I, Mary M. Ritchie, being a Notary Public in and for the State of North Carolina, was appointed to take the aforesaid matter which was heard before the Grand Jury, Raleigh, North Carolina, commencing at 1:00 p.m. on August 12, 1974.
Mr. Samuel S. Epperson, Foreman, was presiding; and the following Jurors were present:
Gialda G. Smith
Mary L. Green
John Sutton, III
Brenda H. Ayscue
Samuel H. Cannady
Howard T. Edwards
Eugene F. Brown
Hartwell C. Whittington
William E. Roebuck
Hobart M. Singletary
Advil M. Wallace
Larry R. Cartrette
Dorothy S. Thaxton
Zollie E. Winfree
Maxine S. O'Connell, Deputy Foreman
Joan F. Van Giesen
Katie O. Durham
William T. Arnold
Whereupon, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Will you state your name, please, sir?
A Dr. Jeffrey Robert MacDonald.
Q Where do you live, Dr. MacDonald?
A Huntington Beach, California.
Q Can you give us a street address?
A 16052 Marina Drive.
Q Dr. MacDonald, this federal grand jury is investigating possible violations of various criminal statutes which are a part of the United States Criminal Code. These violations include perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, murder and assault on a government reservation. This is an investigative grand jury. This grand jury is conducting an investigation to ascertain whether in fact during the course of an investigation conducted by the CID, the MP's, and the FBI beginning February 17, 1970, there was criminal misconduct on the part of any of the personnel involved in the investigation or involved in an Article 32 Board of Inquiry proceeding that resulted from that investigation.
It is also investigating to ascertain, if it is possible to ascertain at this time, who committed murder with respect to Colette MacDonald, Kristen MacDonald, Kimberly MacDonald, and who committed a felonious assault on Captain Jeffrey MacDonald on a military reservation where the federal courts have jurisdiction to inquire into such matters.
Now, as you know, there are a number of possible suspects with respect to each of these offenses. With respect to perjury and possible obstruction of justice, certain individuals have been pinpointed in the past. With respect to the murders, the finger has been pointed at various individuals; and one of the persons who has been a suspect in the past and who must be considered a suspect for the purpose of this grand jury proceeding is you, yourself, since you are the only survivor of the incident that occurred on the night of February 16, 17, 1970. And no one up to this point has been identified as the person who committed murder, person or persons that committed murder and assault on that occasion.
Now, under the circumstances, in view of what I have just told you, it is my duty to inform you that you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer any questions if you believe that a truthful answer to that question may in any manner or any wise tend to incriminate you.
Further, you have a right to counsel. You may not have counsel in the grand jury room during the course of the grand jury proceedings; but you may have counsel nearby, and upon request, you may leave the grand jury room and consult with your counsel as to any matter that is asked of you during the course of the grand jury inquiry.
Do you understand what I have stated to you, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you have counsel?
A Yes, I do.
Q What is his name?
A Bernard L. Segal.
Q Is he here at this time?
A Yes, he is.
Q Do you know where he is?
A In an adjacent room. Sir, I would like to request that he be allowed to be in the room just to hear the testimony.
Q That is not permissible, Dr. MacDonald, under the federal criminal rules. He may not be in the room. The only persons that are permitted to be in the room are the members of the grand jury, themselves, the government attorneys who are working with the grand jury, the official reporter of the grand jury, and if necessary, an interpreter. But I take it that you don't need an interpreter?
A No, sir.
Q But counsel is not permitted to be in the grand jury room.
A This would not be for purposes of raising objections or a matter of saying anything but just to hear the questioning.
Q You may consult with your attorney and you may recount to him, once you leave the grand jury room, what happened during the time that you were in the grand jury room, but he is not permitted to be present during the course of the grand jury session.
Have you discussed this with Mr. Segal?
A At some length.
Q Did he tell you that he would not be permitted to appear before the grand jury while you are in the grand jury room testifying as a witness?
A Yes. He said that probably would be the case.
Q So you are not surprised by what I am telling you?
Q Now --
A Are you going to start questioning me now?
Q Yes, sir.
A May I just have one minute with him then?
Q Yes, indeed.
At this time, Mr. Segal requested of Judge Franklin Dupree a motion hearing which was taken in the courtroom.
Present at this hearing, were Judge Dupree, counsel for the government: Victor Woerheide, Thomas McNamara, and James T. Stroud, Jr. Also present was counsel for Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald: Bernard L. Segal and Michael J. Malley.
COURT: The Court recognizes Mr. Segal, counsel for the witness called to testify before the grand jury.
