94th Congress, 2d Session House Report No. M-1477

IN THE JlIATl'EB OF

REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW J. HINSHAW

7HMO

REPORT

BY THE

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

OFFICIAL CONDUCT

[To accomPllny H. Res. 1392J

SEPTEMBER 7, 1976.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1976

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

UNITED STATES Houslil OJ' REPRESENTATIVES NIXE'l'Y-FOURTB CONGRESS

JOllN 1. FLYNT,lB., <hIorgla, OfIafml4ft WlLVlN PRIOE, IJllDoIII Ot.lN E. TEAGUE, T", .. l!'. EDWARD lUBE liT, Lottl.oI6na TIIOMAS S. FOLEY, Wublncton OIlARLES E. BENNETT, Floria. FLOYD SPENOB, South Carolina lAMES II. QUIt.LEN, T.Pll ..... EDWARD IIUTOlllNSON, M10blpu ALBERT B. QUlE,_ta DONALD 1. IdlTOEELL, N .... York TlIA.D CO OHlIAN, MIssIIIIppI

1011N M. SWAlmBB, Slall DIr_ WlLLlAK F. ABIIOOABT, AofI/4IfII SIal DIr_

(II)

CONTENTS

Page Part I.-Summary of the report_____________________________________ 1 Part II.-Background of the resolution______________________________ 2 Part I1I.-Committee action____________________ ___________________ _ 2 Part IV.-Statement of facts ______________________________ -_________ 2 Part V.-Analysls of precedents and policies__________________________ 4 Part VI.-Conolusions and recommendations__________________________ 5 Part VII.-Hiatory of jurisdiction of Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct________________________________________________________ 5 Part VIII.-Appendix___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _____ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ 6

(In)

94TH CONGRESS} BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { R!lPOBT BdSeBBion No. 94-1477

IN TlrE MATTER OF REP:R:ESENTATIVE ANDREW J. HINSHAW

SI!lP'l'EMlIE2 7, 1976.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. FLYNT, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, submitted the following

ADVERSE REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 1392]

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to which was referred the resolution (H. Res. 1392), resolving that Representative Andrew J. Hinshaw be expelled from the House of Representatives, having considered the same, reports adversely, thereupon, and recom­mends that the resolution be not agreed to.

PART I.-SUMMARY OF REPORT

House Resolution 1392 seeks the expulsion of Representative Andrew J. Hinshaw of California from the U.S. House of Representa­tives pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution. RepI;esentative Hinshaw has been convicted of bribery under Cali­fornia. law for acts occurring while he served as assessor of Orange County, such acts having been committed prior to his election to Con­gress. An appeal of the conviction is currently pending before the Fourth Appellate District, Court of Aplleal, State of California.

Since his conviction, Representative Hinshaw has complied with House Rule XLIII, paragraph 101 and has not participated in voting either in committee or on the floor of the House.

I Bonae RUle XLID, Paragraph lO.-A Member of the Hou .. of Repr_nt&tlvOB who has been convicted by 8 court of record for the OOnUnlsslon of a crime lor which .. sentonce of 2 or mo", ye.,..· Imprisonment _y be Imposed shOUld refralnfrom particIpation In the business 01 eaoh commlttoe 01 which he I •• member and lihonld refrolnfrom voting on soy question at a meeting of the Ho .... or of the Commlttoe 01 the Whol. Ha ... , _ ot not!l Judicia! or exooutlve proceedings rei!ult In reinstatement of the presumption of his Innocen .. or unt!l he I. teelectod to tbe HoUBe oItet the date of suoh conviotlon (94th Congress).

(1)

2

The committee believes that the House of Representatives, when considering action against a Member who is currentl,Y involved in an active, nondilatory, criminal proceeding against him, such 88 the Hinshaw case, ordinarily should follow a policy of t~g no legislative branch action until the conviction is finally resolved. The committee wishes to express dearly, however, that in this case its conclusion is based entirely on the instant set of facts and in no wa.;r implies that different circumstances may not call for a different conclusion.

Having considered the facts of tbis particular case o.nd recognizing that Representative Hinshaw has been convicted under a State law tha.tl wliile reflecting on bis moral turpitude, does not relate to bis offiCial conduct while a Member of Oongress, it is the recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that House Resolution 1392 be not agreed to.

PART II.~BACKGROUND OF THE :RESOLUT!ON

The U.S. Constitution, article J, section 5, clause 2 grants to each House of ConlP'ess the power " ... to punish its Members for dis­orderly behaVIor, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, elPel a Member." House Resolution 1392, introduced by Re,l)resent&tive Charles E. Wiggins, of California, on June 30, 1976, resolved "That Andrew J. HfuShaw, Representative from California, be expelled from the House of Representatives."

