1

THE RESURRECTION OF

Dred Scott

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief

Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free

-- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The

court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional,

thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories. That was 158

years ago. Since that time, African Americans have marched and cried,

fought and died, but all attempts to secure Freedom Justice and

Equality in America have proven to be unattainable. The reason is

because Dred Scott is not dead and the superiority attitudes of White

America have not been altered in the least. The only difference now is

that behind the promises of a civil rights bill, an equal employment bill,

an open occupancy bill, along with other accommodations that give the

illusion of progress, the fact of the matter is that our Judicial System,

police administrators, and correctional and prison systems operate

upon one belief and that conviction is that Blacks or African American

Americans are not and can never become true citizens of the United

States of America. I Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. bear witness before the

2

Almighty God that the disease of White superiority and the status of the

“Negro” in the American judicial system have not changed. The

opinion of the Dred Scott decision has not been abolished in our

Municipal, State, or Federal Judiciary systems.

Abraham Bolden is an African American and was born to Daniel

and Ophelia Bolden in East St. Louis, Illinois on January 19, 1935. He

attended Lincoln High School and, upon graduation, entered Lincoln

University in Jefferson City, Missouri. Later, Bolden married his long

time friend and schoolmate, Barbara L. Hardy (Bolden) to whom he

was married for 49 years prior to her death. To that marriage were

born 3 children, Ahvia Maria Bolden (Reynolds), Abraham Bolden Jr.,

and Dr. Daaim Shabazz.  Bolden has two grandchildren, Ismail and

Cydni Bolden.

Bolden attended public schools in East St. Louis, Illinois and was

graduated from Lincoln High School in June, 1952. Because of his

proficiency in playing the trumpet, he received a scholarship to Lincoln

University in Jefferson City, Missouri and was graduated “cum Laude”

in June of 1956 with a BA in Music Composition.

3

After graduating from Lincoln University, Bolden decided to

enter the field of law enforcement. He subsequently became the first

African American Detective to be employed by the Pinkerton National

Detective Agency. After leaving the detective agency, he served as a

State Highway Patrolman in the State of Illinois.  Continuing to advance

in the field of police work, Bolden became a member of the United

States Secret Service in October 1960.

Bolden met President John F. Kennedy in Chicago , Illinois and,

after a brief conversation with Bolden, President Kennedy was

instrumental in making Bolden the first African American to be

assigned to the Secret Service White House Detail in Washington , D.C.

Bolden traveled with the President; but he became disenchanted

with the assignment when his fellow agents used racial slurs in his

presence and engaged in a pattern of conduct that, in Bolden's

professional opinion, endangered the life of the President.  

After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and after

having previously discussed his complaints of secret service

misconduct with the Chief of the U.S. Secret Service and his immediate

superiors to no avail, Bolden threatened to divulge information

concerning the President’s lack of proper security to officials who were

4

investigating the President’s death.  Bolden was whisked out of

Washington, D.C. under a pretext, returned to Chicago whereupon he

was hastily arrested by high administrators within the secret service

who charged Bolden with the commission of a federal crime.

After two incredibly unfair criminal trials, Bolden was convicted;

however, the case against Bolden began to fall apart when one of the

witnesses, Joseph Spagnoli, who testified against Bolden, confessed that

he and another witness, Frank William Jones, concocted and fabricated

the criminal case against Bolden with the help of an Assistant United

States Attorney. In spite of Spagnoli’s confession and the government’s

refusal to deny the charges levied by Spagnoli, Bolden was sent away to

the penitentiary. Bolden feared that in order to further discredit him, at

some point during his confinement, the government would attempt to

have him declared insane.

Bolden was subsequently sent to the prison camp at the

Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners.  Following an

argument with one of the psychiatric patients, Bolden was held in

solitary confinement in the psychiatric ward where he was forced to

ingest a psychotropic drug.  Julius Nicholas, the Chief Parole Officer at

the center, was the impetus behind the governments’ attempt to have

5

Bolden declared insane.  The scheme to declare Bolden insane was

unsuccessful and Bolden was paroled in September of 1969 after serving

three years and three months in federal confinement.

After being released from prison, Bolden established himself as a

master at quality control administrative procedures in various

machining and metal fabricating companies in Chicago.  He retired

after serving 35 years in quality control supervisory positions.

For his tireless efforts in the pursuit of justice and equity before

the law, Bolden has been the recipient of the 2008 Scottish Hugo’s

Companion Tankard Award for Courage, the 2008 African American

Arts Alliance Award for Excellence, the 2008 Alpha Phi Alpha Award

for Courage, the 2015 Oakland Pen Award, The East St. Louis Council

of Mayors Award, The Lincoln University Distinguished Alumni

Award, and The 2016 Marion Ohio Black Heritage Award He has been

cited by the National Urban League as one of America’s Outstanding

Black Men.

6

Abraham Bolden, Sr.

7

8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Abraham W. Bolden, Sr., hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner in this

cause before this Honorable Court, hereby makes motion and moves

this Honorable Court to expunge the conviction of Petitioner in United

States vs. Abraham W. Bolden, 64CR324.