MR. SEGAL: Yes, your honor.
COURT: I understand that you have some motions to make and I'll hear you.
MR. SEGAL: Does the Court desire me to speak from counsel table?
MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Your Honor. If Your Honor please, the witness whom I represent is Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald who was summoned before the grand jury this afternoon, shortly after lunch.
COURT: How do you spell MacDonald?
MR. SEGAL: M-a-c-D-o-n-a-l-d.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. SEGAL: At that time, Mr. Woerheide, attorney for the Justice Department, now, one of the three counsels here for the government, made certain statements in the nature of advice as to the defendant's rights in connection with the grand jury proceedings.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Your Honor, I may point out at this juncture there is no defendant. This is simply an investigative grand jury proceeding. There is no defendant before the grand jury.
COURT: I had understood that. There is a witness and Mr. Segal represents this witness. Is that correct?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir, Your Honor. And I understood that also and had made no reference to any defendant.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. SEGAL: I did say that Mr. Woerheide had advised Mr. MacDonald of what purported to be certain rights that be applicable in the proceedings such as being held today.
In response to those statements or warnings, if you will, Dr. MacDonald advised the government's counsel that he wished the presence of his attorney, myself, in the grand jury room during the proceedings. He also explicitly stated at that time that he recognized that only for the purpose of hearing his testimony and not for the purpose of objecting or raising any questions of any sort. There follows some other colloquy which I would like to discuss in a second motion that I will defer at this time.
Dr. MacDonald was advised at that point by government's counsel that they would not accede to his request for my presence in the grand jury room at that time. At that point, there followed a conference between counsels for both sides where the government reiterated its position; and furthermore, the government rejected an alternative suggestion which I think might have accommodated or obviated the issue. At that point, we requested a right to appear before the Court at this, Your Honor, on behalf of Dr. MacDonald, the witness before the grand jury.
I am requesting that he be given the right to have his counsel present during the taking of his testimony only in these proceedings.
If I may be heard briefly for reasons in support of that, perhaps it may be clearer. First of all, if Your Honor pleases, I am not -- I stress, I am not asking for the right to represent Dr. MacDonald in the grand jury proceedings because I recognize full well the cases which have held to this juncture. The defendant does not have the right to be represented. That is not what we have asked of this Court or of the government at this time. It is to the rights to my presence to hear firsthand my client's testimony before the grand jury and that is necessary, Your Honor, not so that I might represent him but so that I might fulfill and the defendant may have fulfilled for him his sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution to the effective assistance of counsel. That is, if Your Honor pleases.
COURT: You spoke of him that in terms of defendant. I understand that he is still a witness.
MR. SEGAL: Forgive me, Your Honor. I must state for the record that four years ago Dr. MacDonald was the defendant in a full military court proceeding covering almost the identical issues at which, at the conclusion of the longest military hearing of this sort ever held, the military grand jury concluded there was neither a legal or a factual basis to accuse him. I unfortunately am unable to shake that from my memory but I am talking about him in the role of a witness.
My point is, if Your Honor pleases, that representation which is prohibited and to which we acquiesce to be the standard of law would involve the right to question, to perhaps offer evidence, and to participate in the proceedings. This is not what the defendant asks in this case. But the defendant has the continuing right under the constitution -- The witness has the continuing right under the constitution at all times, if Your Honor pleases, assistance of counsel. He cannot in this case because of the anticipate length of the witness's testimony before the grand jury be effectively achieved by having the witness come out after each question and attempt at for a lay person to recite the questions that were put to him so that his counsel may at least know what is being asked.
Secondly, it is even less possible, feasible, or desirable to have the witness come out from the grand jury after each answer; and for the benefit of counsel repeat verbatim the answer. And yet, absent my opportunity to know simply what my client, the witness, is being asked, what the witness is answering, I cannot render the constitutional guaranteed right which goes on outside of court, ongoing and throughout these proceedings and any related matters. I cannot provide him with the effective assistance of counsel. And in this case, the assistance of counsel requires in my judgment, Your Honor, and requires in the witness's belief and judgment, the right for his attorney to be present.
There are some special circumstances which further highlight the necessity for this assistance. The subject matter of this grand jury, if Your Honor pleases, deals with an episode that took place some four years and five months ago. That without a doubt was a long time to bring a witness in and ask the witness to go over in great detail which is necessary and desirable to further this investigation all the facts of that episode.
We fully expect upon being advised by government's counsel and based upon our experience in the military grand jury proceeding in which this witness testified at length under oath and under cross examination, that his testimony took then a day and a half.