In remarks made on the floor of the House, Representative Wiggins explained bis reasons for calling for this action. He noted the facts of Representative Hinshaw's conviction for bribery and pointed out the legal issues involved.2

On July 21, 1976, Representative Wi~gins wrote Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., requesting that the followmg action be taken by the committee:

1. That the committee staff authenticate the basic facts; 2. That the committee staff prepare a research document

reciting House ){~~:dents a.nd relevant policy consideration; 3. That Mr. . haw be given an opportunity to respond in

writin~ to the resolution; and 4. That the committee take no action on the resolution other

than to publish its report. This letter is appended as exhibit A.

Representative Hinshaw also filed with the committee a letter, accompanied by supporting documents. Tbis memorandum is ap­pended as exhibit B.

PART III.-COMMITTEE ACTION

On September 1, 1976, the committee met in executive session to consider House Resolution 1392. Tbis report was adopted on that da.te by a vote of 10 to 2, a quorum being present.

PART IV.--8TATEMENT OF FACTS

Andrew J. Hinshaw is a Member of the House of RepresentativeB representing the 40th District of California. He was first elected

, Oong. Boo., June 110, 1976, p. H. 7262.

3

to Oongress on November 7, 1972, and was sworn in as a Member of the 93d Oongress in January 1973. He was reelected in November 1974 to the 94th Congress and assumed the seat he now occupies on January 14, 1975. Prior to his first election to Congress, Representative Hinshaw served for 8 years as the elected assessor of Orange Oounty, Oalif.

Public accusations that Representative Hinshaw had taken bribes while assessor of Orange Oounty first appeared in local newspapers in MaY' 1974. However, it was not until May 6, 1975, that a Cali­fornia State grand jury returned an ll-count indictment against Representative Hinshaw charging him with various felonies, 11.11 relat­ing to his official conduct as assessor for Orange County.3 Eight of the eleven counts were dismissed u~! motion prior to trial. A jury trial was had on Representative . sho,w's "not guilty" plea to the three remaining oounts!

On January 26, 1976, a jury found Representative Hinsho,w guilty of two of the remaining counts and not guilty of the third.5 The jury found as true tho,t on May 18, 1972, Representative Hinshaw, then tlie duly elected assessor for Orange County, Calif., a.nd a co,ndidate for Congress in a primary election, solicited and received 0, campo,i~ contribution of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing his offiCial conduct as assessor of Orange Oounty; o,nd that on December 13, 1972, after Representative Hinshaw's election to Congress but prior to being seated as a Member thereof, he solicited a.nd· received certain stereo equipment as consideration for official action theretofore taken by him as assessor of Orange County. The two acts proved constitute the crime of bribery under Oalifornia law.6

On February 25, 1976, Representative Hinsho,w was sentenced to the term provided by law on each oount, the terms to run concurrently. 7

Oalifornia law provides that the crime of bribery is punishable by': imprisonment in the State prison for a term of 1 to 14 )Tears and, if an elected official be convicted of bribery,_ the additionru ~e:alty of forfeiture of office a.nd permanent disqualification from hoI . gather elective office in California may be imposed." The trilll judge refused to impose the forfeiture a.nd disqualification penalty in Representative H.insJiaw's case, holding that it applied only to State offiCIals.

Representative Hinshaw has appea,led his conviction, and the appeal is now pending_ before the Fourth Appellate District, Court of Appeal of Oalifornia.The time for filing of appellant's brief has been extended until September 12, 1976. No date has yet been set for oral argument. 9

After his conviction, Representative Hinshaw filed for reelection to Congress. In the primary election held on June 8, 1976, Representative Hinshaw was defeated.

• E.hlblt c. • COI1I1I11 6 e and 7 8IlegIng violation 01 I 68 CalIlorni. Penal Cod.: "Every e.ooutlve or ministerial

olII ... emplOyOO or "!!poInte. of the State 01 c.urornla, county or city therein or JIOUtlcal subdlvlaton th~ who uka reoetV6I, or &greeB to receive, any bribe, upon any ~ent or understanding that his vote oPmton or 8.ction upon any matter then pending. or which may be brought before him In his offtclal eapaj,tty .iiiJJ be Inllnenced thereby, Is punishable by imprisonment In the Slate prison not I .... tban one nor more than tonrteen y&arII; and, tit addition thereto, lodeits his otDeer and Is forever dlsqualUled from boldinR lilly o/llce In Ibis State."

• ErliIbllll 0 and E. • flee Iootnoto .. , EmtbltF. • flee Iootnote •• • Emtblt O.