This motion is predicated upon extraordinarily flagrant violations of

Petitioner's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial and equal

protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United

States of America for all freeborn and accepted citizens. Moreover, this

Honorable Court, being located in the district in which the original

cause was first brought, has the power, authority, and duty to hear

evidences and to rule upon evidences of gross violations of Petitioner's

rights under the Constitution of these United States and to make

advisory or legal decisions as this Honorable Court may deem

appropriate. The Petitioner's allegations are:

(1) That the Petitioner did not receive a fair trial by a fair and impartial

jury in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of

America;

9

(2) That the Petitioner was denied the right to be present at all stages of

a federal criminal proceeding;

(3) That the office of the United States Attorney procured, suborned

and permitted perjured testimony in Petitioner's trials in violation of

the Constitution of the United States of America;

(4) That special evidentiary rules of criminal procedure were enforced

by the Trial Court in order to facilitate the conviction of the Petitioner

in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United

States of America;

(5) That all of the above allegations are supported by the Official

Transcripts of United States vs. Abraham W. Bolden, 64CR324, and

United States vs. D'Antonio, 64CR300.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case was commenced by an indictment which was returned against

Petitioner on or about May 21, 1964 while Petitioner was a Secret

Service Agent for the United States Government. The indictment

charged Petitioner, with (a) soliciting money as a Secret Service Agent

in return for disclosing information which had come to Petitioner as an

10

agent in violation of Section 201 of Title 18 of the United States Code

(Count I); (b) with obstructing justice by disclosing information known

to Petitioner in an official capacity as a Secret Service Agent in violation

of Section 1503 of Title 18 of the United States Code (Count II); and (c)

conspiring with one Frank Jones, an unindicted coconspirator, to solicit

a thing of value in violation of Section 201 of Title 18 of the United

States Code and to obstruct justice in violation of Section 1503 of Title

18 of the United States Code, all in violation of Section 371 of Title 18 of

the United States Code (Count III).

The Petitioner graduated "cum laude" from Lincoln University in

Jefferson City, Missouri, and was the first African American Special

Agent of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. After having served

three and one-half years as an Illinois State Police patrolman and vice

investigator, Petitioner joined the United Stated Secret Service in

October, 1960. In June 19.61, Petitioner became the first African

American Secret Service Agent assigned to the Presidential White

House Detail during the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. This

appointment arose by virtue -of a personal conversation between the

late President Kennedy and Petitioner on April 28, 1961 in which the

11

President promised to rectify the lack of an African American on the

elite White House Detail.

In 1962, Petitioner placed alleged co-conspirator Frank Jones, a twice

convicted felon, under arrest for counterfeiting United States currency.

Jones was subsequently indicted on this charge, but the indictment was

dismissed by the Office of the United States Attorney. However,

Petitioner continued to monitor Jones' actions through informants and

personal observation which culminated in Petitioner's arrest of Jones a

second time on April 5, 1963 on a charge of counterfeiting currency.

During the second arrest and in execution of a search warrant of Jones'

home, the counterfeiting printing press, counterfeiting plates, inks, and

negatives were seized by the Petitioner, Special Agent in Charge, John

Hanley, and other secret service agents conducting the search. Jones'

automobile was also seized as it had earlier been determined to have

been used in the passing of counterfeit currency.

Frank Jones was indicted by a Grand Jury a second time. Six other

persons affiliated with Jones' counterfeiting network were also indicted;

However, during the interim between April 5, 1963 and January 27,

1965, Frank Jones testified as a witness against Petitioner who was

found guilty on August 12, 1964 of charges leveled against Petitioner by-

12

Jones. The case against Jones and six co-conspirators in the Jones case

was dismissed, by motion of the Government, on January 27, 1965.

ARGUMENT

(1) The Petitioner did not receive a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury

in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

A. On or about July 11, 1964 after the presentation of all evidence

and-arguments were completed by both the United States Attorney and

the defense attorney at the conclusion of Petitioner's first trial, the Trial

Judge, the Honorable J. Sam Perry, read to the jury the prepared

instructions as to the law. The jury was then released to an anteroom

within the courtroom for deliberation. The jury, after deliberating for

several hours without reaching a unanimous verdict was summoned

back into the courtroom at which time the so called "Allen charge" was

read to the jury. After giving the "Allen charge," the Trial Judge stated

to the jury:

"Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will exercise a prerogative

which I have as a Judge, which I rarely exercise. I will express to you

and comment upon the evidence. In my opinion, the evidence sustains a

verdict of guilty on Counts 1, 2, and Count 3." (TR. 6, First Trial,

July11, 1964)

13

After issuing this statement as to Petitioner's guilt to the jury, the jury

was remanded to the jury room for further deliberations instructing the

jury that they could disagree with him but that they should take his

instruction as part of the juror’s deliberations.. -

It is the contention of Petitioner that any statement as to Petitioner's

guilt by the Trial Court, to a deliberating jury for the purpose of

tainting, swaying, or coaxing that jury to agree in favor of the

Government, was a violation of Petitioner's constitutional, human, and

civil rights to a trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth

Amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America.

Petitioner does not challenge the power of the court to overturn a

verdict not based upon the law or the evidence, or to comment upon the

evidence; However, Petitioner, with all due respect for the courts of this

land, does question the propriety of any person to draw conclusions of

what the evidence shows and then impart such conclusions to a

deliberating jury for consideration. Such prompting and coercive

conduct by the Trial Judge was in severe conflict with the constitutional

guarantee of a trial by a fair and impartial jury, which cannot legally be

denied any freeborn and accepted citizen of these United States of

America.

14

The Trial Judge's opinion was given after the evidentiary and argument

phases of the trial were completed. The Trial Judge's opinion of the

guilt of the defendant Petitioner was weighed by the jury as new

evidence of Petitioner's guilt, thereby casting the highly influential and

respected Trial Judge in the roll as a Government rebuttal witness for

the prosecution against Petitioner, and removed any likelihood that

Petitioner would be found innocent contrary to the highly regarded

Trial Judge's expressed opinion of the guilt of Petitioner.

And Petitioner further notes, and asks this Honorable Court to take due

cognizance of the fact that over the past thirty years there have been

many trials of persons accused of the most hideous of crimes.

Congressman have been tried on charges of bribery; aldermen have

been brought to trial on charges of bribery, and judges have been

brought before the bar for charges ranging from bribery to the "fixing"

of cases before the bar; Yet, in not one case before any court in this

land, that has received wide publicity, has a Trial Judge delivered an

opinion of a defendant's guilt to a deliberating jury. Why then has this

judicial prerogative only been used against an African American Secret

Service Agent over the past thirty years? The United States Constitution

or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not give any person the

15

prerogative to abrogate or to nullify the right of trial by an impartial

jury to any freeborn and accepted citizen of these United States of

America in any federal criminal proceeding. The proof of this act of a

denial of such a fundamental constitutional guarantee by a Federal

District Judge should constitute grounds for the expunging of any

conviction of the accused in the court in which such denial occurred.

