He was at a cabinet meeting at 9:00 o'clock to
9:30, from 9:30 to 10:30 with the President and Dr. Burns
in the White House, and at 11:00 o'clock he was on
Capitol Hill in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
When in the name of reason could Jake Jacobsen have
called him? But he didn't hesitate to spill that out until the
records exploded that story, as he architected his tale.
Now, let's talk about the third $5,000. Counsel said he
wasn't going to say much about that until he heard what
I had to say about it.
COMMENTARY
The prosecutor declined to give a version of the third $5,000 in
his closing, preferring to save it for rebuttal. If you have the right
to open and close the argument, rebuttal is a useful place for
some arguments. It is never a place to introduce difficult subjects
that the other side is sure to bring up. This third $5,000 was an
issue in the case, and the prosecutor knew it. It was a problem
for their side. The jury expects the lawyers to tell them problems
with their case and then to talk about why those problems do
not prevent the verdict the lawyers want. It is almost never a
good idea to hide from one's difficulties, and never wise to tell
the jury you intend to wait and see what the other side says
before committing to a theory of the facts. If you are not going
to argue the point, don't. Then you can use rebuttal to speak or
it as a red herring, a desperate argument by the opponent to
avoid the main issue.
So I'll say what I have to say about it right now.

On November 2nd he went before the grand jury, and
he said to the grand jury three times that he never got a
third
ques1
"D
thing
$5,0C
"A
him
":C
H<
granc
lam
"T
Ne
"I
must
Wasl
N<
jury,
arch:
with
Tl
Si:
an
tia
of
re
m
pr
ec
re
a
aske
reco
still

213
ition
told .
had
you
1ber
k to
1rns
on
tave
the
l he
,hat
n
lt
>r
s
g
,f
)
md
)t a
third $5,000 from Mr. Lilly, and at the very end, as a last
question, he's asked by Mr. McBride:
"Does anything refresh your recollection? Does anything refresh your recollection that you asked and got
$5,000 from Mr. Lilly in 1971, in November?
"ANSWER: No, sir. Absolutely not."
Then he goes up to the Ervin Committee and they ask
him two times:
"Did you get another $5,000 from Mr. Lilly?"
He denied it. He denied it. Then he went before the
grand jury on May 23rd of 1974, and after a process which
I am going to show you, that is what he said:
"The records reflect I did get $5,000."
Now, he has been confronted with the records.
"I don't remember giving it to Secretary Connally, but I
must have given it to him, because I brought it to
Washington for that purpose."
Now, let's look at this memorandum, members of the
jury, because here is proof positive of the way this man
architected his story over a period of months in meetings
with the prosecutors.
This is Defendant's Exhibit 15.
"John
COMMENTARY
Speaking of John Sale, a prosecutor. Note again that these notes
are an invaluable guide. If one cannot have them produced initially, one might take the witness through the developing version
of the story as reflected in the material at hand and then call
repeatedly on the other side to produce any evidence that the witness's version of his changing story differs from what was told the
proponent's lawyers. They have an ethical obligation to acknowledge such contradictions. The passages on which Williams is now
relying identify what is said as coming from Jacobsen, so there is
a strong Jencks Act argument for their production.
asked Jacobsen if Lilly's version of the facts refreshed his

recollection of the receipt of the money. Jacobsen said he
still had no recollection of getting the $5,000.
Persuasion
214
''Jacobsen stated at this time, however, he had an

inkling regarding the third payment. He had a gnawing
inkling concerning the third $5,000. He had a feeling that
on an occasion other than May of '71 he brought cash to
Washington and kept it in the briefcase overnight at the
Madison Hotel.
"From this inkling Jacobsen felt he could now state that
a third $5,000 payment must have been made to John
Connally. When pressed by John to account for his seemingly newfound recollection, Jacobsen stated that his mental processes had operated in the following manner.
"First, Jacobsen started with the premise that if he asked
for and received money on the premise that it would be
paid to somebody, that somebody received it.
"Second, although he had no recollection whatsoever of
receiving the money from Lilly, he accepted the fact that
he must have received the money from Lilly in the manner in which Lilly stated.
'.' He concluded that his recollection of coming to
Washington with cash in his briefcase and keeping the
cash in the briefcase overnight must have related to a third
$5,000 payment to John Connally.
"Howeve.r, Jacobsen stated he was unable to reconstruct
any of the events surrounding the actual transfer of the
$5,000 in his office.
And Mr. Quarles,
COMMENTARY~~~~~~~
James Quarles, the junior prosecutor and scrivener for these
meetings.
who wrote that memorandum, said:

"I understood Jacobsen to be saying that the only
aspect of the transaction which he had any recollection of,
and spoke not of a recollection but of an inkling, was the
fact of having cash in his briefcase on a trip to
Washington. From that inkling Jacobsen was able to infer
he made the third $5,000 payment to John Connally."
We
that o
note t,
in Am
Wh
the ju
third~
in the
it.
This
migl
but
Wo1
A gc
and
out
som
rest
THl
We
MR
THl
MR
Jacobi
He
Septer
Will
inve
give
coul

215
~ver, he had an
~ had a gnawing
1ad a feeling that
: brought cash to
overnight at the
Id now state that
1 made to John
mt for his seem:ed that his men1g manner.
that if he asked
hat it would be
d it.
n whatsoever of
ed the fact that
illy in the manof coming to
td keeping the
!lated to a third
! to reconstruct
transfer of the
ner for these
hat the only

~collection of
~ling, was th~
n a trip to
able to infer
onnally."
We saw this afternoon in his petition for bankruptcy,

that on the day he got that $5,000 he paid off a $5,000
note to one of the many banks to whom he owed money
in Austin, Texas.
What I have to say about that third $5,000, members of
the jury, in response to what the prosecution asked, that
third $5,000 is like the 13th stroke of a graridfather's clock
in the night. It casts doubt on everything that went before
it.
COMMENTARY
This is from A. P. HERBERT, UNCOMMON LAw 28 (3d ed. 1937). One
might also say that the third $5,000 casts doubt not only on itself
but also on everything that has gone before.
Would Your Honor take a short recess?