We are being asked, if Your Honor pleases, to provide the effective assistance of counsel to Dr. MacDonald without knowing and being able to counsel him based upon the questions and answers being put to him.
You have the delay of four years as being a serious impediment to his memory; but, secondly, it isn't with just ordinary memory that you are dealing with. The subject of this grand jury is the slaughter of this witness's family and the near fatal assault upon his person by a group of individuals. And that slaughter is a matter and I do not think it requires much for any of us to appreciate is not something that one is able to live with easily except trying to accept the reality but not trying to make it the only and ever present issue in one's life. It is, in fact, the kind of thing that one has to accept; but put back a little so one can go on in life.
The government, now four years later, wants this witness to remember four years ago, to deal with the deep emotions of the slaughter of one's family; and at the same time, deny him the right of his attorney to simply hear all the things that are being asked, be dredged out of his mind, not to interrupt, not to question, not to participate, not to represent in that word, which is prohibitive to him, but to really have my assistance.
It seems to me those are special circumstances. Those are unique circumstances and those require my judgment, Your Honor. The simple relief of permitting me to hear what is going on. I want to submit to Your Honor that it is within your power, it is within your discretion, if it is not, in fact, the matter of right, it is certainly within your discretion under the rules to allow this to take place.
There is no case and there is nothing in Rule 6(d) which prohibits. It merely authorizes if Your Honor please. The government has the right to be present and represented in the grand jury proceeding. That there is a right to have a stenographer and it does not make that exclusive nor does it prohibit any other persons from being present.
The cases that have talked about that issue are the defendants who have appeared, not the witness or even witnesses who have appeared who have all asked to have counsel have all dealt with a different issue. That is those persons that wanted to be represented; and we say that what we are asking for here is not representation.
That represents the argument and my request at this time, Your Honor.
I do have a second motion, but I think perhaps best that I delay that until perhaps you hear the government's response.
COURT: Very well.
MR. McNAMARA: If Your Honor please, when you charged the grand jury this morning, you told them of the secrecy element that surrounds them. I reminded them of that when I went to the grand jury room.
We go back to Rule 60 and it specifically says who can be in the grand jury and it does not say an attorney for a witness. It says government attorneys, court reporter, the witness, himself or herself. We are merely operating under a federal statute that Congress has established and there are many cases. You can pick out Wright's Book on Procedure that we have here and find many cases supporting that position.
We had this very point come up in a case of ours. It is not a reported decision where Judge Larkins wrote, "William Worthington Russell, IV, the counsel for the witness before the grand jury asked to be present during the testimony of his client before the grand jury." Judge Larkins ruled that he cannot be present. This is just June 10, 1974. I have a copy of this order here and I will be glad to hand it up to you.
COURT: I don't need to see it.
MR. McNAMARA: Basically --
COURT: You say that's what he held?
MR. McNAMARA: Yes, sir. He did hold that.
COURT: But he didn't have these special circumstances that Mr. Segal called attention to.
MR. McNAMARA: I don't think there are any special circumstances. Time has gone by but surely this witness, if he has been through this procedure before has gone back and reviewed his testimony now that he gave at the Article 32 hearing. It is not unusual that the man can't recall what occurred on the events. He is one of several witnesses that we intend to call before the grand jury. He probably will be able to aid the grand jury.
Now, if we allow him to have his counsel, we will have everybody calling for attorneys to go in before the grand jury. Granted, Judge Larkins probably didn't have --
COURT: He doesn't want to counsel with the man though or represent him or cross examine the witness. He just wants to hear. He just wants to hear firsthand.
MR. McNAMARA: But that violates the federal statute. You put a lawyer in the grand jury, and the witness will be looking at the lawyer for answers, vice versa. The attorney there, it is an outside element that you are introducing into the grand jury room. I don't think that you get the true picture that we want the grand jury to see. We want them to just examine the witness, all witnesses before the grand jury. I don't think that's the true nature of the federal statures.
I am sure Mr. Woerheide has something to add to this.
COURT: All right, sir, I'll hear him.
MR. WOERHEIDE: There is no reason why Mr. MacDonald cannot fully inform and fully brief his counsel as to each and every matter transpires before the grand jury. We have informed him that he has the right upon request to leave the grand jury room and confer with his counsel whenever he so desires.
