PAGE COUNT OF -PAGES

Grocery S t o r e bui lding and c o n t e n t s thereof with

incendiary device. Is ' t h i s your verdict?

A Yes.

Q. D o y o u s t i l l a s s e n t t h e r e t o ?

A Yes.

0. John W. Menth, your Foreman has returned w i t h a verdict

of guilty i n the case of State of N o r t h Carolina versus 3

Jerry Jacobs in bill of indictment number 1662 i n which

he is charged with conspiracy to assaul t emergencv - personnel w i t h dangerous weapons. Is t h i s your verdict?

R Yes. , ... * - 8 . - -

Q' Do you still assent thereto? .' . -. . . - . A Yes.

* - 0 John V . Menth, your Foreman has returned w i t h a verdict

of g u i l t y i n the case of State of North Carolina versul

jerry Jacobs in the bill of ind ic tment number 1664

in which he is charged w i t h hurning 1-like's Grocery

Store building and c o n t e n t s thereof with incendiary

device. Is t h i s your verdict?

R Yes.

Oa you still assent thereto?

A. Y e s , . .

MR. FPRGUSON: May we approach the bench?

Y o i ~ r IIonor, as to t h e remaining defendants

I Vereen, !lcKoy, Wright, Woore and Epps, wc k r i l l

- ,

stipulate fo r t h e record t h a t the jury may be

polled as to them jointly.

p. Julian Wooten, the jury bas returned with a verdict

oi gui l ty in:t'le case of State of Worth Carolina versus

Willie E a r l ~ereGn, James P?cHay , Reginald Epps , Fq$yne

Moore, and Joe Fright in bills of indictments number . , in

1665, 1668, 1671, 1674 an3 1677, respectively, andhxhich

the are charged w i t h conspiracy to assault emergency

personnel y i t h dangerous weapons. Is this your ver-

dict?

A Yes.

Q . Do you still assent thereto?

A Yes.

C). J u l i a n TJooten, the jury has returned w i t h a verdict

of guilty in the cases of the Sta te of !Jorth Carol ina

versus Willie E a r l Vereen, James M c K o y , Reginald Epps,

Wayne Moore and Joe Wright in bills of indictment

number 1657, 167n, 1673, 1676 and 1679, respectively,

in which they are charged w i t h burning Mike's Grocery

Store building and the cnntcnts thereof w i t h incendiary

device. Is t h i s your verdict?

A Yes, . *

Q DO you still assent thereto?

A Yes.

0. James Leland Janes,' your Foreman has returned with a .

verdict of gui l ty in the cases of the State of North - -

Caxolina versus Willie Earl Vereen, James JcKoy, R e g i -

. nald Epps, Wayne fioore and Joe Wright in b i l l s of in-

. dictment number 1665, 1666, 1671, 1674 and 1677, res- 9 -

pect ive ly , i n which they are charged with conspiracy - ,-

to assault emergency personnel with dangerous weapons. -. .

'"Is . - this your verdict? 1

. A . Yes. .. *.

9 Do you still a.3sent thereto? . .I

. . , . . :' .'- Yes. .-. + ' . ..C

Q jams Leland Jones, your Foreman has returned with a . - - .

verdict of g u i l t y in the cases of State of North Caro-

lina versus Willie Earl Vereen, James McKoy, Reginald

Epps, F.?ayne bloore and Joe Wright i n bills of i n d i c t -

ments number 1667, 1670, 1473, 1676 and 1679 respect-

i v e l y , i n which they ate charged r r i t k burning Mikes'

~ r o c e r ~ Store building and c o n t e n t s thereof v i t h in-

cendiary device. Is t h i s your verdict?

R Y e s .

8 Do you still assent thereto?

A Y e s . . .

@ Josephine Williamson, your Foreman has r e tu rned w i t h

a verdict of guilty i n the cases of the State of North

Carolina versus Willie Earl Vexcen, James !.lcXoy, Regi-

nald Epps, Wayne Moore and Joe Wright in b i l l s af in-

dictment number 1665, 1668, 3671 , 1674, 1676, respect-

ively, in which he is charged w i t h conspiracy to as-

sault emorqency personnel with dangerous weapons. Is

this your verdict?