(2) The Petitioner was denied the right to be present at all stages of a

federal criminal proceeding.

A. On or about August 11, 1964, a second jury was in deliberation

after having heard the presentation of the evidence and conclusion of

arguments in a second trial of Petitioner that commenced on August 3,

1964. This second trial was held in the same courtroom under the

auspices of the same Trial Judge (a change of venue was denied by the

Trial Judge) who had previously expressed his opinion of Petitioner's

guilt to the first jury. After being given the charge by the Trial Judge at

approximately 11:00 a.m., the jury was sent into the jury room for

deliberation.

At approximately 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 1964, the Trial Judge

summoned the prosecuting attorneys, Petitioner's attorney, George

Howard, and the Petitioner before the bench for a conference. The jury

16

was not a party to or represented in the conference and continued to

deliberate in the jury room unaware that a conference was in progress.

The judge stated that it had been a long day and he (the Trial Judge)

was tired and was going home for the day. The Trial Judge further

announced that he was closing the courtroom and that everyone would

have to leave the building except the jury who would continue to

deliberate under the charge of a U.S. Deputy Marshall. In event of a

verdict, the Trial Judge stated, the verdict would be sealed by the jury,

and the court would re-convene at 9:00 a.m. on August 12, 1964.

Petitioner, Petitioner's attorney, along with Petitioner's wife, brother

and several friends were all escorted, by a deputy marshal, out of the

building and the doors were securely locked behind them, as the

building was officially closed at that time. No person associated with the

prosecution including secret service agents who had offered testimony

against Petitioner were compelled to leave the Federal Building then

located at 219 South Dearborn.

At about 10:00 p.m., after having been escorted from the Federal

Building, Petitioner and his family heard a special broadcast over

WBBM all news radio station, stating that the Bolden jury had reached

17

a verdict and that the Trial Judge had released the jury until 9:00 a.m.,

August 12, 1964, at which time the sealed verdict would be read.

The Petitioner contends that to exclude Petitioner or Petitioner's

attorney from the courtroom while the jury was in active deliberation

was a gross violation of Petitioner's right to be present at all stages of a

federal criminal proceeding. This is especially so since (a) no persons

from the opposing side were excluded and (b) the Trial Judge

overseeing the jury had previously exercised a prerogative extremely

damaging to Petitioner's right to have the issues of Petitioner's trial

adjudicated by a fair and impartial jury.

Note: Below are copies of the Judge’s orders relating to the sealed

verdict and other actions to be taken by the deliberating jurors. These

orders were purportedly written by The Honorable Judge J. Sam Perry

during the active deliberation of the jury. (5:30 p.m.) There are no

records or transcripts that can be discovered as to when, how, or by

whom these “Instructions” were related to the deliberating jurors who

were not present when the decisions made by the court were discussed.

There is a “missing” page in the official transcripts between the final

official instructions in open court and the verdicts returned by the jury.

18

19

20

Since the lawfully impaneled jury was not present during the court

room conference wherein the decision was made to seal the verdict, and

according to the records and transcripts of August 11, 1964, no

instruction or mention of a sealed verdict or other instruction bearing

upon the disposition of the verdict was given by the Trial Judge in open

court in the presence of the Attorney for Petitioner or Petitioner, the

legal and constitutional questions are raised as to (1) when the jury was

advised to seal the verdict, (2) by whom was the jury advised to seal the

verdict and (3) why was it necessary to inform the jury of their legal

procedural formalities outside the presence of Petitioner and his counsel

who were locked out of the court building by order of the sitting judge?

The Trial Judge had previously acted as both prosecutor and witness

against Petitioner by urging an earlier jury to find Petitioner guilty.

With the removal of Petitioner and his counsel from the court building

and leaving a deliberating jury under the charge of a deputy marshal,

for directions as to the disposition of the verdict, is a violation of

Petitioner's constitutional right to a fair trial and due process of the

laws. Such a profound neglect of constitutional fairness as exhibited, on

the record, by a Trial Judge should move this Honorable Court to

expunge the conviction of Petitioner.

21

(3) The Office of the United States Attorney procured, induced,

suborned and permitted perjured testimony in Petitioner's trials in

violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

A. Joseph Spagnoli and Frank Jones were the two chief Government

witnesses against Petitioner. At the time of Petitioner's trials, both Jones

and Spagnoli were under federal indictment for the counterfeiting of

United States Treasury Notes. In essence, Jones testified that Petitioner

asked him to approach Spagnoli for the purpose of inducing Spagnoli to

purchase the Spagnoli counterfeiting file of the secret service for

$50,000. According to Jones, Petitioner gave Jones an onion skin

excerpt bearing a paragraph from the Spagnoli file (no onion skin

excerpt was ever introduced into evidence by the Government

prosecutors) . Jones alleged that Petitioner also gave Jones a very poorly

typed copy of the onion skin excerpt during a conversation with

Petitioner on May 11, 1964. (Government Exhibit 6, TR. 245-284), U.S.

vs. Bolden, 64CR324.

22

Exhibit #6-Allegedly typed by Bolden and given to Jones

“Later, Zaccagnini stated that Spagnoli asked Vito Nitti in the presence of Zaccagnini, if he wanted to use a Greek name on some bonds and Vito Nitti said Yes. Spagnoli said he would have Mikey (Identified as Panteas) go with him. The next day at Spagnoli's house Joe Spagnoli told Zaccagnini that Nitti wanted to take his restaurant partner along. Spagnol said he would make up identification for Vito Nitti and Har Spagnoli gave $8,000 in bonds to Nitti according to Zaccagnini”

The above is a verbatim copy of the excerpt as appeared in the summary report. This copy was forwarded to Mr. J. Miller, Jr. Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Department of Justice by the U.S. Secret Service on June 23, 1964 as being the Paragraph labeled Exhibit #6 introduced into evidence by the government during my trials.

