509

.

. .

. . .

MR. SMITH: I call Trooper Gorgacz to the stand

510

MR. MASSA: May we approach the bench, please?

(Whereupon, there was a sidebar discussion off record.)

EDWIN GORGACZ, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follow:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SMITH:

Q State your name and address for the record.

A Sergeant Edwin J. Gorgacz, Pennsylvania State Police stationed in Warren.

Q Sergeant Gorgacz, you are the chief of the Warren Station?

A Station Commander.

Q You are Mr. Herzog's boss, so to speak?

A Indirectly, yes.

Q He works at that barracks?

A He does.

Q You are the commander?

A Yes.

Q I draw your attention to June 1990, did you have occasion to visit the Holiday Inn?

A I did.

Q And was that for the purpose there was an interview of Michael Brown undergoing at the time you visited?

A It was.

Q That was being conducted by Trooper Miles?

511

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you become aware of a statement made by Mr. Brown at that affair?

A I did.

Q Okay. And did you become aware of the statement as to how Mr. Brown made up various stories he told the State Police?

A What I became aware of was that his statements were inconclusive to Trooper Miles.

Q Let's try it again. Did you become aware of statements made by Mr. Brown in which he indicated how he made up the stories that he had previously told Mr. Herzog?

A I did not.

Q Mr. Herzog never told you anything about it?

A He did not.

Q Trooper Miles never told you anything about it?

A About making up stories?

Q No, about how Mr. Brown arrived at the lies that he had previously told.

A I am not aware of that.

Q So you were there - - how long where you there on those two days?

A Approximately 20 minutes.

Q And the 20 minutes you were they nobody discussed any statements that Mr. Brown was making?

512

A Trooper Miles discussed what he had learned from the interview, discussed that with Trooper Herzog.

Q And did Trooper Miles tell you that he had learned from the interview that Mr. Brown had recanted, said he wasn't there and - -

A That's precise.

Q - - and said how he made up various lies?

A That's correct.

Q Were you aware that he said that he got the crime scene from looking at the flags at the crime scene and from the visit by Mr. Herzog when he took him up?

A Yes.

Q You're aware of that?

A Yes.

Q Were you aware about the incident concerning the beer cans and et cetera and how they got to be where they got to be?

A That I don't recall.

Q When you heard - - who told you this, Trooper Miles or Trooper Herzog?

A It was an open conversation, Trooper Miles was talking and we were listening.

Q What action, as station commander, did you decide to take based on the information Trooper Miles provided to you concerning Mr. Brown?

513

A The action was not up to me, the action was in the eyes of Trooper Herzog, he was the chief investigator in this case.

Q So then you didn't have nothing to do with the case?

A I didn't - -

Q You didn't have anything to with the case?

A I did not.

Q Why were you there?

A I was there because I was concerned with the outcome of the interview.

Q Why were you concerned if it wasn't your case?

A I, in turn, have to report to my superiors as to what happened.

Q Did you report to you superiors as to what happened?

A I certainly did.

Q Did you tell your superiors Brown had recanted and said how he arrived at various lies?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you ever report that to myself or the Court?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you ever report Brown's statements to myself or Judge Wolfe or any one?

A No, I did not.

514

Q Are you aware of the discovery laws in the State of Pennsylvania?

A Yes, I am.

Q You don't feel that Brown's statements could have been exculpatory evidence for the Defendant, Mr. Buckley, in this case?

A I do.

Q Do you have any knowledge why they weren't provided to the Defendant before this trial started?

A That report was to be submitted by Trooper Miles as to his findings of the interview.

Q So are you aware that there is two sentences out of 600 pages of police reports, there's two sentences in there dealing with the Holiday Inn?

A I found that out during the trial, yes.

Q That didn't disturb you?

A Mr. Smith, there was over 2,000 pages, documented pages of various statements. I am not aware that Trooper Miles did or did not submit this respective report.

Q So are you saying it's Trooper Miles' fault that the Defense never became aware of these statements until the trial?

A What I am saying is Trooper Miles conducted the interview, therefore, it was his obligation under our directives with the Pennsylvania State Police to submit the

515

report, if he did or he did not I do not know.

Q Isn't it true that the - - let me ask you this: Several factors, we have the FBI, Chautauqua County, Jamestown Police Department, Pennsylvania State Police and probably a sheriff's department or two thrown in all investigating this?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you ever get the impression that New York State was glad to get rid of this case to Pennsylvania?

A I certainly did not.

Q Did you ever tell your officers that they should not talk to myself or Mr. Ronald Cotten?

A I did not, no, sir.

Q Isn’t it true that your department, Mr. Herzog and yourself does not believe Mr. Brown - -

MR. MASSA: Objection, objection, Your Honor, that's not - -

THE COURT: Just a second, let him finish the question, the then (sic) Court will entertain the objection.

Q Isn't is (sic) true that you and your police department do not believe Mr. Brown when he said he was there on May 18, 1988, but that you feel that Mr. Buckley did it any way so what the heck?

MR. MASSA: I object, Your Honor, to the nature of the question, the argumentative nature of the question and unfavorable inference that is drawn.

516

THE COURT: That's not a legal ground, it's not argumentative, it's rather direct, it lends itself to a direct answer. It's overruled.

A Would you repeat the question, please?

(Whereupon, the last question was read back.)

A I feel - - my own feeling is that they were both there.

Q Okay. Can you explain the numerous inconsistent statements of Mr. Brown?

A There have been numerous inconsistent statements, but by the same token there is validity in many of the statements also.