A Yes.

p D o you s t i l l assent thereto?

A Yes.

g Josephine Williamson, your Foreman has reeurned wit11

a verdict of guilty in the cases of Sta te of North

. Carolina versus Millie Earl Vereen, Games M c K o y , R e g i -

. nald Epps, Vayne >loore and Joe Wright i n b i l l s of in -

dictment numbers 1667, 1676 and 1679, re-

spectively, in which he is charqed w i t h burning Mike's

Grocery Store building w i t h c o n t e n t s thereof with in-

cendiary device. Ts t h i s your verdict?

k Y e s . Q Do you still assent thereto?

A. Yes.

a James Bradley Sutton, your Foreman has rc3tuxncd with

a verdict of guilty i n the cases of State of North . .

Carolina versus Willie Earl Vereen, James JcKoy, Regi-

nald Epps, Kayne lioore and .Joe Wright i n b i l l s of in -

d ic tnent numbers 1665, 1G68, 1671, 1674 and 1677, re-

spectively, in which he is charged with conspiracy to

assault emergency personnel w i t h dnncjexous weapons.

. ,. - : 12b4-

19. .. . ., .

G.., . . ,

. . * . . . . . ! . , .,

r 13 this p u r ' verdict? . . - . . I -* , . ..

r . ., . ' . -. . . . - . . Yes. I - , . . - ., . k * ..

Q Do you s t i l l assent thereto?

A Yes - - . . , . - , ,-

Q James Bradley sutto;, your Foreman has returned w i t h . I -

a verdict of - _ guilty in the cases of State of North . -

Carolina versus T?illie Earl Vereen, James McKoy R e g i -

nald Epps, Wayne Moore and Joe Wright in b i l l s of in-

dictment number 1667, 1670. 1673. 1676 and 1679, res- . .

'pectively, in which he is charged with burning Xibe's

Grocery Store building and contents thereof with in-

cendiary device. Is t h i s your verdict?

A. Yes.

Q Do you still assent thereto?

A Yes.

. Q. James !deredi.tsh, your Foreman has returned w i t h a ver- .. . '

d i e t of guilty in the cases of State of Borth Caro-

lina Versus Willie Earl Vereen, James E l c K o y , Reginald

- . Epps, Waytie Moore and Joe Wright bills of indictment

number 1665, 1668, 1671, 1674 and 1677. respectively,

in which he is charged w i t 5 conspiracy to assault

emergency personnel with dangerous weapons. Is this - I.

your verdict? . 4 ' .

A Yes. .. -

L Do you still assent thereto?

A. Yes. . . .. .

. .

James Meredith, your Foreman has returned with a ver-

dict of guilty in the case of State of Ncrth Carolina

..versus Willie Earl Vereen, James McXoy, Reginald Epps,

Wayne Woare and Joe Wright in hills of indictment

.numbers 1667, 1679, 1673, 1676 and 1679, respectively, ... - . inm which he is charged, w i t h burning Mike's Grocery

.Store building and c o n t e n t s the reof with incendiary - - 1 - ..

, -. . . device. Is this your verdict? . .

'A C

Yes. .' , . . . - . . , .- - I r$ . Do you still assent thereto? - .

" <. 0 -Agnes Day, your foreman has r e tu rned with a verdict of

guilty in the cases of State of North Carolina versus

Willie Zarl Vereen, James McKoy, Reginald Epps, Wayne

Moore and Joe Wright i n bills of i n d i c t n c n t numbers

1665, 1671, 1674 and 1677, respectively,in which he

is charged with conspiracy to assault energency per-

sonnel with dangerous weapons. Is this your verdict? , .

k Yes, it is,

Q. D o you still a s s e n t thereto?

A Yes,

0. Agnes Day, your Foreman has returned wi th a verdict

of g u i l t y i n the cases of State of North Carolina . ,

versus Willie Earl Vereen, James McKoy, Regifiald Epps,

Wayne Moore and Joe Wright i n b i l l s of i nd i c tmen t

numbers 1667, 1670. 1673, 1676 and 1679, respectively,

in which he is charged w i t h burning Mike's Grocery

Store building and contents thereof with incendiary . .

device. Is this your verdict?

k Y e s .