Your Honor, if we were to establish a practice in this jurisdiction of permitting unauthorized persons to appear before the grand jury, the grand jury proceedings would be vitiated. If this grand jury, which at this juncture is an investigative grand jury, simply inquiring into the facts and circumstances to see if there was some criminal law violation -- but if this grand jury were to vote an indictment against any person as a result of the grand jury inquiry and there were unauthorized persons before the grand jury, it would be grounds for dismissing that indictment. And if it was not dismissed and it went to trial --
COURT: That wouldn't be so if this witness should be indicted and that person should be his counsel who was allowed in there by virtue of a motion made for that purpose and allowed. Certainly, he wouldn't be able to attack the indictment on that ground.
MR. WOERHEIDE: The witness was informed at that time that he first appeared before the grand jury, although he was a possible suspect, there were a number of other possible suspects with respect to the crime of murder.
Furthermore, Your Honor, we are investigating other violations, allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice; and if the indictment were to be returned by this grand jury and the secrecy of the grand jury were violated, I have no doubt that the indictment would be subject to dismissal.
COURT: All right, sir. Mr. Segal, you want to be heard further on this?
MR. SEGAL: Without belaboring the subject, Your Honor, I ask your indulgence very briefly.
COURT: Very well.
MR. SEGAL: If the government concedes, Your Honor, that the witness has the right -- and they have to concede it -- to come out after every single question and repeat the question to me and go back in and give the answer and then come out again after the answer then repeat that to me, once he concedes that, it seems to me that the procedure or their insistence that I not be permitted to hear it for myself is such an absurdity. And one, of course, is called to mind. That for four hundred years lay people continue to quote Shakespeare, "The law doth make an ass of itself." Why am I not entitled to hear it directly?
As a matter of fact, the very proof of why this procedure that I have asked you to allow this afternoon is necessary is tied to the second motion that I make because I suspect when I state the reason for my second motion Mr. Woerheide or Mr. McNamara will leap to their feet and deny precisely that that is what they said to my client in the grand jury and we are going to have an argument over what, over the ability of a lay witness to come out and repeat to his counsel immediately thereafter correctly certain statements because I am prepared to make certain representations to Your Honor. Why should that be necessary? Why should we engage in this certain absurd procedure which says I am entitled to know what goes on but not accurately. For those reasons, sir, I submit that our motions be granted.
COURT: Also you have a second motion?
MR. SEGAL: Yes, sir.
COURT: I'll hear you on that too.
MR. SEGAL: That will be somewhat briefer, sir. If Your Honor please, during the initial questioning of Dr. MacDonald in regard to purportedly warn him of his rights conducted by Mr. Woerheide before the grand jury. At that time, Dr. MacDonald warned the government's counsel that he wished the presence of his attorney. He was then asked by the government's counsel whether or not he had discussed the issue of the right of his attorney to be present in the grand jury proceedings and whether or not I had advised him in regard to such a matter. That is the best recollection that my lay client was able to give me of that discussion. And I submit now, Your Honor that that is totally and grossly improper, for the government to go into the question of what advice counsel has given to the witness. I suspect it was more unintended than deliberate. That counsel for the government, I trust, is aware that he may not inquire as to what legal advice was given to a witness by his or her attorney through the course of the attorney-client relationship. Just precisely --
COURT: I didn't understand you to say it was contended that they had asked the nature of the advice but just whether or not the question had been the subject of some conversation, not what the conversation was.
MR. SEGAL: My understanding -- Again, my problem is that I am dealing with secondhand repetition of what the client lay person has said, relates to the conversation dealt with, and was he told something about those rights by me. In effect, the question which sought to elicit the nature of counsel's advice --
If Your Honor would indulge me for one moment, I want to confer, refer to a note here. I think that I can further add to the record by saying that apparently, Mr. Woerheide, government's counsel, after making the statements that I have given so far then said to the witness, "So this, his decision not to agree to my presence, doesn't come as a surprise to you." That is a characterization and stating of record the nature of advice that I have given and that I think is grossly improper. And for that reason, I would ask, Your Honor, to instruct the government's counsel to refrain from either directly or indirectly seeking to find out the nature of legal advice given to the witness in this case.
By the way, again, Your Honor, to apprehend the needless difficulty we are struggling with to understand precisely the words, if I can be present, I think that I can separate the difference of a general question which can deal with this area.
COURT: What would you have done if you had been there?
MR. SEGAL: I would have made notes to that effect and reviewed what area it would have gotten into. I would not -- and I represent this to the court -- attempt to signal the witness, to show any kind of emotion, any kind of feelings, any kind of signals. I am a professional, Your Honor. That's not my function; I don't behave that way. I don't think that any counsel that has ever known me would have known me to somehow subvert the grand jury proceedings.