23

According to Jones, Petitioner gave him excerpt Exhibit #6 with the

request that Jones deliver the excerpt to Spagnoli for the purpose of

demonstrating to Spagnoli that Jones could perform his promise

(fingerprint analysis by the Government pertaining to Exhibit 6

revealed that Jones' and Spagnoli's fingerprints were clearly

identifiable while there were none identifiable that were associated with

Petitioner) . (TR. 522-534, Bolden)

Jones testified that he did go to Spagnoli and carried out the alleged

request of Petitioner. Spagnoli confirmed the testimony of Jones in that

during a meeting with Jones at Spagnoli's home, they discussed

Spagnoli's secret service file and Spagnoli was shown the alleged excerpt

which Spagnoli kept. Spagnoli further testified that he contacted the

secret service, at a later date, after Jones' departure on May

12, 1964 and gave the purported excerpt to Acting Special Agent in

Charge Maurice G. Martineau. (TR.457480, Bolden)

On January 20, 1965, Spagnoli was testifying on his own behalf in the

court of the Honorable J. Sam Perry who also was the Trial Judge in

both of Petitioners' trials. During the course of Spagnoli's testimony in

his counterfeiting trial, Spagnoli testified under oath (1) that he

committed perjury when he testified against Petitioner, at Petitioner's

24

trials and (2) that his perjured testimony against Petitioner was given at

the expressed request of Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes, who was also the

chief prosecutor in both of Petitioners' trials. (TR. 6268, D'Antonio,

64CR300). Upon hearing this confession of perjury, the following

colloquy took place between Spagnoli and the Trial Judge:

Trial Judge:

Spagnoli: Trial Judge: Spagnoli:

"Are you telling this Court now that under oath in this Court you lied in

the Bolden Trial?"

"Yes, sir."

"You committed perjury then?" "Yes, Sir."

(TR. 6285), U.S. vs. D'Antonio, 64CR300.

Spagnoli further testified that he committed perjury concerning (a)

dates of the events leading to the arrest of Petitioner on May 18, 1964,

(b) his true source of income and (c) other things which he could not

recall at that time. (TR. 6286-6287, D'Antonio, 64CR300) . Spagnoli

further testified that the reason Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes requested

that Spagnoli perjure himself before the Bolden jury was for the

purpose of making Spagnoli "look good" in the eyes of Petitioner's jury.

(TR. 6284, D'Antonio)

25

During the admissions of perjury by Spagnoli, Spagnoli, through his

attorney, Frank Oliver, introduced a yellow sheet of legal paper which

Spagnoli testified that he "took" from the office of the U.S. Attorney.

(TR. 6272, D'Antonio) . Written on this paper were notations clearly

outlining proposed changes in Spagnoli's testimony in the second trial of

Petitioner. (TR. D'Antonio, Joint Exhibit 36) . Spagnoli testified that

Exhibit 36 was given to him by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes "to

remember the lies in there and remember what to say in the Bolden

Trial." (TR. 62696272, D'Antonio) . Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes

confirmed that he (Sikes) prepared the document but asserted that its

preparation "was precipitated by Spagnoli telling your affiant that he

was having difficulty remembering the exact dates, relating the dates to

days of the week, specifying times within those days, and describing

what occurred at those times on those days and dates." (Defendant's

Motion for a New Trial Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence -

Counter Affidavit in Opposition, 64CR324, March 7,1965).

26

The entire conspiracy between Petitioner and Jones as alleged by the

Government took place over a two day period to wit: Monday May 11

and Tuesday, May 12, 1964. Spagnoli testified extensively as to his

conversations with Jones on both days in Petitioner's first trial in mid-

July, 1964. The document in question was prepared on July 29, 1964

between Petitioner's first and second trials, which were less than one

month apart.

Moreover, in the first trial, Spagnoli testified that he called Mr.

Martineau of the Secret Service on May 12 in contradiction to Assistant

Special Agent in Charge Martineau's testimony that Spagnoli called

him on May 13. In the text of Exhibit 36, it can clearly be observed that

the dates of significant events bearing upon the testimony of Spagnoli

27

were changed in order to square Spagnoli's testimony with that of

Acting Special Agent in Charge Martineau.

During the second trial of Petitioner at the time that Spagnoli was

undergoing cross examination, defense counsel inquired whether the

Government had offered any assistance to Spagnoli with respect to the

indictment under which he was charged with counterfeiting. The

following colloquy ensued between counsel for Petitioner and Spagnoli,

and the Trial Court:

"Q. Now Mr. Spagnoli, you say that you are indicted under case

docketed as 64CR300 entitled United States vs. D'Antonio and others.

Now I ask you if the Government or the secret service made any

promises of immunity of any type for your testifying here?

A. No, because I didn't do any of those things. That's why. I don't need

nothing. I'm innocent to them charges. I didn't conspire with nobody. I

don't have to have a deal.

Q. Nobody promised you any assistance in your indictment?

A. I don't need any assistance. I'm innocent of the charges.

Q. That is not the question, Mr. Spagnoli. I am asking you if someone

promised you something.

28

The Court: Let his answer stand. You have the answer. Let us just go

on. He is not on trial, ladies and gentleman, in this case here.

That is a mere charge as far as you folks are concerned.

Spagnoli: He is insinuating, your honor, that I might have a deal. I don't

need no deal. I am innocent of them charges. I didn't do none of them

things.

The Court: The answer is there and it may stand. Now proceed." (TR.

494-496, Bolden).

On January 26, 1965, Spagnoli stood before the Trial Judge after

having been convicted under his counterfeiting indictment. Spagnoli's

attorney, Mr. Frank Oliver, made reference to representations of

assistance made to Spagnoli by the Government prosecutors, that in

exchange for Spagnoli's testimony in the Bolden (the Petitioner) trials,

the Government would commend Spagnoli favorably to the Trial Judge

in the event of Spagnoli's conviction. Upon hearing this comment from

Attorney Oliver, the Trial Judge asked if Mr. Sikes, the Assistant U.S.