Q Do you still assent thereto?

Q Sue your Foreman has returned w i t h a verdict

of gu i l ty in the cases of the State of 2101orth Carolina

Wayne Moore and Joe Wright in bills of indictment .. -. .

numbers 1665, 1668, 1671, 1674 and 1677, respectivelyr

in which he is charged with coaspiracy to assault

emergency personnel with dangerous weapons. 1s t h i s

your verdict?

A Y e s .

Q. D o you sti l l assent tAereto?

Yes, k

Sye Ilurphy, your Foreman has returned with a verdict

of gui l ty in the cases of State of North Carolina

Versus Willie Earl Vereen, Jarneg McKoy, REginald E p p s , .

Wayne 1400re and Joe t lright i n b i l l s of indictment

Store building and contcnts thereof w i t h incendiary

device. Is t h i s your verdict? . -

A Yes. . ..

(I '

p Do you still assent v thereto?

k Yes. . * 4 .

... . *-

Q Paul Ward, your ~ o i ~ m a n has returned w i t h a verdict

of guilty. in the cases of the State of North Carolina

versus Willie Earl Vereen, ~ a & s McKoy, Reginald mps,

Wayne Moore and Joem Wright i n bills of indictment

- nrunhers 1665, 1 6 6 8 , 1671, 1674 and 1677 , respectively, . .

in which he is charged with conspiracy to assault emergency . .

personnel with dangerous weapons. Is this your verdict?

k ' . Yes.

Q Do you still assent thereto?

Yes. A

0 Paul Ward, your Foreman has returned w i t h a verdict

of gu i l ty i n t h e cases of State of Nor th Carolina

Versus Willie Earl Vereen, James McKoy, Reginald Zppe,

Wayne :doore and Joe Wright in bills of indictment

numbers 1C67, 1670, 1673, 1676 and 1679, respectively,

in which he is charged with burning xikegs Grocery

Store building and contents thereof w i t h incendiary

device. Is this your verdict?

,A. Ycs. .. ':. . .. ., .

Q Do you st i l l &sent tlicreto? . .

. . k Yes. I." .. _

PC GRetchen Simmons, your Foreman has returned w i t h a

-208-

I

verd ic t of guilty i n the cases of State of Xorth

CArolina versus Villie Earl Vereen, James McKoy,

- Reginald Epps, Wayne !-bore and Joe Wright in bills . - of indictments numbers 1665, 1668, 1671, 1674 and 1677,

" respectively, i n which he is charged with conspiracy . C

L . - to assault emergency personnel wit11 dangerous weapons. ,

13 t h i s your verdict?

A. Yes

.. . ?--. .~ehtchen . . Simmons, your Foreman has returned with a . . . - '' ,verdict of guilty in the cases of the sta te of North

. "-.. -- *.. .' . . - . ., ~aiolina Versus Willie Earl Vereen, James !IcKoy, R e g i - L - -

ed nald Epps, Xayne Ploore and Joe Wright in which he is

charged w i t h burning Xiibels Grocery Store building

and.contents thereof with incendiary device. Is this

your verdict?

R Yes.

Q Do you still assent thereto?

R Yes.

8 Beey Cox, your Foreman has returned w i t h a verd ic t of

guilty in the cases of the State of lorth Carolina . versus Willie Earl Vereen, James XcKoy, Reginald Epps,

I I Wayne i4oore and Joe Wright i n b i l l s of indictment

numbers 1665, 1 6 6 8 , 1671, 1674 and 1677 in which he I

is charged with conspiracy to assault emergency per-

sonnel w i t h dangerous weapons. Is this your verdict?

A. Yes, 1

Q Do you still assent thereto?

k 'Yes.

0- Betty Cox. your Foreman has returned with a verdict

of guilty in the cases of State of North Carolina

versus Vlillie Earl Vereen, James Mc?:oy I Reginald Epps , Wayne Moore and Joe Wright in bills of indictments num-

bers 1667, 1670, 1 6 1 3 , 1676 an3 1679 in which he is >

charged w i t 5 burning Mike's Grocery Store building and

contents thereof with incendiary devic-2. Is this your .- -

verdict?