COMMENTARY
A good place to take a break. The argument has begun softly
and treaded through some emotional territory and now into and
out of perceived difficulties in the defense case. The jurors need
some time to stretch, to absorb the complex series of facts, if the
rest of the argument is to have maximum impact.
THE COURT: All right.

We will take a ten-minute recess at this time.
MR. WILLIAMS: May I proceed, if the Court please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, we come to the next episode in
Jacobsen's story.
He told you about a phone call that he had on
September 24 of 1973 with Mr. Connally.
COMMENTARY
Willii[ms is starting a new theme. Jacobsen says that when the
investigation began, he called Connally and the latter agreed to
give him $10,000 to put in Jacobsen's safe-deposit box so he
could say he never gave the money.
Persuasion
216
They put in a telephone bill that showed a call to 713-2362222, and from that telephone bill he spun out a conversation, he spun out a long conversation with John
Connally, just the way he spun his story from everything
to which he could find a point of departure.
What do the facts show? When finally Jacobsen comes
up with the only record that he has been able to produce
of his activities for the relevant years, a scratch sheet of
phone calls for October 1973, it shows that on that day he
talked to Beverie Ware, Beverie Ware, but maybe that's
not persuasive enough.
Maybe he writes down names of the secretaries of the
persons he calls, maybe that's the way he keeps his
records.
COMMENTARY
This may be difficult to follow. The phone company records
show a call from Jacobsen's number in Austin to this Houston
number. Jacobsen says it is a call to Connally. But his own notes
reflect that he spoke with Beverie Ware, Connally's secretary,
and the phone itself would have rung at her desk or that of the
other secretary Cynthia McMahon. And the records show that
Connally was not in Houston at that time but in his hometown
of Floresville, Texas, south of San Antonio, attending a bank
board meeting.
But then we get to the bill which we offered yesterday

from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.
Who is the call to? Beverie Ware or Cynthia McMahon?
And what are the facts? The facts are as they have developed here, that Mr. Connally had left Houston to go to
Floresville, and he was at a board meeting in Floresville
that afternoon and had lunch in Floresville.
He spun a story out of the telephone bill that is belied
by his own records, belied by the only record that he has
produced throughout this whole period of investigation.
Now, I ask you, members of the jury, you have heard
about what has been produced by John Connally, logs,
appoir
every
we ge
found
exp re~
The
we go
No
experi
forth '
phone
Willi
cour
the J
ever
ever
pile
take:
Wan
ger;
Nm
29th,:
office
Mr. Cc
cigar l
gloves
box,,
says,,
to Am
On
the fir.
Alw
about
somec
hand 1

217
11 to 713-236mt a convert with John

n everything
Jbsen comes
e to produce
itch sheet of
1. that day he
maybe that's
~taries of the
e keeps his
any records
his Houston
sown notes
's secretary,
r that of the
s show that
; hometown
ling a bank
ed yesterday
a McMahon?
have develon to go to
n Floresville
hat is belied
I that he has
vestigation.
have heard
nnally, logs,
appointment books, telephone records; itineraries of his

every movement during the relevant period, and what do
we get from this man? We get one scrap of paper that he
found in January of 1975, he says, and flew up in an air
express to the prosecutors.
The only piece of paper, the only piece of paper that
we got from him.
No wonder that he has produced no records after the
experience that he had with this one, when this one came
forth and gave the lie to his whole story about his telephone conversation on the 24th of September 1973.
COMMENTARY
Williams is on the move again. There is a stack of exhibits on the
counsel table, which he has placed so that he inust stand behind
the prosecutors when he goes to get them. The stack includes
every daily log kept by Connally's office for the relevant period,
every telephone record, every diary calendar. Williams hefts this
pile of documents and lets it back down on the table. Then he
takes the single piece of Jacobsen's records, which has Beverie
Ware's name on it, and holds it between his thumb and first finger and waves it.
Now we come to the meeting on the 29th, October

29th, 1973. He met with John Connally at John Connally's
office in Houston, and that is the meeting at which he says
Mr. Connally left and he came back with this money in a
cigar box, piled up on top of each other, and with rubber
gloves on top of the money, and he handed him the cigar
box, and threw away the rubber gloves, he, Jacobsen,
says, and Jacobsen took the money in the cigar box back
to Austin.
On the witness stand in this trial he told the story for
the first time that there were gloves, rubber gloves.
Always before it had been a glove. He began to think
about it, and he realized how absurd it was to suggest that
someone had counted money with a rubber glove on one
hand up to $10,000.
Persuasion
218
When he thought about that one he changed it. He colored his story, he architectured a new story so by the time
he came to trial it was two gloves.
me
pil
Ge
COMMENTARY - - - - - - ~
See the Preface for a discussion of this episode.
Now, what did he say to Mr. Tuerkheimer when he was

