Watergate
Owned by Watergate Judge John J. Sirica! Archive including the Grand Jury's charges against the Watergate burglars and an important heavily edited manuscript with over 200 words handwritten by Judge Sirica explaining his intense questioning of the burglars which ultimately resulted in President Nixon's resignation


Comprised of:

(1) Official Photocopy of the Document from The National Archives of the Grand Jury's detailed charges against the seven Watergate burglars, 10p, 8.5' x 14”, separate sheets. Stapled. “Filed in Open Court / Sep 15 1972…” Judge Sirica's copy.

(2) Historically Important Typed Manuscript, 4p, and Autograph Manuscript, ½ p, each 8” x 13”, on separate sheets. Unsigned. Headed “Memo of Silbert and the Forty-Two Questions / Draft 10/28/75.” 166 handwritten words on the typed manuscript and 45 handwritten words on the half page. In felt-tip and ballpoint.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Earl J. Silbert, Seymour Glanzer, and Donald E. Campbell were the three government prosecutors in the Watergate case.

Handwritten words in bold type. Begins, “Some have criticized me for the role that I played as an active judge in the Watergate Break-in case. But what was I to do? I was not blind or deaf. Here was Barker, receiving envelopes of money through the mail, claiming that he didn't know where they were coming from. And there sat Liddy, refusing to testify, with evidence showing that he had received $199,000. From where and from whom? And for what purpose? And the Government simply wasn't getting into the meat of the matter, they weren't asking the proper questions to get beyond what had often been called the ‘third-rare burglary'. To put it bluntly, I disagreed with the prosecutors' theory of investigation and examination of the witnesses. Now, I don't mean to overly criticize the Government, that is, Messrs. Silbert, Glanzer, et. al. I don't believe that they were, in any way, dishonest. Perhaps a bit naïve, but not dishonest…”

“It didn't require any special talents genius, although, perhaps, a great deal of experience and instincts to see how the evidence was unfolding and to put two and two together or in other words seeing how the jig saw puzzle fit together. It was obvious that there was more to the case than the third-rate burglary that was being prosecuted or the statement made by Zeigler of the White House Staff etc. I also knew and felt that a judge, in searching for the truth, could do what the government could not do. So I took over the questioning of the witnesses, after counsel for both sides questioned them, out of the presence of the jury, starting with Barker, asking forty-two questions: (tr. pp. ) (Cite questions and answers verbatim)…”


“I have found support and gratification for my actions in the Court of Appeals decision … (also cite language of U.S. Court of Appeals in affirmind [sic, affirming] Mitchell – Haldeman & Ehrlichman etc And the Federal Rules of Evidence have also gone in this direction … Simply stated, I had no intention of sitting on the bench like a nincompoop and watching the ‘parade of what appeared to be untruthful or unwilling witnesses go by-…”


The fifth page, in full, ”as Senator Ervin said during one of the Senate Hearings: ‘they almost got away with it', etc. Note: Might be a good place to quote from ‘Edmund Burke' and ‘Thomas Aquinas cited in my receiving an honorary degree from City U of N.Y. – 6/5/75 (see attached)


(3) Autograph Manuscript unsigned in pencil, 6p, 8” x 12”, separate lined sheets. In unknown hand. A previous draft of Sirica's manuscript, titled “42 questions.” Stapled at upper left.


(4) Printed proof sheet, 9” x 12”, creases, with the text relating to Sirica's honorary degree from City University of New York, in part, “We honor you today because you symbolize fir us the mission of this University and of the educated public servant … In conferring upon you the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws, we particularly acknowledge that you work as a jurist has reminded us of the profound concepts of Edmund Burke, who said: "It is the duty of the Judge to receive every offer of evidence …' In investigating the truth, you have done justice, which Thomas Aquinas defines as ‘a certain rectitude of mind…'”


(5) Judge Sirica's copy of the Printed Typescript of the Watergate trial proceedings of Monday, January 15, 1973, 11:00 A.M. to 1:05 P.M., 69 pages, 8.5” x 11”, separate sheets. The pages are numbered 355-423. Fine condition.



The trial of the seven burglars had begun on January 8, 1973. On January 11th, burglar E. Howard Hunt, Jr. pled guilty to six counts. The Court was adjourned until January 15th.