A Yes, #

a . .- < G Q . Do you st i l l assent thereto? * . . b .

A Yes.

Pearcie Ann Colvin, your Foreman has returned w i t h a

verdict of guilty in the cases of the State of North

Carolina versuc TJillie Earl Vereen, James McIioy,

Reginald Epps, Wayne Moore and Joe Xright i n bills of

in~ l ic tn lent rimers 1665, 16611, 1671, 1674, 1677 in which

he is charqed w i t h conspiracy to assault emergency

personnel w i t h dangerous weapons. Is this your verdict?

Yes. . .

D o you still a s s e n t thereto?

Pearcie Ann Colvj.rr, your Foreman has returned with a

verdict of guilty in t h e cakes of the State of Uorth . . . . . ,

I . - .

C-olina versus Willie E a r l Vereen . James ?fcYoy, Regi- I I

na ld Bpps, klayne Moore and Joe Wright in b i l l s of in -

dictments 1667 , 167'5. 1673 , 1 6 7 6 and 1679 in which

he is charged with burning Xikegs Grocery Store build- .-. - . ing and contents thereof with incendiary device.

." . . this verdict?

A Yes. m

, .. Q. Do you sti l l assent thereto?

A. Yes,

p John W. Menth, your Foreman has returned with a verdict

of guilty in the cases of the State of Ilorth Carolina -

versus Willie Earl Bereen, James I~IcKoy, Reginald Epps,

Wayne Xoore and Joe Wright in bills of indictment

numbers 1665, 1668, 1671, 1674 and 1677 i n which be

is chaqed w i t h conspiracy to assault emergency per-

sonnel u r i t h dangerous veapons . Is this your verdic t?

A. Yes.

D o yon s t i l l assent thereto?

A Yes.

Q John W. Menth, your Foreman has returned with a verdict

of gu i l ty in the cases of the State of Plorth Carolina

versus Willie earl Versen, James HcKoy , ner~inilld Epps,

Wayne Moore and Joe Wight in bills of indictment

numbers 1667. 1670, 1673. 1676 and 1679 in which he

is charged burning Nike's Grocery Store building

-211-

and contents thereof w i t h incendiary device. Is this

your verdict?

- A Yes.

6 * Do iou still assent thereto?

; R Yes. - 6 ' . Julian P?ooten, the jury has returned with a verdict of

. _ & . I . gu i l t y in the case aY State of North Carolina versus -

, Ann Shephard in the bill of indictment number 13169 . *

id which she is charged w i t h accessory before. the fac t I . . a

,. . . of the burning of Mike's Grocery Store bui ld ing and . >

contents thereof w i t h incendiary device. Is t h i s your

verdict?

A. Y e s .

0 Do you still assent thereto?

A. Yes.

0 aames Leland Jones, your Foreman has returned w i t 4 a

verdict of g u i l t y in the case of State of north Caro-

lina versus Ann Shepl~ard in tho bill of i n d i c t n e n t num-

ber 13168 in which she is charged w i t h accessory before

tlre f ac t of t h e burning of ?like's Grocery Store builaing

and contents thereof w i t h incendiary device. Is this

y o ~ verdict?

k Yes.

Q Do you still assent t k r e to?

A. Yes.

0 Josephine Williamson, your Foreman has returned with

a verdict of guilty in t5e case of State of Horth Caro-

l i n a versus Ann Shephard in bill of indictment number

13168 in which she is charged with accessom before

the fact of t.he burning of Mike's Grocery Store building

and contents thereof with incendiary device. Is t h i s

your verdict?

A Yes.

Q DO you still assent thereto?

k Yes.

0 James Bradley Sutton, your Forenan has returned w i t h

a verdict of gu i l ty in the case of the State of North

Carolina versus Ann Shephard in the b i l l of indictment in

number 13168/which she is cl~arged with accessory before

the fact of the burning of Mike's Grocery Store build-

ing and contents thereof with incendiary device. Is

this your verdict?

A. Yes.

Q Do you s t i l l assent thereto?

k Yes.