first telling the story?
Defendant's Exhibit 13-B, talking about this very meeting in Houston:
"Cigar box and glove in it, left it in JC office."
Now, I suggest to you that that means he left the cigar
box in ]C's office, although he testified on the stand he
took the cigar box with him in the airplane in his briefcase, and I ask you reasonably could any man forget if
that story were true whether he carried $10,000 to Austin,
Texas, in a cigar box or left the cigar box in John
Connally's office?
He doesn't say anything about the rubber gloves.
Now, what else does he say?
Two times he said in this courtroom that when John
Connally gave him this money he said it's all old enough.
And I asked him on cross-examination what did he say
to you when he gave you the money? He said, it's old,
older money.
That's what he said on cross.
This morning Mr. Tuerkheimer called John Connally a
very smart man. They have said a lot of things about him
in the pleadings that have been filed here.
They have charged him with felonious conduct and a
breach of trust. They have charged him with some pretty
heinous conduct, but no one has suggested that he is stupid.
I ask you if John Connally would hand $10,000 to
Jacobsen in Houston and tell him it's old enough to be
the
me
sto
kei
the
Co
the
ma
He
tol,
J
de1
oh.
if t
sor
Jao
gra
qm
219
le cole time
1e was
- meet-
e cigar
rnd he
, briefxget if
Austin,
1 John
s.
:n John
:nough.
. he say
it's old,
mally a
::mt him
:t and a
e pretty
e is stu),000 to
:h to be
money that was passed from Lilly in 1971, and have in that
pile of money 49 bills signed by his successor in office,
George Schultz, who didn't take office until June 12, 1972?
I ask you.
Now, it might be that if he were of such a mind to do
that that he wouldn't have thought about whether the
money was old enough. That might have gone by his mind.
But to say it's all old -enough, and Mr. Tuerkheimer
stood here this morning and he caressed these bills and
kept telling you how crisp they were, how new they were,
they are all new and crisp.
And he tells you, Mr. Jacobsen tells you, that John
Connally gave him $10,000 with all new, crisp bills saying
they are all old enough and 49 of them are signed by a
man who didn't take office until Connally was back in
Houston practicing law.
I say that beggars intelligence, but that is the story he
told on the witness stand.
It's all old enough. And then he says something else.
He tells you that while he had that money in his [safedeposit] box in Austin, Texas, that John Connally says, Oh,
oh, there are some Schultz bills in there.
COMMENTARY
In an effort to explain the presence of bills too new to have been
in circulation when Jacobsen said he gave Connally the money,
Jacobsen said Connally had called him to tell him that there were
Schultz bills in the box.
How in the name of reason would John Connally know

if they were in his box in Austin, Texas, that there were
some Schultz bills in there? Who had access to that box?
I will tell you who had access to that box: Mr. Jake
Jacobsen, and Mr. Jake Jacobsen told you and he told the
grand jury that he went into that box frequently, frequently without ever putting his name on the card.
Persuasion
220
COMMENTARY
Jacobsen's bank officer and director positions let him use his
safe-deposit boxes without signing in on every occasion.
He didn't have to put his name down to go in there.

That is the kind of story that Jacobsen architectured, it's
all old enough.
And he says that John Connally went out of his office
and he came back with a cigar box, came back into his
office after being gone ten minutes, and gave it to him.
Beverie Ware took the stand and Cynthia McMahon
took the stand and they both testified that he never left his
office.
COMMENTARY
Connally did meet with Jacobsen on the day in question. But
Connally's secretaries were both there and would have seen him
leave the office.
Are they going to ask you to take the word of a selfstyled perjurer, of an alleged swindler, of a man who has
testified perjuriously by his own affirmation, scores of
times over two secretaries who came in here and testified
under an oath which they respect?
Every time that there was an opportunity for someone
to see Mr. Jacobsen do what he said he did, it was false.
Corroboration? There is no corroboration for Jake
Jacobsen except what he architectured to cover up his
embezzlements.
That is what they ask you to do, make no doubt about
it.
They say to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, reject

those girls
COMMENTARY
We would not today say "girls". of these two women. But not~
what the prosecutor has done-he has decided that the different
versions given by Jacobsen on the one hand and the two secre-
tari~
und
seer
due
seer
lab
mig
ton
at tt
as giv
perjur
burde
tial el<
No,
a trail
said tl
The
that it
For
on, It:
us to
prove
The
that it
lation
gave i
This
to IT
ness
ness
to it:
is e;
smal
and

221
re.
:i, it's
iffice
) his
m.
thon
this
selfhas
, of
fied
one
se.
ake
his
,out
ject
taries on the other must mean that the secretaries are lying. Juries
understand that employees may lie for their employers and that
secretaries may . routinely do so when the employer wants to
duck a telephone call or an appointment. But in this case the two
secretaries made an excellent appearance, and pinning the liar
label on them is more than the prosecutor needed to do. They
might have stepped out for a bit. They might have had an errand
to run. It was a long time ago. They had no reason to remember
at the time.
as giving false evidence and take this alleged self-styled

perjurer, take this alleged swindler at his word, and our
burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of this offense, that is what they say.
Now, you heard the first day that the money will leave
a trail. In the opening statement by the prosecution they
said the money will leave a trail.
The money left a trail all right, but let us see the trail
that it left.
For one and a half days, members of the jury, they put
on, I think, 19 witnesses. I thought they were trying to bore
us to death for a while, but they put 19 witnesses on to
prove what?
They now tell us they put those witnesses on to show
that it was possible for this money to have been in circulation at the time that Jacobsen says that John Connally
gave it to him.
COMMENTARY
This was the evidence discussed earlier. Williams is now going
to make good on the cross-examination of the 19 banking witnesses, with their charts and summaries. Basically, these witnesses described the 'road that money travels froin being printed
to its distribution to commercial banks. For $100 bills, the track
is easy because at that time every such bill was traceable. For
smaller denominations, one had to trace the money by batches
and based on sampling techniques. But six weeks of work-try-
Persuasion
222
ing to track every bill-paid off, as this part of the summation