Attorney, wished to respond. The following is Mr. Sikes' verbatim

reply:

"Yes. It is true, your Honor, that at the time I discussed this matter with

Mr. Spagnoli initially, that I told Mr. Spagnoli that if he wanted to take

29

a plea of guilty in this case, that the fact that he had been a witness in

the Bolden case would, of necessity, be brought to the attention of the

sentencing Judge, because his testimony in the Bolden case was being

given before the same Judge who would eventually hear his own case;

and that is your Honor.

We feel, your Honor, that since the developments in this case, that the

Government has been relieved of any necessity of bringing the obvious

to your Honor's attention." 64CR300, Proceedings January 25, 1965.

C. On January 27, 1965, Petitioner's trial attorney, Mr. George

Howard, received a telephone call from Spagnoli in which Spagnoli

asserted that he (Spagnoli) and Frank Jones "fixed up" the whole case

against Petitioner to help themselves. During the telephone

conversation, Spagnoli intimated that he stole a page from a sheaf of

onion skin papers that were laying on a desk top in a Secret Service

office during the time of his arrest and interrogation on May 9, 1964.

Spagnoli further alleged that while he was being questioned by an agent

of the Secret Service, the agent was called from the room and he "got

the file down there." The particulars of this telephone call by Spagnoli

to Attorney Howard were recorded in an affidavit on February 25,

30

1965, and filed with Petitioner's Motion for a New Trial (which motion

was denied by the Trial Judge on March 25, 1965).

D. In October, 1965 the question of the Government's subornation of

perjury was being orally argued before the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Docket Number 14907), the Honorable

Justices Hastings, Koch, and Swygert presiding. Assistant U.S. Attorney

Richard T. Sikes was summoned by the panel in order to clarify, under

oath and as an officer of the Court, the serious allegation of subornation

of perjury as alleged in Appellant's Brief submitted by Petitioner's

appeal attorneys, Raymond J. Smith and James F. Ward.

The records of the U.S. Secret Service and those of the United States

Attorney will reveal that Mr. Sikes was questioned no less than three

times as to whether or not he (Sikes) solicited or suborned perjured

testimony in Petitioner's (Bolden) trials. Mr. Sikes, the chief prosecuting

attorney and the person directly responsible for the control and

coordination of all the evidence in Petitioner's trials, asserted before the

panel:

"Your Honor. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may

tend to incriminate me."

31

(Instead of demanding that Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes be

investigated for Sike’s failure to answer the question regarding

subornation of perjury before the Court of Appeals, U. S. Attorney Ed.

Hanrahan upbraided Attorney Raymond J. Smith for bringing the

matter before the court. Below is the second page of the Government’s

Reply to Defendant’s Motion for a Rehearing En Banc by the U. S.

Attorney Edward Hanrahan presented to the Court of Appeals.

32

33

May it please this Honorable Court to take due cognizance of the fact

that a federal prosecutor was accused in open court of (a) subornation

of perjury against an agent of the United States Government, (b) the

promising of assistance to an indicted counterfeiter and(c) the failure to

act to correct known perjured testimony when it was given at

Petitioner's two trials and that federal prosecutor took the Fifth

Amendment before the second highest court in this land.

Petitioner further contends, and prays that this Honorable Court will

agree, that officers of the Court should not have the luxury of taking the

Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination as to the subornation of,

the procurement of, or the knowingly ignoring of perjured testimony in

a federal criminal trial. A criminal trial is a seeker of truth and fact,

and it is the sworn duty and obligation of the Government to see that

perjured or less than forthright testimony is not submitted against any

accused no matter how insignificant the perjury or false swearing might

appear. If any prosecutor in any federal, state, or local trial is accused

of soliciting untrue testimony in a criminal trial and is unable or

unwilling to acquit himself of the charge for fear of self-incrimination,

the defendant should be set free; For, the entire case is tainted beyond

34

the fairness and equity required by the Constitution of these United

States of America.

It stands to reason that if a federal prosecutor will bargain with and

counsel an indicted counterfeiter to testify to half truths, known

perjury, and information that is designed to mislead or hoodwink the

jury, greater liberties in alteration and the squaring of testimony are

likely to be taken with more trustworthy colleagues, such as Secret

Service personnel who wanted Petitioner convicted because of

Petitioner's long term charges of racism, and laxity of duty regarding

the protection of President John F. Kennedy.

Should not a Federal District Judge, in the interest of justice and due

process, at least hear the testimony and receive the supporting evidence

of a witness who confessed to an officer of the Court that he "fixed up"

a case, in cooperation with another twice convicted felon, that resulted

in the conviction of an agent of the United States Secret Service?

Spagnoli admitted under oath that he "took" a sheet of paper from the

office of the U.S. Attorney. (TR. 6272, D'Antonio) . With this pilfered

document as evidence, he alleged that Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes

entered into a criminal agreement with him. Spagnoli and Jones were in

possession of Exhibit 6 purported to be from the files of the Secret

35

Service, and the crudely typed excerpt (having no physical link to

Petitioner either by fingerprints, typewriter, or paper seized from

Petitioner's home), which were offered into evidence against Petitioner

and was the basis for Petitioner's immediate arrest, arraignment, and

trial. (TR. 522-534, Bolden). This same Spagnoli was in possession of

Joint Exhibit 36 (D'Antonio), which was offered into evidence against

Assistant Attorney Sikes, but Sikes was permitted to shield himself

behind the Fifth Amendment before the Court of Appeals when

questioned as to whether or not this document was used for the purpose

of subornation or procurement of perjury. Petitioner, an African

American Secret Service Agent, went to trial and was sentenced to serve

six years in custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons based largely upon

the sworn admitted false testimony of Spagnoli. Sikes went home to rest

comfortably behind the Fifth Amendment. An arrest warrant was

executed against Petitioner predicated upon the unsworn allegations of

two common criminals, while the Petitioner was a highly productive

member of a Government investigative agency; However, the allegations

against another member of the Government made under oath, before a

Federal judge, went un-denied in the record all the way to the United

States Supreme Court, and not one scintilla of testimony was required

36

by any court in clarification of the sworn admissions of perjury

committed in a Federal Criminal Trial.

