the only explanation for Barker's appearance at the meeting and for his undue interest in my case stemmed from Moloney. "
Moloney, you see, had a grudge a-gainst Mason.   Moloney had claimed victory and credit at a meeting of Democratic candidates for having moved voter registration books into black areas.   Actually, Mason was the one who got the books moved.   Vetter was at the meeting and proceeded to explain that.   Moloney thus had a grudge, and Mason is convinced that's why his boss attended the meeting and had the trial sent to the Grand Jury.   Mason also heard later from persons he knew in other parts of the district that Moloney was out to get him.   When the case was sent to the Grand Jury, Mason knew for certain that his campaign was finished.   He was expecting his case to end there, at least.
At the Grand Jury hearing, arrangements we're made for Mason to present his case himself on the condition that he waive his rights.   January 20 was the day the hearing was held; it was also the day Fryman was named "Policeman of the Year. " He received congratulatory handshakes from all the jurors as they entered.
Mason presented the essential details of his case and then asked the Grand Jury to question him about any matters they were unclear about. Mason learned that after his presentation, the jury took a vote and came up one short for an indictment. After lundt^however, it reconsidered and ended up indicting him.   Mason was shocked.
Before Mason's case came to trial, his attorneys asked the prosecutor to produce the typewriter so that it could be inspected to determine its condition. The police had returned the typewriter to IBM, though, where it had been repaired and sold.   Mason's attorneys then made a motion that the case be dismissed on grounds that an adequate defense could not be made because of evidence lost due to police handling. The motion was denied and the case was set for May 18, 1970.
Googe's and William's trials were held earlier the same term. Googe pleaded guilty to a charge of grand larceny   and was given the minimum one-year sentence; it was later learned that this conviction was his tenth (not brought out by the prosecution at the trial), meaning he was due to face mandatory life imprisonment. Williams, who was tried on the same charge as Mason (knowingly receiving stolen property), was acquitted. At one point in his trial, one of the attorneys involved said, "Your honor, would you please instruct the Commonwealth's attorney, Mr. Barker, to ask the assistant Commonwealth's attorney, Mr. (Dan) Brock, if he said the following to me:  'This whole case against Gene Mason is a political frame-up.'" Inexplicably, that remark somehow escaped notice in Fred Wachs' newspapers.
Wh^n Mason's trial came to court, more than 30 of the 58 people on the jury panel were IBM employees. This
was because IBM is one of the few large companies in Lexington that pay their employees for jury duty. Several of the jurors selected from the panel excused themselves, Mason later learned, because they were "too prejudiced" in his favor.   Once the trial got under way, there was a steady stream of lies on the part of the cops.
Barker was the prosecutor with Moloney as his assistant.   When Barker put Fryman on the stand to testify about his initial early-hours discussion with Mason, Mason's attorneys objected on the grounds that Fryman had failed to advise Mason of his rights as required under the Miranda precedent.   That would make the conversation inadmis sable.
The judge ordered the jury out of court to hear arguments about the motion.   Fryman claimed he had issued the Miranda warnings.   Mason's attorneys subpoenaed the other cops individually to testify.   The cops couldn't agree on anything, inc hiding which of them had accompanied Fryman to Mason's door.   The only thing they did agree on was that Fryman had given the warning.   In addition, Sgt. Shye, who gave key testimony on the question, stopped at the prosecution's table to talk before he testified.
Mason says none of the cops called were in the house when the conversation took place.   "It should have been clear to anyone that the police were Lying, -that they were, r^mding in^ibe « only way they thought 'good cops' could, " he says.   "Despite this, the judge overruled our motion to exclude this evidence.   In overruling us, he reasoned that because of his stake in the outcome of a case, the defendant will lie, while policemen, who have nothing to gain one way or the other, have no reason to lie. "
The judge also said, "Even if he had not been given the Miranda warnings, Dr. Mason is a very intelligent man who knows about these things and would have known his rights anyway. "
Mason says, "I was not especially comforted by knowing that the constitution did not apply to me. "
"There was one principle reason why I was convicted -- the concerted lies of policemen and prosecutors, " Mason says.   "Fryman testified that during the search of my home I had told him I was going upstairs to go back to bed, and that I was gone 45 minutes or an hour, implying that I had hidden the typewriter. Susan's (Mrs. Mason) eyes caught mine across the courtroom.   Both of us nearly laughed aloud.   Going back to bed under such circumstances would have been the last thing to have entered my mind or anyone else's for that matter. What I had actually done was to go up to explain to my wife and sister-in-law why the police had come and what they were doing.  At most, I had spent 10 minutes upstairs. "
After thatj, Barker, with the aid of Detective Gaylord Thompson, attempted to prove that Mason had manufactured the story of the stolen television. Thompson had been assigned to inves-
tigate the TV theft and once questioned Mason's sister-in-law about it. She told Thompson the TV belonged to a friend of hers and gave him her address.
Thompson testified that when he went to see the TV's owner, she told him that Mason's sister-in-law had just called her on the phone to tell her about the theft.   Mason says they had actually called her a week before to offer to reimburse her for the loss.
"This testimony infuriated us, " Mason says.   "It was not an attempt to gild the lily, as I had expected from them.   It was an absolute falsehood -- the police knew it, the prosecution knew it, but the jury had no idea. A-gain, just as it was throughout the trial, it was our word against theirs. The jury, like the public generally, found it difficult not to believe the police -- after all, they are only doing their jobs; they have no reason not to tell the truth. "
The cops also produced photographic lies.   Photos of the typewriter taken at the police station were submitted as evidence.   The typewriter shown in the pictures, however, bore no relationship to the one Mason had turned in to the cops --it was battered and bent and had a loose roller bar. That seemed insignificant to Mason and his attorneys until Barker referred to the photos in his closing argument.   Barker then told the jury that Mason had purposely damaged ihe^iypewxiter to support his testimony that it was damaged when he bought it (thus portraying Mason as having engaged in felonious conduct to corroborate the story of his purchase).
"We had already presented our case and made our closing argument, " Mason says.   "He simply outsmarted us on this one.   The only explanation I can come up with is that the police damaged the typewriter in an attempt to make it appear that I had done it. "
Other than the pictorial lie, Barker had no direct evidence for his closing argument that there was felonious intent (which is required in order to be convicted of knowingly receiving stolen property) on Mason's part. Even Googe had testified that he had made no indication to Mason that the typewriter had been stolen.   Barker repeatedly misstated the law in his final statement, however, by saying that one must have "constructive knowledge" that property is stolen to be convicted.   Mason's attorneys' objections to this were overruled.
The jury went out late in the evening of the second day and reached a verdict of guilty about an hour and a half later.
"I couldn't believe it, " Mason says. "I just knew I would not be convicted because I was not guilty.   I was enraged and, at the same time, horrified at my own naivete.   I was beginning to understand how I had let myself be co-opted by a mindless political-judicial system. "
As for the University's failure to renew his teaching contract beyond continued on page 18
14/Number Eight