shows. Jacobsen cannot have got that money from Connally on
the day he said he did.
They are so unconfident about this man's word and his

oath that they brought 19 witnesses to say, well, it was
possible, and he said if there is one bill-this morningone bill that wasn't in circulation in October 29, 1973, then
Jacobsen is a liar. That is what he said. That is what he
said this morning to you .
Well, look at Government's Exhibit 43. There are two of
these bills, two of these bills, $20 bills, where are they?
They hadn't even been put into circulation for the public
on October 9 of 1973, 20 days before they weren't even in
circulation for the public.
Where were they? They were in the case vault of the
Oklahoma City Federal Reserve Bank.
Oh, says the prosecutor, be of good cheer, the money
runs through that Oklahoma City cash vault very fast, and
he stands up and he says most bills come in one day and
out the other.
Well, let us look at the record.
Here is the record of how long those bills stayed in the
Oklahoma cash vault before they go out into circulation to
a bank, a commercial bank. You will see this exhibit. I am
going to pick them off here.
The second bill 30 days. The fourth bill 22 days. The
fifth bill 22 days, 24 days, 28 days, 30 days and 25 days.
There are some on here that go in and out on one day,
but I say to you if you strike an average, and these bills
went out on the average, they would only be hitting an
Oklahoma City commercial bank on the day that Jake
Jacobsen has them being handed to him in a cigar box in
Houston, Texas, in John Connally's office .
. Now, he set that test I didn't set it. Is there a reason- .
able doubt in your minds that the bills that went out on
J
J
s
j1
ti
V
223
October 9 to the vault in Oklahoma City could have been

in circulation in a commercial bank in Houston, Texas [on
October 29]?
COMMENTARY
d his
was
ngthen
it he
.roof
they?
ublic
::n in
f the
)ney
and
and
the
to
[ am
>n
The
tys.
day,
bills
~ an
fake
X in
son- .
ton
"Is there a reasonable doubt?" We are getting to the end now,

and Williams is emphasizing the burden of proof. Reports show
that the foreman of the jury began the deliberations by stressing
"beyond a reasonable doubt. "
They want it both ways.

For one purpose they are hot off the press. They are
crisp and brand new .
But for another purpose, they are all older bills.
I say that that story was exploded, the story of
November 25 , 1973, when (Jacobsen] said he went to
George Christian's home, and he says he walked out with
John Connally and he got into John Connally's car and
John Connally took $10,000 more out and he wrapped it
in newspapers, and Jake Jacobsen carried that newspaperwrapped $10,000 in his short-sleeved sport shirt and
slacks so that nobody could see it.
Now, are they going to ask you ladies and gentlemen
of this jury to believe a self-styled perjurer and an alleged
swindler, a man twice indicted by the government for perjury, over George Christian?
COMMENTARY
George Christian testified that no money changed hands and that
Jacobsen was dressed so that if he had been carrying money it
would have been visible.
Is that the kind of evidence that they have brought into

this courtroom and on which they ask you to convict a man
who has been impeccable for three-score years of his life?
His Honor will tell you when he instructs you all the
cautions about taking the testimony of a perjurer, all the
cautions of taking the testimony about a man who says he
Persuasion
224
was an accomplice, all the cautions about taking the testimony of a man who has made a deal.
COMMENTARY
When an admitted or convicted perjurer testifies against your
client, you are usually entitled to a cautionary jury instruction
that such testimony must be received with caution and weighed
with care. When a plea-bargainer testifies, the standard instruction speaks of such a wimess having a motive to falsify. A similar instruction is given when an alleged accomplice testifies. In
this case, we tendered and were granted all three instructions.
Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 30, the trial judge had made those rulings
before final argument. Now Williams is weaving them into the
fabric of his presentation.
And I say when those cautions are considered their case

is in shambles on the courthouse floor.
I want to speak to you about the defe!ldant. This is the
kind of case that they have brought against him.
Is he some captain of crime so that they had to make a
deal with a scoundrel because it was so important to get
him?
COMMENTARY
Some jurors may and probably do think that using turncoats is a
good idea in at least some kinds of cases. The prosecutor would
argue that their use is vital in this very kind of case, for there is
no victim to complain. From there, we get the argument that
"sting" operations are also appropriate in political corruption
cases.
Is he some captain of crime that would induce them to

apply the philosophy of the end justifies the means?
Is it? No, it isn't.
I want you ladies and gentlemen of the jury to give
John Connally only one thing. I want you to give him
equal justice under the law. I want you to give him the
same treatment that any man in America would get.
Hei
all, be<
of the
Texas,
don't v
~.
L:1_
I Sa)
only 01
came i
is this:
I
SUJ
numbe
his hor
minds,
come i.J
Six f
Lyndon
Grahan
from hi
The c
courst
ity-fi
crimir
to a
uncha
Miehe
ing ca
the in:
doubt
pie of
rible ti
Int
difficu
225
:he testi-
t your
uction
~ighed
1struc' sirniies. In
:tions.
ulings
:o the
:!ir case
sis the
nake a
to get
; is a
ould
re is
that
tion
em to
, give
: him
n the
He isn't entitled to any consideration whatever, none at