This Honorable Court, being the Court of primary jurisdiction, has

both the power and the authority to order such remedial actions as it

may deem appropriate. Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to take

due note of the travesty of justice outlined and the unquestioned denial

of due process and equal protection of the laws as required by the

Constitution of the United States of America.

(4) Special evidentiary rules were enforced by the Trial Court in order

to facilitate the conviction of Petitioner in violation of the Constitution

of the United States of America.

A. A colloquy ensued between the Trial Judge and attorney for

Petitioner (George Howard) regarding Mr. Howard's attempt to have

defense witness Edward Miller testify as to events that occurred on the

morning of May 9, 1964 (the day Spagnoli was arrested). Miller, an avid

fisherman, had noticed two Phillip 66 fishing guides laying on the front

seat of Petitioner's official Secret Service automobile while Miller was

servicing said automobile, in preparation for Spagnoli's arrest, at a gas

station located at 855 West 59th Street, Chicago, Illinois. Miller asked

Petitioner for one of the guides, and Petitioner gave Miller a guide. As

37

Petitioner was leaving the driveway, Miller stopped Petitioner and

advised Petitioner that there was an address on the cover and perhaps

Petitioner did not intend to give Miller this book. Petitioner retrieved

the guide bearing the address 5301 West Quincy (Spagnoli's address)

and handed Miller another copy of the same guide.

Jones had previously alleged in his testimony that Petitioner wrote

down the address of Spagnoli on the back of a magazine cover in his

presence, in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy, on May 11, 1964, and

Government's Exhibit 9, a Phillip's 66 Fishing Guide was introduced

into evidence against Petitioner. (TR. 245-284, Bolden)

However, Miller's proposed testimony was in direct contradiction to the

testimony of Jones, in that Miller observed the address on the fishing

guide on May 9, 1964, prior to the arrest of Spagnoli and prior to the

time Jones testified it was written on May 11, 1964. Moreover, Miller

was a disinterested witness and Jones had very substantial motives to

commit perjury against Petitioner.

After hearing a summary of the proposed testimony outside the

presence of the jury, the Trial Judge ruled that no conversational

testimony could be heard from Miller because "a representative of the

government was not present" at the time that the conversation took

38

place between Miller and Petitioner. (TR. 893-897, 64'CR324, Bolden)

Petitioner contends that this ruling by the Trial Court, and the

unconstitutional restrictions that a representative of the Government be

present to overhear material conversations between the accused and a

witness for the defense, so violates the Sixth Amendment of the

Constitution that any conviction predicated upon ,such restrictions

should be rendered invalid.

The prosecution called before the jury Spagnoli and Jones who both

testified as to what the two indicted felons discussed outside the

presence of the Petitioner.. who was a Secret Service agent. The

prosecution called before the jury Richard Walters, an informant

discredited by Special Agent in Charge Harry Geighlein in an inter-

office memorandum, who testified as to conversations he had with twice

convicted felon Jones outside the presence of Petitioner. Yet, Petitioner

was abridged and restricted by a ruling by the Trial Court that

conversations offered by the defense that occurred outside the presence

of the Government were inadmissible as evidence.

This Honorable Court well recognizes that fact that the adversary

system of justices demands equality of opportunity to present both sides

of an issue. Due Process of the Law requires that the rules of procedure

39

are not tilted in favor of either side. The testimony in question was not

ruled inadmissible, because it was not germane to the issues at bar or

that it was not properly presented; But, the testimony was excluded

solely because a "representative of the government was not present" at

the time that the evidence was adduced.

CONCLUSION

The Petitioner, Abraham W. Bolden, Sr., has brought before the

Honorable Court facts, supported by the records, that substantiate

grave and wanton violations of Petitioner's Constitutional rights during

a federal criminal proceeding. The Petitioner urges and prays this

Honorable Court to exercise its broad powers to insure that all citizens

of these United States of America receive due process of the law as set

forth by the framers of our constitution.

The Petitioner has sought diligently, over the past thirty years, to

receive a fair and impartial hearing into the issues before this

Honorable Court only to be rebuffed by the very courts that are

obligated by sworn duty and position to see that every free and accepted

citizen of these United States receive equitable treatment before the

courts whether that court be Municipal, County, State or Federal.

40

The Government attorneys will undoubtedly argue that thirty years is

too far in the past for this Honorable Court to consider the issues before

the bar, and that Petitioner's remedy is by Pardon by the President of

the United States of America; However, Petitioner has dutifully sought

pardon from the Government on three separate occasions with no

success. The Petitioner cannot in good conscience admit to a crime, for

purposes of pardon, that one of the Government's star witnesses

admitted was "fixed up" against the Petitioner for the purposes of

influencing the Government in his own federal criminal case then

pending in Federal District Court.

Although there have been hearings and written briefs into some of the

allegations contained in this petition, and the Government has had

ample opportunity to acquit itself of any complicity to convict Petitioner

by unlawful means, there is not one denial, of record, that these

constitutional violations occurred. There is not one hint of a denial by

the Government (a) that less than forthright and perjured testimony

was used to convict Petitioner, (b) that this perjury was suborned by the

office of the U.S. Attorney and (c) that the Government attorneys set

silent when the perjured testimony was offered into evidence in a

federal criminal trial.