I must say to the court, Your Honor, I have been in state court permitted where special circumstances were shown to appear before a grand jury. Take the case of the Commonwealth vs. Carrera and Garcia; the case ultimately went before the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania in regard to representing the witness in the grand jury room proceedings for the purpose of adequately getting the witness to express her rights. The court simply thought it was expedient and desirable for counsel to be present for that brief time. It served a purpose. It is not unheard of in that regard.
COURT: All right, sir.
MR. McNAMARA: If Your Honor please, on this latter motion of counsel in regard to the impropriety on the part of the government's counsel, I emphatically deny that, that such did take place there. I listened as Mr. Woerheide was asking Dr. MacDonald these various questions and Dr. MacDonald brought up the fact that he would like to have his counsel in, in the grand jury room. So Mr. Woerheide went ahead and asked him if he had discussed this with his attorney, this fact. He didn't ask for any type of disclosure on what they discussed, just when this particular point had been discussed.
Now, if we get into a shooting match over words, we'll have to go back to the court reporter; but it did not strike me anywhere near being any question of impropriety there. So I think that motion --
COURT: Well, does the government recognize that it has no right to inquire into the nature of advice obtained by a witness or anyone else before the grand jury, advice from his attorney? Do you recognize that?
MR. McNAMARA: Yes.
MR. WOERHEIDE: Your Honor, we recognize that a witness who appears before the grand jury has certain privileges. One is the privilege not to testify as to any matter that might tend to incriminate him. The other privilege -- it is not a right, a privilege -- relates to confidential communications between attorney and client. It is not the privilege of the attorney. It is the privilege of the client. If the client is a witness before the grand jury, he may be asked questions; he may assert the privilege; he may refuse to answer the question; but there is no prohibition with respect to asking the question.
MR. McNAMARA: Your Honor, if I may add one point further with regard to Mr. Segal's request to be in the grand jury room. After every question that Dr. MacDonald is asked, if he still has to confer with Mr. Segal, as he probably will, they are going to go out of the grand jury room anyway. So we are going to have so much traffic going back and forth, I can't see how anything is going to be accomplished by allowing Mr. Segal to be in there.
COURT: You don't think a logistical problem will be solved by having him in there?
MR. McNAMARA: I definitely don't think so. I think it would be most distracting.
MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor please, I made my statement to the court in absolute good faith, and I have the advantage over both the government counsel, if Your Honor please, that I participated in that, fully and completely in the military proceedings, that precede. Sir, I have some intimate knowledge of the details of this case and I further have experience in representing witnesses in grand jury matters. I think that I can safely and honestly, hoping that the court will respect my word, say to you that I think that we will solve a substantial logistical problem by granting our first motion. That I have no reason at all to anticipate that if I am able to be present that there will be any need for assisting, frequent adjournments, so that the witness can counsel with me. Perhaps if that were to occur and did not solve the logistical problem, I see no reason why Your Honor might not want to reconsider your decision.
If Your Honor will permit me to be present, I think, Your Honor, would find as a practical matter that that would not be necessary; and it would obviate the government's position. I am appreciative, Your Honor, in your indulgence to hear me out; but I do not think that I would be serving my client properly if I did not respond or call attention to what I heard in Mr. Woerheide's remark. And that is that he wants an uncounseled layman to make the decisions to whether or not he is supposed to discuss with the grand jury and with the government's attorneys the nature of the advice I gave him and that is precisely the kind of thing that privileges are supposed to protect. You don't give the government lawyers to ask in areas that they know they can stop in a second. And that is why I have asked Your Honor to rule and to advise the government to not play games with fundamental rights. They have no business going into legal advice and say, "Well, the lay person, he can decide to waive that." That's provided the witness knows enough to go out and find out whether this is a critical area or not. It is simply a charade. And I say, Your Honor, deal with this issue summarily and say the government ought not to go into the question of rights. I am frankly surprised that Mr. Woerheide takes the position the government can fool around with the attorney-client privilege and see whether they can't find out legal advice the lawyer gives to a witness. That to me, sir, is unworthy to this case.
COURT: All right, sir, anything else?
MR. SEGAL: No, Your Honor.
COURT: Very well, let the record show that each of the motions of the witness MacDonald made through his counsel are denied.
Anything else to come before this court this session?
MR. McNAMARA: Not that I know of, Your Honor.
COURT: All right, we will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.
END MOTION HEARING
(The investigation of the grand jury continues.)
(Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald resumes the stand.)
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. WOERHEIDE:
Q Mr. MacDonald, you stated your present address. Where are you employed, sir?
A St. Mary's Hospital in Long Beach, California.