all, because of his public service or his service as Secretary
of the Navy or Secretary of the Treasury or Governor of
Texas or his military service, it doesn't mean a hoot, and I
don't want anything in the way of consideration for that.
COMMENTARY
This is hyperbole. It works here, but must be used sparingly and
with caution.
I say to you he is entitled to special consideration for
only one thing which every other man and woman who
came into this courthouse would be entitled to, and that
is this:
I suppose that some of you wondered when I called a
number of witnesses to the stand the other day to attest to
his honor and his integrity it may have gone through your
minds, oh, well, anybody can get five or six people to
come in and say that he is an honorable man.
Six people came in here, Congresswoman Jordan; Mrs.
Lyndon Johnson; Secretary Rusk; Secretary McNamara; Dr.
Graham; Mr. Rose, chairman of the opposite political party
from him.
COMMENTARY
The character witnesses were a tour de force . One may, of
course, in any case, put on character witnesses to testify to veracity-from opinion or reputation. FED. R. Evm. 404(a), 608. In a
criminal case, character evidence is risky, for it opens the door
to a "have you heard" cross-examination that can reveal
uncharged and even lawful misconduct. Justice Jackson's
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948), remains the leading case. But as Williams points out, most judges will give you
the instruction that character evidence alone raises a reasonable
doubt. Prosecutors will argue in rebuttal that we all know people of the most sterling character who turn out to have done terrible things, against all expectation.
In the Connally case, the selection of character witnesses was
difficult, but our search focused on those who had known
Persuasion
226
Connally in different capacities and who disagreed with him in
important ways. Barbara Jordan, an African-American member of
Congress, had been a state senator when Connally was governor
of Texas. They had political disagreements, but Connally seemed
to her a person of honor in all their dealings. Her appearance in
the courtroom was a dramatic moment, and a District of
Columbia jury knew her from her bravura performance on the
House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment
inquiry.
Lady Bird Johnson was another star witness. She enjoyed great
popularity in Washington, D.C. , independent of her husband. On
the stand, she answered the questions about Connally's character,
giving her opinion and speaking of his reputation for honesty and
integrity. She then turned to the jury, without a question pending,
and said, "There are a lot of people who don't like John, but
nobody ever said he isn't honest." In that sentence, she captured
a major aspect of the case. Connally was in many ways more
articulate-some said smarter-than Lyndon Johnson, but some
thought of him as somewhat cold, arrogant, and distant. Mrs.
Johnson captured a point we were trying to make.
Reverend Billy Graham was also an impressive witness,
although one took a risk putting him on. He had been identified
closely with the Nixon administration and if pressed in a certain
way would defend Richard Nixon in ways that would harm his
credibility with this jury. No such questions were asked, however. Graham is most memorable for his answer to the question
"And what is your business or occupation?" He replied, "I preach
the gospel of Jesus Christ all over the world." One juror said
loudly, "Amen!"
Many of them had differences with him, they had logical political differences, but every last one of them said his
reputation for integrity and honor is unquestioned when I
put them on the stand under the rules of this Court.
If there had been one mark on his life, if there had been
one ugly rumor, if there had been one accusation, if there
had been one scandal, if there had been anything that
stained or sullied or tarnished his name in the slightest,
they could have brought it forth before you, and with the
vast resources at their command, the FBI, their own staff,
you
hav,
F
mar
the
whc
A
fact
of a
a re
l\
x
gav,
wer
I\
one
ple
evi<
A
k
a
n
s
a
1
C
V

227
him in
nber of .
Jvernor
,eemed
ance in
trict of
on the
chment
:d great
nd. On
aracter,
sty and
=nding,
:m, but
tptured
s more
t some
1t. Mrs.
,itness,
!ntified
certain
.rm his
1owev1estion
preach
Jr said
1ad logisaid his

when I
lrt.
ad been
if there
ing that
lightest,
;vith the
vn staff,
you can be sure that if there had been such they would
have brought it out here in this courtroom.
From the fact that they did not, you can infer that the
man on trial who has been made the object of obloquy,
the target of slander by this self-styled perjurer, is a man
who has had no stain in 58 years of his life on his record.
And His Honor will tell you as a matter of law that the
facts alone, apart from other considerations or in the light
of all the evidence, may be sufficient to raise in this case
a reasonable doubt.
Now, let us talk about John Connally, the accused.
Yesterday they brought out, oh, well, you know, he
gave all those records, but they were subpoenaed. They
were s_u bpoenaed.
Members of the jury, under our system of justice, no
one is forced to give evidence. It's an elementary principle of our criminal justice system that no one has to give
evidence in an investigation of himself.
COMMENTARY
Anyone who read Williams's book One Man 's Freedom would
know of Williams's eloquence about the adversary system. This
argument is a spirited defense of a prospective defendant's right
not to testify or produce personal records. Let us examine its
parts.
Williams first takes the position that Connally had a right not
to produce his diaries, telephone call records, and similar documents. There was in 1975 more to that position than perhaps
there is today, for there are sharp limits on Fifth Amendment
protection of papers. See generally WAYNE R. LAFAVE & JEROLD H.
ISRAEL, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 8.12-8.13 (2d ed. 1991) [Lafave &
Israel]. But one can still make something of not resisting a subpoena, of voluntary acts of cooperation.
This leads to the second point: What do jurors think about a
suspect's obligation to come forward and help the authorities,
and how do they judge him if he slips up on some detail?
Testifying or being interviewed raises the stakes considerably, for
one may be charged not only with the substantive offense but
with lying about it as well-as though one's defense is already
certified unbelievable by the grand jury or prosecutor.
Persuasion
228
I think many jurors will find Williams's analysis persuasive. In