0 James Neredith, your Foreman has r e t u r n e d with a ver-

d i c t of guilty in t'ia case of State of North Carolina

versus Ann Shepilard in bill of indictment number 13168

in which she is charged w i t h accessory before th? fact

of the burning of i(il:egs Grocory Store building anrl.

contents t h e r e o i with incendiary device. Is t h i s

your verdict? 7 a - k Yes.

'- , '

8 Do you s t i l l assent thereto?

, > A Yes. .

. .. P Agnes Day, your Forenil3 has returned w i t h a verdict

of gui l ty in tile case of State of Boxth Carolina versus

Ann Shephard i n the b i l l of 'indictment number 13163

in wkich she is charged v r i t h accessory before the fact

.of the burning of Mike's Grocery Store building and

contents thereof w i t ? incendiary device. Is this

your verdict?

A Yes.

a D o you still assent thcreto?

R Yes.

'J Sue Murphy, yo~:r Foreman has r e t u r n e d w i t h a verdict

of guilty in the case of Sta te of ~ o r t h Carolina versus

Ann Shephard in the h i l l of indictment number 13168

in which she i s charged w i t h accessory hefore the fact

of the burning of Mike's Grocery Store bui ld ing and

c o n t e n t s thereof with incendiary device. Is this your

h . . Yes.

(r Do you 'sti l l assent thereto?

k Y e s .

Q Paul Ward, yow Foreman has returned w i h t a verdict

of g u i l t y in the case of State of Aorth Carolina versus . ,

. Ann Shephard in b i l l of indictment number 13168 in which

she is charged with accessory before the fact of the .. . ,..

- ' . burning of ?like's Grocery Store building and c o n t e n t s .. r .

. , . : theiaof w i t h incendiary device. Is this your 'verdict?

. Yes.

Q , . Do you still assent thereto?

. . . - - k ' Yes.'

. . Gretchen Si~mons , your Forenan has returned w i t h a

verdict of gu i l ty in the case of State of TWrorth Caro- a _

lina .. . versus Ann Shephard i n b i l l of indictment number

18168 i n which she i s charged w i t h accessory bedore the ' a,

fact of the burning of !-fike' s Grocer;? S,toee building

atld contents thereof with incendiary device. Is t h i s

your verdict?

A. Yes.

4& Do you still assent thereto?

A. Yes,

0. Betty C o x , your Foreman has returned w i t 3 a verdict of

guilty i n the case of State of North Carolina versus

Ann Shephard in the bill of inclictment number 13168

in r~hhich she is charged with accessory before the fact

of the Burning of I l i k e ' s Grocery Store building and

contents thereof w i t h incendiary device. Is t h i s your

verdict?

. . A Yes.

p Do you still assent t he re to?

A. Y e s , . .

. CI. Pearcie Ann Colvin, your Foreman has returned with a

verdict of guilty in +he case of t h e State of North

Carolina versus Ann 1 Shephard in bill of indictment

number 13168 jn which she is charged with accessory

before the, fact of the burning of rxlihe's Grocery Store

building and con ten t s thereof w i t h incendiary device.

. 1s t h i s your verdict? -. - ..

A Yes. . .

0 Do you still assent thereto?

Yes.

John 11. Menth, your Foreman has returned with a verdict

o f gu i l ty in the case of S t a t e of North Carolina versus

Ann Shephard in bill of indictment num!?er 13168 in

which she is charged w i t h accessory before the fact

of the burning of Llike's Grocery Store huildlng an3

contents thereof. with incendiary device. Is this your

verdict?

k Yes.

Q Do you s t i l l assent thereto?

A. Y e s .

TIlE COURT: ITcnbers of the jury, the Court wishes

- . to express i t s sincere appreciation for your

services here these several weeks. You may now

be discharged. You now go.

he jury was d i s m i s s e d .

,(Conference at the bench.) r

EIR. FERGUSOX: f f your Iionor please, we wonld

like t o be heard by the Court on certain motions

that we will make and also on the question of

. sentencing. . .

THE COURT: Do you want to be heard now or later

tomorrow morning? . MR. FERGUSON: Tomorrow noriling would suit our

purposes b e t t e r .