Q Do you have an office in that hospital, a private office?
A No. I am a member of a group of eight physicians that run the emergency department.
Q Does the hospital have a telephone number?
A Yes, it does.
Q Or the emergency room?
A Yes, it does.
Q Can you tell us what it is please?
A 435-4441, area code 213.
Q And how about your residence telephone?
A Area 213, 592-2303.
Q Now going backward from the present time to December 4, 1970, which I think is the date of your discharge from the Army, can you tell us the various places that you have resided during that period of time?
A From December 4, 1970?
Q Yes, sir.
A Initially I was at a friend's house in New Hope, Pennsylvania; and then I was at my mother's house in Patchogue, Long Island.
Q Was your friend Robert Stern?
A That's correct.
Q And what's the address there, sir?
A At that time, it was 1 Great Oak Road, New Hope, Pennsylvania.
Q And thereafter you stayed at your mother's house?
A For a brief period of time.
Q What's that address?
A She doesn't live there any more. 68 Mount Vernon Avenue, Patchogue, New York.
Q I want to ask you where Mr. Stern lives at the present time.
A I believe it is South Hampton, Long Island.
Q Do you have a street address?
A No, I don't.
Q How about your mother? What is her current address?
A 189 Washington Avenue, Patchogue.
Q When you left your mother's house, where did you go to live?
A To an apartment in New York City.
Q Can you give us that address?
A It was on 69th Street. I don't remember the address.
Q And where did you move from there?
A To California.
Q Did you occupy the quarters that you now occupy?
A Initially, I stayed with one of my partners. A man who is now my partner. The address at that time was B-7 Surfside, California.
Q And what's his name, sir?
A Dr. Jerry Hughes.
Q And then you moved to the place where you now reside, is that it?
Is that an apartment or a house, sir?
A It's a condominium.
Q And do you own the condominium?
A I am in the process of owing it, yes.
Q Now, since you were discharged from the Army, what employment have you had, sir?
A I am a physician.
Q Specifically? You are not in private practice for yourself?
A No. I was --
Q You are employed by an employer?
A That's correct.
Q And who is or the employers who have employed you since your discharge from the Army?
A I worked at the -- I was a clinic physician at the World Trade Center in New York at the Industrial Clinic for approximately six months.
Q And that was in 1971, I take it?
A Right. The director of the clinic was Dr. Gilbert -- Benjamin -- Dr. Benjamin Gilbert. His main office was on 45th Street in New York. I don't know the address.
Q Who was your next employer?
A Essentially, Dr. Hughes in California.
Q Are you still working for him?
A It's not really. I don't really work for him. It is a group of physicians. It is more like a partnership.
Q Have you been associated with the partnership since you've been in California?
A Yes, I have.
Q So you are a whole partner in this partnership, I take it?
A Yes. A junior -- more junior member of the partnership but I am not employed by them, yes.
Q Now, how long did you live at Fort Bragg?
A You mean exact dates?
A It would be August of 1969 -- August of 1969 until my discharge from the Army.
Q Which was December 4, 1970? Is that correct?
Q Did you leave the same date?
A I don't remember.
Q Now, prior to coming to Ft. Bragg, where did you live?
A The prior few months I was in the Army, in July of 1969, I would have been at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas; and in August, I was in jump school at Ft. Benning, Georgia.
Q I take it your family was not able to live with you while you were at Ft. Sam Houston or while you were at jump school. They joined you after you arrived at Fort Bragg?
A That's correct.
Q So there was a period from July through August when your family was living somewhere else?
A That's correct.
Q Where were they living?
A In Patchogue.
Q With her parents or your parents?
A My parents.
Q Is that the same address you gave us?
A No. It was across the street.
Q Now how long did you live there?
A Where, sir?
Q In Patchogue, or were your wife and children just visiting there?
A They were just visiting there while I was on my way.
Q That was not a permanent abode for them at all?
Q That was just a temporary --
A That's correct.
Q Prior to the time when you went into the Army, where did you live?
A That was my internship year. I was living in some little town in New Jersey. Fort, I guess, Bergenfield. Bergenfield, New Jersey.
Q Do you recall the address?
A No. It was a big apartment complex.
Q And you were interning where at that time?
A Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York.
Q Prior to living in Bergenfield, where did you live?
Q Did you live in several places in Chicago?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that during the time that you were a student?
A Medical student then, yes.
Q Do you recall the various addresses that you had there at that time?
Q Did you live in the city proper or the suburbs?
A Three different apartments within the city.
Q Were they in the loop area or near the loop?