A And Mr. Herzog reasoned that the validity when he was on the stand was that he described how he unbuttoned the blouse there and then described things about the blouse which Trooper Miles told you how he came up with those stories. Did that not make his prior statements invalid with regard to that?

A As I recall, Mr. Smith, the entire statement given by Michael Brown to Trooper Miles was inaccurate, he recanted that three or four days later to his own private attorney.

Q Are you aware of any other statements Michael Brown has made that have not been provided to the Defense in this case?

517

A No, sir, I am not.

Q Are you aware of any video tape recordings being erased?

A No, sir.

Q Are you aware of any perjuries that Michael Brown committed when he gave his testimony to this jury?

A Myself personally, I didn't hear Michael Brown's complete testimony.

MR. SMITH: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MASSA:

Q Sergeant, a few questions. During the 20 minutes that you were at the Holiday Inn did you participate in the interview of Michael Brown?

A No, sir.

Q Have you ever asked him a single question?

A No, sir.

Q To the best of your knowledge, information and belief was Michael Brown ever brought to the evidence room of the Pennsylvania State Police at your barracks in Warren, Pennsylvania and shown the physical evidence that was accumulated?

A No, sir.

518

Q And was there a bona fide and valid and narrow purpose for Trooper Miles interviewing Michael Brown on June 13th and 14th 1990?

A Yes, there was.

Q And did Trooper Miles verbally inform you that at the conclusion of his two day interview inform you that he could draw no conclusion whatsoever?

A He did, yes, sir.

MR. MASSA: No further questions.

MR. SMITH: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. SMITH: I call Ronald Cotten, but we have several things to set up, the TV and blackboard.

THE COURT: The Court will recess for 15 minutes.

(Whereupon, Court recessed for 15 minutes at 2:22 p.m.)

MR. SMITH: I call Dan Fisher to the stand, Your Honor.

MR. MASSA: May the Commonwealth approach the bench?

(Whereupon, there was a sidebar discussion off record.)

MR. SMITH: The Commonwealth asked for an offer of proof and the Defendant offers this witness as he is a TV news station manager that shortly after Kathy Wilson became missing he did a taped interview with Mark Wilson which was broadcaast over the TV to the public and in the interview Mark Wilson claimed he had no marital difficulty whatsoever

519

with Kathy Wilson and that they were getting along fine and et cetera and that he didn't know what happened to her.

The general nature of that is it's offered to rebut testimony of Mark Wilson at time of trial that he wasn't having any marital difficulties with his wife and to show that in view of the substantial testimony offered by the Defense that at the time of this newscast, which was a week after the event, that he was not telling the truth to the news people.

MR. MASSA: The Commonwealth objects to - - specifically to this witness that under reciprocal discovery and the Defense Counsel continues to call witnesses that were not provided to the Commonwealth as potential witnesses. As to the narrow offer or specific offer that was made at sidebar, the Commonwealth objects on the record that Mr. Wilson candidly admitted the nature of his marital relationship from generally and specifically at or about the time in question, that Mr. Smith has had the interview notes and sworn statements of Mr. Mark Wilson in his possession for a considerable period of time, that the Commonwealth was not provided with this video tape nor has had an opportunity to examine the tape.

MR. SMITH: With regard to the Commonwealth not being provided the tape, the tape is under subpoena, it was just brought down, I wasn't provided with it neither.

520

Concerning the witness himself, he is a rebuttal witness, again to Mark Wilson's testimony just recently discovered by the Defense, but again if Mark Wilson testifies at trial that he did have marital problems, then one has to wonder why he is telling the TV interviewer, reporter, that there is no difficulty whatsoever in his marriage a week after she disappeared.

THE COURT: For the record, the last - - first, to wit, the repitition that may well overlap his, that is, Wilson's direct and cross examination in the Commonwealth's case in chief, but we're not (sic) on the Defendant's case in chief and the Court feels that notwithstanding there may be repetition there may also be probative evidence that will assist the jury. Second, of the "reciprocal discovery issue" I have to ask you, Mr. Massa, did you request the Defendant's reciprocal discovery as pertaining to this tape in quesstion or any witness that would - -

MR. MASSA: No.

THE COURT: - - testify in this regard?

MR. MASSA: I wasn't aware that there was a tape. No, I did not.

THE COURT: Third, the issue of not knowing the contents of the tape, the Court has now learned the Defendant just now is in subpoena possession of it. Now, the Court is willing to recess and let the Commonwealth see the tape without the

521

jury and if the Commonwealth feels it's going to be taken by surprise in that respect - -

MR. MASSA: I would like to see it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll have to bring all this equipment in Chambers or clear everybody out of the courtroom or we can see it, I guess we can do it with the public here and take the jury out and you say it's four minutes long?

MR. SMITH: Four minutes long. I haven't got the tape yet, he still has it in his hand. I haven't saw the tape either, my investigator revealed the tape.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MASSA: I think Counsel - -

MR SMITH: I am relying on what they're telling me.

THE COURT: If the Commonwealth wants to look at it first I think that's fair enough.

MR. MASSA: I would like to review it in Chambers.

THE COURT: Can we set it up in short order?

MR. SMITH: If you just take the jury out it's easier to play it in here.

MR. MASSA: It's easier to roll it into Chambers or Mr. Rapps office, you want to do that?

THE COURT: We'll take it in.

(Whereupon, there was a recess.)

(Whereupon Court recessed at 3:20 p.m.)

[END Vol XII (#23) - Thursday, May 30, 1991]
[End of testimony of Thursday, May 30, 1991]

Previous

INDEX

Next