the trial of Terry Nichols, jurors understood how Nichols might
have been mistaken about details, and they appreciated that he
had taken the initiative in contacting law enforcement. They
were critical of the FBl's practice of not tape-recording the interview and of keeping Nichols for nine and a half hours of interrogation in a basement room. Jurors are less likely to be
sympathetic to a well-heeled defendant, with lawyer in tow, who
makes an appearance in a formal setting-such as the grand jury,
a deposition, or a prosecutor's office-and tells untruths about
important matters.
As Williams has already proved he knows, jurors do not easily forgive liars.
They have a right not to. It is founded on a simple

philosophical principle that there is something unfair to
confront a man with confessing his guilt, committing perjury or facing contempt if he refuses to answer.
In our system of justice we regard it basically as dealing with a small boy and saying to him, if you suspect that
he took the loose change out of your pocket, I am going
to punish you for stealing if you say you took it, for lying
if you deny you took it, and for disobedience if you don't
answer.
So we have an accusatorial system. No man has to
come forward with evidence.
John Connally, from November the 14th, began cooperating with the prosecutor's office, he was in their office
all morning for interrogation, voluntarily.
He went in the afternoon to the grand jury beginning at
one o'clock.
The next day he was in front of the Ervin Committee for

four hours interrogated by six lawyers as he told you.
Then after they had begun their deal with Mr. Jacobsen,
after Mr. Jacobsen had been in their office negotiating himself out of eight felonies, negotiating himself out of the
$5,000 prospect of embezzlement, negotiating to try to preserve his license, they called John Connally back for three
he
to,
'j
ofl
bot
vat{
1-
tion
and
y
Joh1
T
a fc
mor
Tl
SU
hi1
tOJ
tin
Te
pit
wa
sis

229
hours and they had him in front of the grand jury, and they
took his whole defense and then they charged him.
COMMENTARY
That is, the prosecutors already kne~ what they were going to
do, and they simply wanted to get some discovery to which they
were not entitled. There are some older cases on the "perjury
trap" grand jury subpoena, but most courts think that the Fifth
Amendment privilege is protection enough. A perjury trap refers
to the subpoena of a witness solely for the purpose of eliciting
testimony that is intended to be used in a later perjury prosecution of the witness. See In re Poutre, 602 F.2d 1004, 1005 (1st
Cir.1979); Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1079 n. 10 (9th
Cir.1972); Brown v. United States, 245 F.2d 549, 55455 (8th
Cir.1957).
)le
to
:!r-
altat
1g
1g
1't
to
p-
:e
at
)r
1,
1-
:e
They charged him with two felonies.

He gave them all his phone records, he gave them all
of his calls, his itineraries, his logs, his appointment books,
both while he was in government and while he was in private practice in Houston.
He gave them 400 pages of testimony to 3,000 questions, he gave them all of his phone records for his home
and his ranch and his office, all of his bank records.
You didn't hear anything about safe-deposit boxes of
John Connally or cash of John Connally.
They tried to suggest to you this morning, in what was
a foul blow, I say, that somebody else gave him the
money in that office.
COMMENTARY
This argument is in response to the prosecutor's suggestion in
summation that a friend of Connally's came to Houston and gave
him the money that he in turn gave to Jacobsen. The prosecutors were tantalized by this prospect and spent a great deal of
time investigating Rex Cauble, a Connally friend from Denton,
Texas, who was principal stockholder of a bank. While there was
plenty of evidence that Cauble had access to cash, there never
was proof that he gave it to Connally. The only evidence consisted of records of toll calls between Connally and Cauble.
Persuasion
230
Where is the evidence of that? Where is there one line

of proof?
And they have been at this case for 18 months.
But that was the innuendo that was dropped here this
morning. They were helping to charge him.
There . was no effort to block. There was no
stonewalling here. There was no effort to keep any taped
conversations from you. Everything went in.
Now, contrast that with Mr. Jake Jacobsen's offering,
that is what they got from Mr. Jake Jacobsen, for three
years, and I ask you who had something to hide here.
COMMENTARY
Again, Williams rifles through Connally's records in evidence and
holds up the single Jacobsen exhibit.
At the end, at the very end, what were they reduced to?
When John Connally sat on the witness stand yesterday,
in one of the greatest demonstrations of nitpicking that I
have seen in my 30 years in courtrooms, they picked at
little answers here and there that he had given in hundreds of pages to try to suggest that there were inconsistencies.
And they brought out that he neglected to tell them
about the October 26th meeting in Austin, Texas, with
Jacobsen.
And he said, I understood the question, sir, to mean
what was my last meeting.
There was no reason for him to .c onceal it.
Now, what do we have? We have the summary that
John Connally dictated when he came out of the grand
jury room on November 2nd of all the questions and
answers that were put to him which he sent off to Temple,
COMMENTARY
Larry Temple, a prominent Austin lawyer and friend of Connally,
to whom Connally sent the summary.
<)
which]
sitting l
to see..,
"Wh~
"ANS
and so
It wa
tion, ar
here ye
And
whenh
afternoc
Here
record i
erary sa
This
Jacobse
Whet
rememt
tion on
and the
invalid
Williai
ment
when
anoth<
is dis~
the gr
under:
under:
talk to
the di
Th<
the 101
on a<
memo
him a