Defense attorney Henry B. Rothblatt was fired by burglars Bernard L. Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio R. Martinez, and Virgilio R. Gonzalez when he refused to condone their change of plea to guilty. Judge Sirica named attorney Alvin Newmyer to represent them. The first 11 pages comprise a transcript of proceedings “Out of Presence of Jury,” about the jury having no access to a radio or newspapers while sequestered and about the defendants' change of lawyer and plea. In part, “MR. NEWMYER: These four defendants … have all individually notified me that they desire to withdraw their not guilty pleas and plead guilty to the indictment…”


From the detailed 2nd count, in part, “THE COURT: Now, I advise each one of you that each one of you are charged with the following crimes -- first, I will summarize what they are and go into little more detail: Under Count One, known as the conspiracy count, all of you, I take it, have read the counts in the indictment with which you are charged, there are seven altogether. Count Two is known as the burglary charge or burglary in the second degree. Count Three is burglary in the second degree. Count Four is endeavoring to intercept oral communications. Count Five charged endeavor to intercept wire communications. Count Six charges possession of intercepting devices. Count Seven charges possession of an intercepting devise in another matter…”


On the next 13 pages, Judge Sirica explains in detail the charges in the indictment including “…the Second Count of the indictment which is drawn under Title 22 of the D.C. Code, Section 1801(b) alleges: ‘On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the Defendants Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez entered the rooms, that is, the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, with the intent to steal property of another…”


Judge Sirica questions all four defendants in detail, their guilty pleas were formalized, and “THE COURT: All right, the Defendants will be committed.”


(6) Photocopied Typescript, 6p (incomplete), 8.5” x 11”, separate sheets, December 10, 1974 (Judge Sirica's copy). After a recess, proceedings in the Watergate Cover-Up trial continue against John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs. Ehrlichman recalls the day at Camp David when President Nixon asked for his resignation. In part, “He broke down at one point and cried. He said that he regretted very much having to take this step, that he felt that I had been or tried to be his conscience and I replied that I hadn't been as effective as I would like. He said that on reflection my judgment had been correct, that he would like to help me with my attorneys' fees were necessary, that he had a large sum of money available to him, that he would like to have me share in. I told him I could not accept that offer … He asked if there were anything else that he could do for me. I said that sometime I would like him to explain to our children -- (witness sobbing). THE WITNESS: Excuse me, excuse me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Would you like to take a little recess? Take about a ten-minute recess? MR. EHRLICHMAN: Well, I - - THE COURT: I understand how you feel…”


(7) Photocopied Typescript, 7p (incomplete), 8.5” x 11”, separate sheets, December 13, 1974 (Judge Sirica's copy). Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Robert Mardian about the Committee to Re-Elect the President. In part, “THE COURT: My question is: What is the genesis, who was the person or persons who thought up this idea of setting up CREP instead of working through the permanent arm of the Republican NationalCommittee?...”


(8) Printed Manuscript, 4p, 8.5” x 14”, separate sheets. Unsigned. Cover sheet “To: Judge / From: Tom / Re: The Sam Beard Case…” In part, “One of the cases which played a special role in peaking my desire to become a trial judge was the Sam Beard gambling case … In December, 1934, fourteen men were indicted in the District of Columbia on gambling and conspiracy charged…”


(9) Typed Manuscript, 3p, 8” x 13”. Unsigned. Headed “Draft.” Judge Sirica discharged the Grand Jury “empaneled on June 5, 1072, with the anticipation that it would sit for several months and consider a number of more or less routine cases…”


(10) Typed Document Signed “Cullen M. Ward” as Chairman, National Awards Committee, and “Robert E. Cartwright” as National President, 1p, 8.5” x 11”. Toronto, Canada, July 30, 1975. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America presents Judge John J. Sirica its Award of Exceptional Merit for 1975 as the “Outstanding Trial Judge of the United States of America.” Two vertical cuts upwards from the lower edge, one touching the final “t” of “Cartwright.”


(11) Blank sheet of watermarked stationery, 8.5” x 11”, headed “United States District Court / for the District of Columbia / Chambers of Judge John J. Sirica”


Collection originally from the Family of Trial Judge John J. Sirica

This item comes with a Certificate from John Reznikoff, a premier authenticator for both major 3rd party authentication services, PSA and JSA (James Spence Authentications), as well as numerous auction houses.

WE PROVIDE IN-HOUSE SHIPPING WORLDWIDE!