41

When Petitioner raised these same issues in a Writ of Habeas Corpus

before the Honorable Judge Collinson, Federal District Court,

Springfield, Missouri during Petitioner's confinement at the Federal

Prison Camp in Springfield, Missouri, Petitioner was abruptly removed

from the prison camp by order of Dr. Kinsel, staff psychiatrist and sent

on July 6, 1967, to the 2-1 East Building, which housed the criminally

insane. The reason given for removal of Petitioner from the prison camp

to the psychiatric isolation unit, without going through the normal

required process of institutional classification change of inmate status,

was that Petitioner had embarrassed the Government with Petitioner's

"writs" and statements regarding racism and laxity of security around

President Kennedy, and that such allegations against the courts, the

Secret Service, and the U.S. Attorney's office raised a suspicion that

Petitioner was delusional, paranoid, and schizophrenic. Petitioner was

forced to ingest psychiatric medication against his will for a period of

thirty days, and said medication greatly impaired Petitioner in

Petitioner's quest for a hearing of the issues of this case, pending before

the Honorable Judge Collinson at that time.

Petitioner prays this Honorable Court to expunge the conviction or to

take such action deemed proper by this Honorable Court that will

42

validate and certify the constitutional rights of Petitioner as a free and

accepted citizen of the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted,

Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. Attorney pro se

Now we come to a very crucial part of the government’s push

to convict me of a federal crime. This evidence was unknown

to me during the trial and the conduct of the U.S. Attorney’s

cover up of jury tampering and conspiracy to silence witnesses

on my behalf is crystal clear.

43

44

45

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Now comes Petitioner, Abraham W. Bolden, Sr., asking and praying

permission from this Honorable Court to amend the Petition to

Expunge, or set aside the conviction of the Petitioner now pending

before this Honorable Court under case 64CR324. In support of this

motion to amend, the Petition filed on August 19, 1994, Petitioner

submits that Petitioner has uncovered new evidence of serious and

irrefutable violations of Petitioner's constitutional guarantees and that

said violations were unknown and could not have been known by

Petitioner during processes of appeal of said conviction, and therefore

were not available for review at any post trial proceedings in a timely

period.

Petitioner's allegations of new evidence pertaining to the violation of

Petitioner's right to a fair trial, equal protection of the laws, and due

process of the law by agents and officers of the United States

Government are:

(1) That the prosecuting attorney being an official of the United States

Government and an officer of the court, in concert and agency with the

United States Secret Service, did unlawfully communicate with a

46

potential and prospective witness for the defense for the purpose of

impeding, hindering, delaying or otherwise obstructing the defense by

the acts of suggesting, counseling and advising said defense witness to

impose preconditions upon Petitioner and Petitioner's attorney prior to

witness' appearance in a federal criminal trial.

(2) That a principal witness for the prosecution was tampered with, in

violation of Section 201, Title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code, during a

federal criminal proceeding and that said prosecution witness was

permitted, by officers of the court, to conceal the identity of the

offender, in violation of Section 3, Title 18 of the Federal Criminal

Code, after having reported said tampering to the United States

Attorney and agents of the United States Secret Service.

(3) That the above allegations are confirmed, verified and supported by

copies of official government memoranda and reports the originals of

which are currently on file in the Federal Records Center in St. Louis,

Missouri.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

(1) That the prosecuting attorney being an official of the United States

Government and an officer of the court, in concert and agency with the

47

United. States Secret Service, did unlawfully communicate with a

potential and prospective witness for the

defense for the purpose of impeding, hindering, delaying, or otherwise

obstructing the defense by the acts of suggesting, counseling and

advising said defense witness to impose preconditions upon Petitioner

and Petitioner's attorney prior to witness' appearance in a federal

criminal trial. (United States Secret Service Memorandum Report,

Abraham Bolden, et al, dated July 23, 1964). Exhibit #4.

48

- 2 -

49

50

51

ARGUMENT

May it please this Honorable Court, it is clearly evident beyond a

reasonable doubt from the contents of the preceding memorandum that

(a) both the prosecuting attorney and the United States Secret Service

received information that a defense witness was to be subpoenaed, (b)

that this defense witness had in his possession records and documents

deemed important to the defense as these records pertained to an

ongoing investigation of Special Agent Cross (the last agent to have had

possession of the onion skin copy of the summary report) being

conducted by the defense and (c) that Assistant U.S. Attorney Sikes in

collaboration with agents of the U.S. Secret Service did use the full

power, authority and influence of their respective offices to hinder or

otherwise obstruct the defense in a federal criminal trial.

Petitioner concedes the proposition that opposing attorneys and

investigative agencies have the right and, in some instances, the duty to

interview prospective witnesses in order to determine the truth.

However, once that proposed testimony of the witness is extracted either

by oral conversation or by written deposition, the privileged

communications cease.

52

Petitioner asserts to this Honorable Court that it may well have been

coincidental that neither Petitioner nor Petitioner's counsel were able to

contact the witness who had possession of the documentary evidence

needed by the defense either by personal visits or telephone after the

witness' interview with Special Agents on July 21, 1964. All efforts to

encourage the witness to discuss the evidence needed by the defense,

through messages left with the witness' secretary, met with negative

results.

On Saturday morning, August 8, 1964, after the government's case in

chief had been concluded, Petitioner visited the Robert E. Dwyer Real

Estate office at which time Petitioner was advised by the secretary that

the potential witness (who had been in communication with agents of

the United States Secret Service after July 21, 1964) had left town on a

vacation. The secretary further advised Petitioner that the witness had

taken the document with him. According to the secretary, the

prospective witness, believed by the Petitioner to be Mr. Robert E.

Dwyer, would be out of town for about two weeks and had left no

further information as to where he could be contacted.

Being but a layman in the law, Petitioner will cite no case precedents

concerning this issue; however, plain fairness and equity in the due

53

administration of justice would certainly support the proposition that

both the office of the U.S. Attorney and agents of the U.S. Secret Service

exceeded the purview of their respective authorities by suggesting that a

witness on behalf of the defense exact any precondition whatsoever from

an opposing defense attorney before the witness' testimony can be heard

in a court of law.