231
:re one line

ths.
:d here this
!
was no
taped
> any
.'s offering,
t, for three
de here.
educed to?
yesterday,
:king that I
picked at
::n in hune inconsis, tell them
exas, with
:, to mean
lffiary that
the grand
,tions and
:o Temple,
Connally,
which Jacobsen turned over to them, and they have been

sitting here with that for a year and it is right there for you
to see what John Connally understood the question to be.
"When did you last talk to Mr. Jacobsen?
"ANSWER: Approximately two and a half weeks ago,"
and so forth.
It was perfectly clear to them. He understood the question, and yet we went through 30 minutes of nitpicking
here yesterday.
And then the question was whether or not he falsified
when he said that he saw Jacobsen in the hotel in the late
afternoon on the 26th, instead of for breakfast.
Here was his itinerary, this is the record he had. The
record showed that he didn't get back into Austin, the itinerary says, until 9:00 A.M. Friday.
This caused him to believe that his meeting with
Jacobsen was in the late afternoon.
When Mr. Barnett came to the stand and said he
remembered serving breakfast, there was no further question on it, because this itinerary had been departed from,
and the aid to memory on which he had relied had been
invalid because it had been discarded.
COMMENTARY
Williams is here answering the two points on which the government claimed that Connally had lied to the grand jury-as to
when he had met with Jacobsen and as to the time of day of
another meeting that Connally admitted having. The first matter
is disposed of by noting that Connally had dictated notes after
the grand jury appearance that supported his statement that he
understood the question in a certain way and answered it on that
understanding. The moral here is that if your client is going to
talk to somebody, have that talk recorded verbatim. And debrief
the client afterward.
The "time of day" problem was a puzzler for the defense for
the longest time. Connally clearly remembered meeting Jacobsen
on a certain day at the Crest Hotel in Austin. He refreshed his
memory with the typed itinerary that his office always kept for
him and concluded that the meeting took place while the
Persuasion
232
Connallys were getting ready for a formal dinner. In his mind,
Connally associated the meeting with getting dressed. As it
turned out, Connally was mistaken. He had departed from his
typed itinerary and actually met Jacobsen in the morning, while
he was putting on his tie and preparing for morning activities.
The light went on for Connally, and for all of us, when the room
service waiter, Mr. Barnett, walked in to take the oath. Barnett
had served coffee to Connally and Jacobsen. On direct examination, Connally readily admitted this error, which did not seem
to make much difference anyway. The moral here is that calendars and similar documents can be misleading and can actually
help to create false memories. Admitting such an error at the earliest possible moment is obviously important to the advocate'sand the client's-credibility.
we
far,
I
old
Om
deai
We
you tr
it is o
humili
was rr
Thr,
That is the kind of thing that they were reduced to at

the end of this case, nitpicking the witness who had given
them all of his records over a period of months in an effort
to discredit him and divert you from the main issue in this
case about which they never asked him a question, John
Connally, did you take any money from Jake Jacobsen.
If they can divert you on this nitpicking you maybe
won't notice that their case is on the courthouse floor in
shambles, a wreck.
My time is almost up. I hope that I haven't taxed your
patience by my persistence or by my zeal. I have never
learned to talk about human liberty or human reputation
concisely or complacently.
COMMENTARY
The rhythm of this summation varies. Sometimes it is soft, sometimes coldly logical, sometimes emotional. Some jurors may
resent lawyer emotion, because they think it interferes with their
rational processes. Not every summation will carry you to emotional heights. But when you go there, you must reassure the
jurors that you don't require them to pick up your feelings. It
respects and empowers jurors to make .the statement that
Williams is making here. Another form might be: "I have gone
on for some time. I have talked about the law and evidence as
faded
recess,
your c
matter
But
place:
Notl
traged
this ev
This
"Torr
this c
all of
The '
Mary
This
nitior
some
is to
It is :
you dis
burden

233
we see it from over here. If in my zeal I have seemed to go too

far, please don't hold that against my client."
Denigrating the lawyer's role is a stylistic embellishment as
old as Cicero's defense of General Murena, as noted in Chapter
One. For hints from the air force court martial summation on
dealing with this theme, see Chapter One.
at
~n
)ft
1is
1n
::>e
in
ur
er
)n
We have been together now for three weeks, and for

you the case is just three weeks old. But for this defendant
it is over a year old. It has been a year of accusation, of
humiliation, of anguish, as the result of this assault that
was made on his integrity.
Three weeks from now the case will have perhaps
faded into the recesses of your recollections, the far
recesses of your" recollection. You will have gone back to
your other concerns, the prosecutors will be on to new
matters, and the court will be handling new cases.
But what you do in this case in your jury room will
place an indelible mark for the balance of life.
Nothing in a life that has been filled with glory and
tragedy can so mark as what you do in your jury room on
this evidence and on this record.
COMMENTARY
This theme is available to you in almost any setting. Consider
"Tomorrow, or next week, when you have given your verdict,
this case will be over for you . You will, with the deep thanks of
all of us, have returned to your homes, your jobs, your families.
The lawyers and His Honor will go on to other cases. But for
Mary Smith, this will be her one and only one chance for justice.
This will be for her a defining moment in her struggle for recognition of her dignity and honor." Empowering the jury requires
some reminder of their obligation and of how important this all
is to your client.
It is an awesome responsibility. But His Honor will help

you discharge that responsibility when he tells you that the
burden in this case, as in every case of this kind, rests
Persuasion
234
squarely on the prosecution to prove to each and every one