A One was right next to the medical school which is just north of the loop. Two were a little further out of the city.
Q And prior to going to Northwestern, you were a student at Princeton University. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Did you live on campus or off campus?
A Off campus.
Q Now you and Colette were married when?
A September 14, between my sophomore and junior years in college. It's I guess 1963.
Q Now, Dr. MacDonald, in preparation before the grand jury here, have you gone over any records that you retained?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you tell me specifically what records you have gone over?
A The Article 32 hearing that was held at Ft. Bragg.
Q Do you have a complete transcript of that?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right, what other records?
A A copy of an interrogation held by the CID of me on April 6th.
Q What other records?
A Really, you know, there were news clippings mixed in with this stuff but that was really the formal reading that I did.
Q Do you have a file of news clippings?
A My attorney asked me to keep it in conjunction with the case.
Q Did you bring any of this material with you?
A I have some in my briefcase.
Q Now, is there any other material that you referred to?
A You mean other than loose papers that were associated with the Article 32 hearing?
Q You specifically mentioned the transcript of the testimony of the Article 32 hearing?
Q Transcript of an interrogation of which took place on April 6, 1970?
Q And you mentioned news clippings?
A Uh-huh (yes).
Q Now, was there anything else?
A There are a lot of loose -- You know when I was referring to the Article 32 transcript in my box that includes -- there is a lot of loose papers that I looked at.
Q What do these loose papers consist of? Correspondence?
A Some correspondence, some of the court motions that we filed in conjunction with the Article 32 hearing. I don't even know what they mean. Interviews taken of other witnesses. Witnesses that the CID was badgering on Long Island. Things like that.
Q Now, what witnesses are you referring to on Long Island?
A Friends of mine. You know, friends from the past.
Q Can you specify any individuals?
A People like Harold Leon. People that I haven't seen for years and years. There is a whole list of old friends.
Q Can you mention any others besides Harold Leon?
A Carol Leon.
Q Carol Leon.
A Karen Perry. They really weren't very important. This is part of the -- As I was leafing through this, I saw these things. I am trying to give you a full recollection.
Q Did you have copies of any interrogations of these witnesses such -- or did you just have a memorandum reflecting the fact that they were contacted by the CID, any certain questions?
A I think there is some of those. I didn't specifically read any formal statements.
Q But you have copies of interrogations that were turned over to you by the CID, I take it?
A I don't know. I am a little confused. I don't know if it was them. I read the MP's interviews on post. This is all in a great big file, about six years worth of reading.
Q Do you also have a file of the transcript of interrogations of Mr. Ivory, Mr. Grebner, and Mr. Shaw by your counsel?
A I certainly do.
Q Did you participate in any of those interrogations?
A No, I did not.
Q Is that in part of the material that you referred to?
Q Did you prepare material to be furnished to other persons concerning the investigation or the consequences of the investigation?
A I don't understand what you mean.
Q For example, did you furnish any material to any Congressman or any government officials?
Q Do you have copies of that?
A I have copies of a press release that was issued when I got out of the Army that one of the Congressmen asked me to prepare.
Q Was that the only one?
A That was furnished to Congress?
Q Well, is this the only document of that type?
A No, I have copies of Mr. Kassab's allegations that he sent to Congress.
Q Did any other persons make such allegations and send it to any member of Congress or any officials to your knowledge?
A One of my military attorneys did.
Q What is his name?
A Not to Congress. Pardon me. I didn't hear the full question.
Q Or to any official?
A Sure, officials being Army. Right. Lt. Michael Malley. Now, it's Michael Malley.
Q And that's one of your attorneys present here in Raleigh at this time?
A That's correct.
Q Representing you and acting on your behalf. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, do you have any other, let's say, memoranda or summaries that you prepared for the benefit of newspapermen?
A I have copies of long newspaper articles but I don't have memoranda in preparing them.
Q How about radio interviewers or television interviews?
A Do I have copies of those?
Q Do you have copies of any material that was prepared in connection with, let's say, your participation in a TV program or a radio program or an appearance that you may have made as a lecturer or as a speaker before any bodies, any student bodies, or any other groups that might be interested in hearing concerning the matter that we are discussing?
A No, sir.
Q Mr. MacDonald, when you were graduated from medical school, where were you admitted to the practice of medicine?
A I had my internship first in New York, following which I was admitted to the practice of medicine in New York and North Carolina, since then California.
Q Did you take a state board examination in New York?
A No. I had national boards that are accepted by both states.
Q And when were you admitted to the practice of medicine in New York City or in New York itself?
A I believe the date on the license is June 15, 1969. I think that coincides with the graduation from internship.
