Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any--or indicate to you that he
had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his
choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just
didn't elaborate, and I really didn't ask him at that point. My inquiry
was intentionally very limited. I merely wanted to know whether he had
a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems.
If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was
contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as
the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man
had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for
the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether
or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer
and been refused, because the story up east was that he couldn't get a
lawyer to represent him, and I knew that that wasn't true, because I
know Dallas lawyers, and I know that if the man had to have a lawyer,
we could have gotten one for him. So, I didn't go into the other
questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't
been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a
lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish
him one.
Mr. STERN. Yes; I see. Did he elaborate on his statement to you that
he preferred a lawyer who believed in what he believed in, or was this
as----
Mr. NICHOLS. Not at all. He said--I didn't ask him, because I didn't
know any lawyers--and I didn't know what he believed in, and I really
wasn't concerned at that stage in the man's beliefs or what he had
done or not done, actually, I just wanted--the man was in jail, and it
occurred to me that it would be easy to overlook his rights at that
time in view of the great emotion and somebody ought to determine
whether or not he wanted a lawyer, and I decided as president of the
bar association maybe that was my job to do it, so, I went up there to
see about it.
Mr. STERN. You say he said he wanted a lawyer who believed in his
innocence?
Mr. NICHOLS. As much as he could.
Mr. STERN. As he could?
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; and I didn't ask him to elaborate on it because at
that stage I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or
should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he
needed a lawyer, and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer,
because I don't practice criminal law. They asked me, the newspapers
did, and I honestly don't know what my answer would have been if they
had asked me, "Well, will you represent him?"
We can debate about that now until doomsday. All I know is when I went
up to talk to him I did not anticipate being the lawyer, because I
don't practice criminal law, although, when I talked to Henry Wade he
said, jokingly, I hope it was jokingly, and if the guy wants a lawyer
he was going to request the judge that he appoint me and the president
of the criminal bar association to represent him. I took that to be not
a serious suggestion, because he knows that I don't practice criminal
law, although, on reflection that probably would have been a good
recommendation, since generally, I suppose, that if they appointed the
president of the bar association they couldn't say that he was getting
inferior representation. I am not bragging about that, but normally,
I think that would be the normal reaction that if they appointed the
president of the criminal bar association and the president of the
local bar association then at least the man would be represented.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the
appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which
provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a
man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the
court will appoint an attorney to represent him. The statute further
provides that the attorney appointed to represent indigents be paid
$25 a day for each day actually present at the trial of the case in
court, and not to exceed $100 for the handling of an appeal. The usual
procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge
that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking
about a felony case now--or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he
makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the
criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those
people.
Mr. STERN. But, ordinarily, the appointment is handled by the judiciary?
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes.
Mr. STERN. And there is no, I take it, organized system of the bar
association to represent indigents?
Mr. NICHOLS. Well, the criminal--there are two bar associations in
Dallas. One is the criminal bar association, the other is the Dallas
Bar Association, and you may belong to both, or neither, or either
one. The criminal bar association did, last year, attempt to create
and establish a fund to defray some investigative expenses of lawyers
appointed to represent indigents. One of the programs which I had hoped
to get really underway last year when I was president was to, and we
had a committee working on it, was to provide more lawyers who would be
willing to accept appointments to represent indigent defendants in the
criminal cases. My idea was that if we had 100 or 200 lawyers who would
say, "If I am requested to, or appointed by the court, I will represent
these people." And it was my desire to have a large number of lawyers
who would do that. The committee, unfortunately, bogged down and I got
involved in other matters that I guess I considered more urgent to me,
and didn't pursue that, but I did go down and talk to one of the judges
last year just to see what the procedure was because I was interested,
and the judges do appoint these people, I mean, do appoint attorneys
to represent these people, and I talked to one of the judges and he
said that they have never yet had an occasion where he needed a lawyer
to represent a defendant that they haven't been able to get one. So,
although some of these lawyers may do this more than others, as far
as I know, none of them have refused because it was too much of an
imposition on them.
Mr. STERN. Your activities with respect to Oswald were unusual, though,
and not pursuant to any established arrangement?
Mr. NICHOLS. That's right.
Mr. STERN. Something you did because of the nature of the case, and
the questions that had been raised, and your own questions about his
treatment?
Mr. NICHOLS. That's correct.
Mr. STERN. Did you, Mr. Nichols, make any notes of your activities on
November 23, 1963, either at the time, or did you at any later time
have occasion to prepare a written report of your activities?
Mr. NICHOLS. I did not make any notes at the time, and I didn't make
any notes as such, subsequently, after Mr. Oswald was killed. And why,
I don't know. It didn't occur to me to do so. Later Mr. Leon Jaworski,
a Houston, Tex., attorney, called me and said that he was going to
go to Miami, Fla., to the meeting of American Trial Lawyers, and had
been asked to make a report of some sort on the Oswald matter and he
asked me if I would write him a letter outlining what I had done in
connection with interviewing Oswald, and attempting to see whether or
not he wanted the Dallas Bar Association to provide counsel. I did, at
that time, write a letter to Mr. Jaworski outlining as I recalled at
that time exactly what transpired. Later the president of the Houston
Bar Association, George Barrow, called me and said he was going to make
a little talk in Houston, or write a little article in a publication
and would like to know what I had done, and he knew about the letter
I had sent to Jaworski, and wanted to know if I would send him a copy
of my letter to him, or outline what I had done. I said it would be
easier to give him a copy of the letter I had written to Leon, because
I have it, so I sent him a copy and those are the only notes I made
or statements that I have made in writing regarding this transaction
except I did reproduce a copy of the letter to Mr. Jaworski, which I
furnished to you.
Mr. STERN. I show you now a copy of the letter dated February 10, 1964,
to Mr. Jaworski. Is that the copy you furnished to me?
Mr. NICHOLS. That is the copy I furnished to you, and the copy of the
letter which I wrote to Mr. Jaworski on that date.
Mr. STERN. Would you initial each of the four pages of that photostatic
copy, please, which we'll attach to your deposition as Exhibit A.
Thank you, sir. I believe that completes all the questions I have, Mr.
Nichols. Thank you very much for coming in today.
Mr. NICHOLS. You certainly are welcome.
Mr. STERN. The court reporter will transcribe the deposition and we
can furnish a copy of it to you for your review and signature, or the
reporter can send the transcript directly to the Commission without
your review, if you care to waive----
Mr. NICHOLS. I would like to have a copy of it, if I may do so, and
I understand that it will be available at some expense, whatever it
costs--I want to furnish it to the bar association for their records.
Mr. STERN. Fine.