THE COURT: 80 all of you gentlenea concur in this?

. ALL ATTOKJEYS: Yes, six.

THE COU2T: Does t h e S ta te concur?

SOL. STROUD: Xea, sir,

. THE COURT: L e t the defsndants be in cu.;tody.

We'll take a recess until tomorrow morning, Sheriff,

I . . . . tThc Court recessed at 9:40 P M.)

-217-

October 1 8 , 1972 10:13 A M.

(7111 attorneys were present except 10r. Becton.

All defendants present.) . 7 '

THE COUiTT: A.re you ready? . , - " . \; - I . L MR. FEIIGUSOEI: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, on . . , .

% . _ _ , . . .' - " behalf of each of t h e nine defendants as to each -. f ..

- ,... ; - charge we move fo set aside t 5 e verdict as being * - -. *. .. . :. t - . * ;.

* . contrary to the greater weight of t he evidence. - . , *

. THE COURT: EIotion denied. (EXCEPTION NO. - e . . : : . .. - + . .: MR. FERCUSC):J: We would move the Court for an arrest

. .

of judgment as to each judgment as to each charge. , .

i - . _I

G-- . THE COURT: bfotion denied. (EXCEPTION NO.

- 1.m. FERGL'SON: We move the Court fo r a new t r i a l I

as t o each defendant a s to .;-ac!r defendant as to

each chargc.

. THE COURT: Motion denied.

!GI. FERGUSON: And again w e would renew notions

for mistrial based upon errors committed during

the entire t x i a l .

, THE COURT : >loti on denied, (EXCEPTION NO.

Your Honor, I'd like to make the

same motions. (EXCEPTION NO.

THE COURT : Plot ions denied ./I ' 11 hear you-

(Mr.+- FErguson. argued to the Court on behalf of .

-- the. nine. defenclants. ) .. . -- .

(Mr. Runevol argued to the C o u r t on behalf of

Ann Shephard, )

(So l . Johnson argued to the Court on behalf of

the State, )

(Sol. Stroud argued to the Cour t on behalf of

the State.)

(During the argument by Sol. Stroud t h e following

transpired : )

. SOL. STROUD; Also one of them has a c r h i n a l charge

. arising out of a later incident. They are on band

on these charges, but 1 do feel like I need to .. . . .

. ' bring your attention to these chkges. . ..

MR. FERGUS013: Object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. (EXCEPTION NO.

S3L. STROUD: The defendant Shephard, your Honor,

is charged, along with t5rec others - four others,

w i t h conspiring to burn four places of businesses on. - . - -

tho 9th day of February of 1971 some three days after

Mike's Grocery Store building was burned. The defend-

ants Chavis and Patrick are charged w i t h conspiracy to

murder Harvey Edward Cumming on the 7th day of February,

1971, which would be the Sunday following the burning

of Mike's. The defendants Jerry Jacobs, I J i l l i e Earl

Vereen, Joe Wright, Ben Chavis , 74axvin p a t r i c k , James

McKoy and Connie Vjndal l are charged w i t h a s s a u l t

on emergency personnel at 5th and ilun Street on the r .

evening of tge .6th of February, 1971, So charges are

pending against t h e m , and in addi t ion the defendant

Chavis is charged with an offense in !larch of 1971,

some month or so after the inc ident in February w i t h *

being an accessory after the fact of the murder of

Clifton Eugene 'Wight.

(Sol. Sh-ou2 concluded his argument to the Court

on behalf 05 the State.)

Ferguson argued to the Court on behalf of

the nine defendants. )

THE COURT: Ir. FErguson, what is the month and year

the birtbdatc of Mr. Vereen?

TEE COURT: And FAX. Jacobs.

DEFEIWXTT JACOES: May 23, 1953.

THE COURT: Nr. Patrick.

DEFE:JDhPJT PATRICE: : May 3 3 , 19 5 2 .

THE COURT : ' And ?4r. McI;oy.

DEFE:JDAKT PICKOY : December 11, 195 3.

TEiE COURT: .And Fir. 1~;right.

DEFEHDANT IlRIGHT: Dccenber 2 5 , 1952.