of you beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt.
And if they have failed to sustain that burden, there is
only one verdict under your oath as jurors, and that is a
verdict of not guilty.
I want to say to you just two last things.
You know, I think in life you can bargain for and buy
almost everything. You can bargain for and buy mansions
and villas and priceless works of art. You can bargain for
and buy fine jewelry and all the creature comforts that you
can conjure up in you mind.
But thank God there are some things you can't buy and
you can't bargain for. You can't buy or bargain for wisdom. You can't buy or bargain for justice, because if you
do, it's injustice. You can't buy or bargain for love,
because if you do, it isn't love that you get. And you can't
buy or bargain for truth, because it isn't the truth that you
get, it's the truth with a cloud of suspicion over it.
COMMENTARY
This is an almost perfect triplet. Beginning with "wisdom" means
there are four elements in the sequence, but there is no counterpoint to "wisdom" as there is to justice, love, and truth. In the
closing strophe of a summation, one tries to summon images of
fairness and of the jurors being fair.
You can buy and you can bargain for testimony,

COMMENTARY
The contrast between "truth" and "testimony" was sharp and dramatic.
and that is what the prosecution did in this case, and that
is why their case is in the state it is in at the present time.
This case is styled United States, United States against
John Connally, but I want to tell you something. The
United States will win this case. The United States will win
this case.
I saw
courthot
of justict
ty of an
Crown v
After 1
al court]
States nc
of one c
the Unit,
This is
crimim
courth,
Justice
I thin
the gre;
human
anguish
I ask
humiliat
accusati
John Cc
States v,
I ask
acquitta
charged
235
tch and every one

lefendant's guilt.
burden, there is
)rs, and that is a
~s.
gain for and buy
1d buy mansions
1 can bargain for
:omforts that you
:::m can't buy and
bargain for wis:, because if you
ugain for love,
:t. And you can't
1e truth that you
n over it.
wisdom" means
1ere is no counand truth. In the
nmon images of
~stimony,
, sharp and dra-
s case, and that

te present time.
i States against
omething. The
States will win
I saw one day on the wall of a courthouse, the oldest

courthouse in England, the words, "In this hallowed place
of justice the Crown never loses because when the liberty of an Englishman is preserved against false witness, the
Crown wins."
After tramping for 30 years across this country in federal courthouses all over the land, I tell you the United
States never loses because when the liberty and reputation
of one of its citizens are preserved against false witness,
the United States wins, the United States wins the day.
COMMENTARY
This is a magnificent way to put the government's position in a
criminal case. The quoted language may or may not be on a
courthouse in England. I remember that it is on the wall of the
Justice Department inner courtyard.
I think, members of the jury, the greatest experience,

the greatest exhilaration, the greatest fulfillment that a
human being in this life can have is to lift the pain and
anguish off another if it can be done in justice.
I ask you at long last to lift the pain and anguish, the
humiliation, the ostracism and the suffering from false
accusation and innuendo, vilification and slander from
John Connally and his family, and if you do, the United
States will win the day.
I ask you tomorrow to return a verdict in this case of
acquittal for John Connally on both counts of which he is
charged.
COMMENTARY
The jury did so, in about four hours.

Edward Bennett William's Close Argument

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edward Bennett William's Close Argument

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edward Bennett William's Close Argument

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the trial about?

What was the trial about?

What evidence was presented against Connally?

What evidence was presented against Connally?

all the

Chapter Five, Part II

Closing Argument. An Example

This is Williams's summation in the Connally trial. In the

May it please the court and ladies and gentlemen of the

First of all, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for

Closing Argument-An Example

G. K. Chesterton apotheosized the jury by saying that all

On the day when we first met I said to you when I

I want now to canvass the evidence with you, so that

This is empowering-you make up your mind whether we have

Let's look in the first instance at the charges that have

Closing Argument-An Example

first is that on May 14th, 1971, while he was Secretary of

Unless they have proven in this court of law that John

The charge is accepting a gratuity "for or because of" an official

involve "corrupt" intent and a quid pro quo. But Williams is

Now, I ask you members of the jury at the very outset

Closing Argument-An Example

not express a personal belief in the client's cause. He or she may,

MR. WILLIAMS: I say, members of the jury, that they

Now, I want to talk to you about Mr. Jacobsen. I want

Then I want to talk to you about John Connally the

Closing Argument-An Example

has significance here, members of the jury, because he

And it becomes highly relevant, members of the jury,

that he was betraying his trust to his shareholders and to

Closing Argument-An F.xample

at the time he testified before the grand jury, when in fact

of crime in the whole United States Criminal Code. We all

And another example:

Closing Argument-An Example

Especially so when those lies are false witness against

. At page 264 of the rec::ord:

"QUESTION: The day after your grand jury appearance

Closing Argument-An Example

Now, he had been asked before the grand jury at a time

First of all, in this document he was asked, members of

Closing Argument-An Example

oh, well all

rants the jury

empty for the

Significant. Significant, that on October 5, 1971, right

The house was crumbling. His financial empire was

Closing Argument-An Example

tat the end,

::>t, about the

"ANSWER: I don't remember what I was referring to.

whether your plea bargain ended the . Texas cases on

In short, members of the jury, the man who was

Closing Argument-An F.:xample

research to establish that the federal felony to which Jacobsen

Defendant's 5. Jacobsen wasn't satisfied getting the

I say for shame. I blush in embarrassment at that man

prosecution would be concerned that a man who was an