Whether any witness will elect to testify freely and voluntarily in any

state, city, municipal or federal criminal trial must depend solely on the

relationship developed between counsel and witness and dissuasive

suggestions from opposing counsel that the witness not testify unless

opposing counsel's preconditions are met are. .unethical and unlawful

under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of

America. In any free and democratic judicial system, all officers of the

court should exhort the witness to tell the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth in any matter pending before any legally

constituted court or official administrative body.

For the offices of the U.S. Attorney and the United States Secret Service

to engage in clandestine conversation of a non-investigatory nature with

a reluctant defense witness about to be the subject of a subpoena by the

defense in a federal criminal trial was a clear violation of Petitioner's

54

constitutional rights to due process of the law, equal protection of the

laws, and the inherent right as a freeborn and accepted citizen to have

Petitioner's defense considered by a duly impaneled fair and impartial

jury.

Based upon the irrefutable facts of this issue being duly supported by

documentary evidence, the conviction of Petitioner under case 64CR324

should be reversed, expunged, or otherwise set aside by this Honorable

Court.

55

- 4 –

56

57

ARGUMENT

- Several facts, Your Honor, are indelibly clear pertaining to the

Secret Service Memorandum Report dated July 20, 1964. These

facts are: (a) that the Secret Service, U.S. Attorney, and Joseph

Spagnoli all believed that Spagnoli was approached concerning

Spagnoli's testimony scheduled to be given in a federal criminal

trial; (b) that said conversation between Spagnoli and Spagnoli's

unidentified friend was for the criminal purpose of influencing the

testimony of Joseph Spagnoli in violation of Section 201, Title 18

of the Federal Criminal Code; and (c) that Spagnoli would not

identify the perpetrator of the federal criminal violation to either

the office of the U.S. Attorney or agents of the United States

Secret Service in direct violation of Section 3, Title 18 of the

Federal Criminal Code which clearly defines Spagnoli as being an

accessory after the fact.

- For purposes of argument, Petitioner stipulates that the

government discharged every legal obligation by promptly

reporting the details of the tampering allegation to the Honorable

J. Sam Perry who was to preside over the pending trial in which

Spagnoli was to be a principal witness. The trial was scheduled to

58

commence on or about August 3, 1964. However, such stipulation

does not alter the uncontestable fact that Spagnoli (by concealing

the identity of the offender) was in direct violation of the Federal

Criminal Code and this fact was known or should have been

known by attorneys employed by the office of the Attorney

General of the United States and high officials within the United

States Secret Service. Petitioner contends that the pending trial of

Petitioner should have been rescheduled by the government until

such time as the allegation of tampering had been completely and

thoroughly investigated.

- The statutory crime of tampering with a witness in any judicial or

administrative proceeding is a very serious crime that undermines

the due administration of justice as required by and fortified by

the Constitution of the United States of America. In fairness to the

Petitioner (defendant), upon whose behalf the offender was

alleged to have contacted Spagnoli, the charges raised deserved

prompt and urgent resolution and the identity of the offender

revealed. There existed no constitutional right of witness Spagnoli

to conceal the identity of the offender based on friendship or the

assertion that his friend (the offender) was not "in the rackets."

59

The fact of the matter is, Your Honor, that when Spagnoli's friend

sought, endeavored, or conspired to tamper with a government

witness, he or she entered the "rackets" up to their very eyeballs

and subsequent refusal by the witness to identify said offender

was clearly a felonious act under Section 3, Title 18 of the Federal

Criminal Code.

Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner's trial attorney had knowledge of

the fact that, during the time of witness Joseph Spagnoli's

testimony in the trial resulting in Petitioner's conviction, the

principal witness, Joseph Spagnoli, was in the very act of the

continuing commission of a serious federal crime. Moreover,

Spagnoli was presented before the sitting jury as the victim of a

scheme, whose mother supported him, and whose indictment for

violation of the Federal Statutes regarding counterfeiting was "a

mere charge."

The undeniable evidence, Your Honor, is that during Spagnoli's

testimony against Petitioner in the trial of conviction, Spagnoli

was engaged in the commission of a criminal act as defined under

Section 3, Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code. Moreover,

there is unquestionable evidence that the prosecuting attorneys, at

60

Petitioner's trial, knew that principal witness Spagnoli was in the

felonious act of criminal concealment but took no appropriate

action (i.e. the granting of immunity) to compel Spagnoli to

conform to the requirements of the statutory law. Consequently,

the trial proceeded with an indicted principal witness, currently a

party to an additional federal crime as accessory after the fact,

testifying against an agent of the United States Secret Service.

Petitioner was denied the constitutional right to put forth clear

and convincing evidence of unlawful conduct and character that

would tend to impeach the credibility of Spagnoli before the jury

in accordance with Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. The facts sustain the conclusion that denial of

Petitioner's statutory prerogative under Rule 608(b) was due to

the constructive assent of high government investigatory and

prosecutorial officials to the concealing, aiding and abetting of a

serious violation of Section 3, Title 18 of the United States

Criminal Code. The jury that convicted Petitioner was unaware of

these facts.

61

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, the Petitioner having proven substantial denial of

Petitioner's rights guaranteed by the Constitution of these United

States of America and having proven such denial beyond a reasonable

doubt, Petitioner humbly asks and prays this Honorable Court to

expunge, reverse, or otherwise set aside Petitioner's conviction under

file 64CR324, United States of America vs. Abraham W. Bolden.

Respectfully submitted,

Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. Petitioner

CERTIFICATION OF FILING AND MAILING

The undersigned, Petitioner in this cause, certifies that he has served a

copy of this Motion and Brief to Amend Petition to Expunge on the

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois at 219 South

Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60606 by mailing a copy to said

United States Attorney's office by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail

at 8300 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois and filed the original

and one copy with the Clerk of the United States District Court on or

about November 14, 1994

By Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. Petitioner

62