TIfE COURT: An3 Wr. Epps, . , _- , . . . ' + DEFE1JDMT EPPS: August 20 , 1953.

TlIE COURT: Mr. Vereen, YOU are now 18 years of . . -

age? . > C - -

A , . Yes,'sir.~ : ' - - 4 '

--..THE COURT; How o l d were you on February 6 , 1971?

k 17. - . . . , , *

TBE COURT : In 1665, IT IS THE JUDGF-IENT OF TIlE

COURT d thit the defendant he imprisoned for the

term of not less than 3 nor more than 5 years

i n the State 's Prison t o be assigned to work under

the State Departnent of Correction.

I n case nurnber 1667, IT IS TEE JUDGIGIJT OF THE

EOURT t h a t the defendant be imprisoned for the

term of not less than 20 nor more than 24 years

in the S t a t e s P rison to be assigned to work under t

the State Department of Correction. Rave a seat.

M r . Jacobs, will you stand up? How old sere you

on February 6?

I was 18 and a half , A.

THE COURT: In case number 1662, IT IS THE JUDG- - MENT OF- THE COURT TYAT t h e defendant be imprisoned

., for the t e r m of not less than 3 nor more than 5

years in the States Prison to be assigned to

work . . under the State Departvent o f Correction.

; In case n k b e r 1664, IT IS THE JUDG14EIIT OF THE

COURT that the defendant be imprisoned in States

Prison for a term of no t less than 20 nor more

than 24 years to be assiqned to work under the

State Department of Correction.

Xn the case of Mr. Tyndall, would you please

stand up? IT IS THE JUDGY-IENT OF THE COURT the

defendant be imprisoned for the t e r m of not less

than 4 nor more than 5 years in the S t a t e s Prison

to be assigned to work under the State Department

of Correction. That i s in case number 1 6 5 9 , -

.In case 1661, IT IS THE JUDGEENT OF THE COURT .I.

. that.'the defendant be imprisoned for a tern of not

less than 22 nor more than 26 years in the Sta tes

Prison t o b e , assigned to work under the super- . . -I.

vision of . the . State Department of Correction.

3!r. Chavis, would you stand up? In zase number

1665, JUI)G!4!ZI?T OF TIIE COURT t h e defendant be in-

prisoned for a t e r m of no t less than 25 nor more

than 2 3 years in the Staee's prison to be assigned

t o work unhcr the State Department of Correction. .. . .

That is i n ' l 6 6 5 . In 1663, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS

that the defendant be imprisoned for not less than

4 nor more than 5 years In the States Prison to be

assiqncd to work under the State Department of

Correction.

. .. -3 In case of M r . Patr ick 1658 , JUDGMENT OF THE

COURT IS that the defenilant be imprisoned in the

States Prison for a term of not less than 22 nor

-more than 26 years to be assigned to work under

the supervision of t h e S t a t e Department of Cor-

r e c t i o n . .

In 1665, JUT)GFIE3T OF TEE COURT IS that the de-

f e n d a n t he imprisoned i n the S t a t e s Prison for a

t e r m pf not less than 4 nor more than 5 years to

be assiqned to work under the supervision of the

State Department of Correct ion. . ,

Wayne Moore. JUDGXXI?T OF TTRE COURT IS i n case

number 1676 the defendant be imprisoned i n the

North Carolina Departrrent of Correction for a

period of not less t han 20 nor more than 24 years

that he be assigned to work under t h e superv i s i on

o f the States Prison. 1671 , JUDG:.lENT OF TI13

COURT IS the defendant be imprisoned in the States

Prison for a period of not less than 3 nor more

than 5 years 60 be assigned to work under the

supervision of the S t a t e Departnent of Correction.

James McICoy. In case number 1679, JUDGi4EIqT OF TIIE

COURT TS tha t t5e defendant be imprisoned in the

States Prison for a t e r m of not less than 20 nor

more than 2 4 years to be assigned to work under

. . .. , -223- . .

. . . . . .. .

. . ., I:' . .. . . . , ,. . . . . -

the su?e+vi sion' of the North ~erolina ~ e ~ a r t ' - . .