Q And when were you admitted to the practice of medicine in North Carolina?
A It would be a few months later. I honestly don't know.
Q Did you have to take a state board examination here?
A No. I had to appear before a medical board for a conference, essentially, in, I guess, Raleigh.
Q And submit copies of your credentials from New York?
Q And while you came to Ft. Bragg in August, now about when was it that you went into practice in North Carolina?
A I honestly don't remember. I don't know. I presume it was early in the fall. I really don't remember.
Q When were you admitted to practice in California?
A I don't know that either. I applied sometime -- I applied sometime when I was in the Army because the national board reciprocity runs out at five years after graduation from medical school and I applied sometime while I was in the Army.
Q And was the entire matter handled by mail?
A The California application?
Q Yes, the application and any action taken by the state board on your examination or notification to you of your acceptance or your licensing as a medical practitioner in California.
A Yes, it was.
Q So you didn't have to appear personally in California in order to obtain your license there?
Q Mr. MacDonald or Dr. MacDonald, where were you born?
A In Jamaica, New York.
Q And did you grow up in Jamaica, New York?
A No, I grew up in Patchogue.
Q And did you attend elementary and high school there?
A Yes, I did.
Q And will you tell the grand jury please about your school activities and your school standing, any honors, positions, that you held, any activities such as athletics or honor society or anything of that sort?
A I played on football, basketball, baseball teams; was president of my class and was in the Kiwanis, not Kiwanis but Key Club, the Varsity Club, band orchestra. I was president of my class and several other little things.
Q What was your standing when you graduated?
A I would guess top five, three, or four in the class. Something like that.
Q As a result of your scholastic excellence, did you a scholarship?
A Yes, I did.
Q And who awarded this scholarship?
A Initially I received two. I received a very large one from Colgate and a smaller one from Princeton University and I accepted the Princeton one.
Q And what did you study there as an undergraduate?
Q And this was in preparation for further study of medicine at a later date?
Q What were your activities as a student at Princeton University?
A I worked to help pay my way. I was in the boxing club for a while, some intramural sports, nothing very dramatic at Princeton.
Q What was your scholastic standing at the end of your third year?
A It was relatively high. It wasn't super high. I think it was the upper third. I think they did it in thirds at that time. I think that I was in the upper third.
Q And did you then apply to the Northwestern University Medical School?
A I did.
Q Is it unusual for Northwestern University to accept in medical school students, persons who do not have an undergraduate degree?
A Yes, not really unusual. They accept more than most medical schools did. They believe in it. So I was one -- out of a hundred and thirty-four people in the class, there were probably I would guess there were twenty or twenty-five of us who were three-years undergraduate students. Some schools don't accept them at all.
Q Did you have a scholarship to Northwestern?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that for scholastic excellence?
A Well, they say, yes, but really it is for need. If you don't have need, you don't get it no matter how smart you are, if you follow me.
Q Yes. That scholarship continued over the period you were a student at Northwestern University Medical School which was four years. Is that correct?
Q Now, what is your family situation, Dr. MacDonald? You referred to your mother as still being alive. Is your father still alive?
Q When did he pass on?
A When he was forty-eight. I was a sophomore in medical school.
Q Do you have any siblings?
A I have a brother, older, eighteen months older than myself and a sister, younger, about eighteen months younger.
Q What is your brother's name?
Q And what is your sister's name?
Q Where does your brother live?
A In New Hope, Pennsylvania.
Q Where does your sister live?
A Schenectady, New York.
Q Have you always had a good family relationship with your father, your mother and brother and sister?
Q Have there been any problems?
Q Have there been any family crises?
A Yes, there have been family crises.
Q Have these family crises had any effect on you and your life?
A Yes, I lost my family at Ft. Bragg. That affected my life.
Q I am referring to your family, consisting of your father, your mother, your brother, and your sister.
A Sure, my father died. That affected my mother and affected us. My brother used drugs and that affected us. My sister is mildly anxious, a young married female and has her crises and calls in the middle of the night but nothing spectacular.
MR. WOERHEIDE: I see it is after four o'clock, Mr. Foreman, I know some of us have to travel quite a distance; and I know the judge said you would be excused at four o'clock. And I suggest that you may wish to adjourn at this time and return tomorrow morning. I understand your schedule starts at 9:30 in the morning; and if it is agreeable with you and the grand jurors, I am going to ask that Dr. MacDonald be excused for the day and directed to return tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. for further testimony before the grand jury.
FOREMAN: Very well.
Dr. MacDonald is excused at this time.