, ment of Correction. In case number 1668, JUDG-

MENT OF THE COURT TS that the defendant be imprisoned

in the States Prison f o r a term of not less t h a n t

3 nor more than 5 years to be assigned to work . -

p under the supervisian of the State Department of I

I . . . . . Correction, *

. Mr. Joe P'right. Mr. Wright, would you stand up?

In case number 1679, 3UDGf.ENT OF THE COURT IS

that the defendant be imprisoned in the S t a t e s ' . . .

.. , prison for a term of not less than 20 nor more

b t h a n 24 years to be assigned to work under the

supervision of the State Department of Correction.

In 1677, JUDGIlE>XT OF THE COURT IS t h a t the de-

fendant be imprisoned in the States Prison for

' a t e r m of n o t less than 3 nor more than 5 years

to be assigned to work under supervision of the

N. C. Department of correction.

Mr. Epps, would you stand up? In case number

1673, JUDGbENT OF TED2 COURT IS that the defendant

be imprisoned in States Prison for a term of not

less than 20 nore more than 24 years to be as-

signed to work under the supervision of the North

Carolina Department of Correction.

. . In 1671 , JUDG',,IENT OF THE COURT IS that the defendant

more than 5 years to be assigned to work under

the supervision of the North Carolina Department

of Correction. 4 -

Mrs. Shephard, would you stand up, please?

&.

LI 3UDGI4E1iT OF TEE COURT IS t h a t the defendant be

imprisoned in the States Prison in quarters assigned

for female prisoners for a term of not less than

. 7 nor-more than 10 years. . % - -

MR. FERGUSON: If your Honor please, as to each

defendant &-to each charge we give notice of *. ., 1 . -. .

3 appeql. : We iould ask the Court to set. a reason-

able bond on'appeal. s. ,-

I4R; HUNEVOL: A s to Xrs. Shephard we give notice of . . appeal and request a reasonable bond. - .

- TEE COIRT:. ?lotice of appeal is recorded. In the " .

case of.Mr. Vereen appearance bond i s f ixed i n the I

sum of $4I),000.09. In the case of 1.k. Jacobs . -

< .

I t h e appearance bond is fixed in the sum of $40,000.93. I

In the case of Mr. Tyndall the appearance bond

is fixed in the s m of $45,000.00. In the case

of Mr. Chavis the appearance bond i s f i x e d in

the sum of $5g ,000.00. In the case of Mr.

Patr ick the appearance bond is fixed in the swn

of $45,000.09. In the case of Wayne Moore the

the appearance bond is fixed in the sum of

$40,000.00. In the case of M r . .WKoy the ap-

pearance bond is fixed in the sum of $40,050.00.

In the case. of M r . Joe Wright t h e appearance

bond is fixed i n the sum of $40,000.00. In

f ixed in the % n o £ $40,90?.03. In the case of . ,

Mrs. Shephard the appearance bond is fixed i n

the su! ,of $2rJ,000.00, Now, gentlemen, do you

wish for me to fix in the case of Mr. Chavis

. the appeal bond? It is s e t at the sum of $300.00.

There will be no necessity for appeal bond as

far as the other defendants are concerned.

Mow, FErguson, do you gentlemen wish for me

to s e t the time in which to prepare the case on

appeal?

MR. FERGUSON: Yes, your Eionor , we would ask

for a maximum time in light - THE COURT; Of course, you know that can he ex-

tenfled.

MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. .

THE COURT: What trould you suggest?

M R . FERGUSON: I think the maximum time you could

give now would be 90 days for it to be docketed.

So I could suggest 60 - 20 at t h i s time.

. . . - .- -

TIE COURT: ~ h & defendants and each of them are 1

allowed 60 days to prepare and servt: case on

appeal. And the State is allowed - MR. JOE-INSOX: The most we could, your Honor,

THE COtRT: 30 days after such service to prepare

and serve countercase. Now you gentlemen under-

. stand that this* can ne extended.

MR. FERGCSOM: Yes, sir,

REPORTED AND TRANSCRIBED BY:

3osephine L. Seila, - Official Couxt Reporter

P 0 SOX 718 Selma, N. C. 2 7 5 7 6 .