4

PART V.-ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENTS AND POLICIES

The right to expel may be invoked whenever in the jude:ment of the body a Member's conduct is inconsistent with thepubiic trust and duty of a Member.Io But, the broad :power of the House to expel & Member has been invoked only three times in the history of Congress, all three cases involving treason. II

Historically, when a criminal proceeding is be~ again.st a M;em»~ri it has been the custom of the House to defer action until the Judicia proceeding is final. 12 The committee recognJ.zed the soundness of this course of action when it reported House Resolution 46 (94th Congo 1st sess., H. Rept. No. 94-76) adopting rule XLIII, paragraph 10.18

In its report, the committee sta.ted it would act "where an allegation is that one has abused his direct representational or legislative pom­tion-or his 'official conduct' has been questioned"-Dut where the allegation involves a violation of statutory law, and the charges are being expeditiously acted upon by the appropriate authorities, the policy has been to defer action until the Judicial proceedings have run their course.

A "crime," as defined by statutorylaw, can cover a broad spectrum of behavior, for which the sanction may vary. Due to the divergence between criminal codes, and the judgmental classification of crimes into misdemeanors and felonies, no clear-cut rule can be stated that conviction for a particular crime is a breach of "official conduct." Therefore, rather than specify certain crimes as rendering a Member unfit to serve in the House, the committee believes it necessary to consider each case on facts alone.

Due process demands that an accused be afforded recognized safe­guards which influence the judicial proceedings from its inception through final appeal. Although the presumption of innocence is lost upon conviction, the House could find itself ill an extremely untenable position of ha.ving punished a Member for an act which legally did not occur if the conviction is reversed or remanded upon appeal.

Such is the case of Representative Hinshaw. The charges against him stem from acts taken while county assessor, and allege bribery as defined by California statute. The committee, while not t8.king a posi­tion on the merits of this case, concludes that no action should be til.ken at this time. We cannot recommend tha,t the Honse risk placing itself in a constitutional dilemma for which there is no apparent solution.

We further realize that resolution of the appeal ma,y extend·beyond the. adjournment sine die of the 94th Congress. In fact, no future action may be required since Representative Hinshaw's electorate chose not to renominate him and he has stated in writing that he will resign if the a,ppeal goes against him. ' I

This committee cannot be indifferent to the,presence of a, convicted person in the House of Rel?resentatives; it will not be so. The course of action we recommend will uphold the integrity of the House while

10 r .. & OMpm'ln, 166 u.s. 661 (1897). II John B. Clort, 37th Congress. Second sessJon. (1881) II !lind'. 11262. Henry C. Burnett 37tb COIlf!1'8ll.

Second ..... (1881)'1 II !lind's 11261.10hn W. Reid. 37th CODgreM. Becond ..... (1831). II Wnd'. t 1261. U In tbe case 01 ohn W. Longley (66th Congress, 11124 VI Connon·s .... 238) the Committee on the ludl­

cih"", rooommended thot .. tlon by tbe commtttee sboUld be deferred until flnO! dlsoosltlon 01 tbe opJ)e&l. In tHe .... ollohn DOWdy (D2d Congress. 1m). \he Committee on Standards 01 0 IIIclal Conduct repo .... d 0111

OUl3e ResolUtion 933 (B. Rep!. 92-1(89) exprwlng \he SOUl3e 01 the l'Iouso tbot no .. tlon will be taten agalns" c~~ a Member conviotoo Of a crime until the. connctton beoomea11nal.. _ loolno'" 1.

5

affording re\!pect to the ri~hts of the Member accused. We recognize that under another set of circumstances other courses of action may be in order; but, in the matter of Representative Andrew Hinshaw, we believe we have met the challenge and our recommendation is well founded.

PART VI.-CONCLU810N AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is the recommendation of the committee that House Resolution 1392 be not agreed to.

PART VII.-THE COMMITTEE'S HISTORY AND JURISDICTION

_. On April 3, 1968, the House by a vote of 405 to 1 adopted House Resolution 1099, establishing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a permanent, standing committee of the House, and pro­viding a Code of Official Conduct for the Members, em:ployees, and officers of the House. Prior to the adoption of this resolutlOn, matters of official conduct were consigned to separate select committees, a method which proved to be "cumbersomely slow" in resolving these matters. This committee was therefore charged by the House with the responsibility of overseeing the conduct of Members, officers, and em­ployees of the House and was invested with broad powers of investiga­tion to enable it to discharge this heavy responsibility.

The committee is authorized under House Rule X 4(e)(1)(B)-To investigate * * * any alleged violation, by a Member, Officer, or employee of the Kouse, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct al?plicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee III the performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities. ... * *

STATEMENT UNDER CLAUSE 2(1)(3), AND CLAUSE 2(1)(4) OF RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A. OverBight statement The. committee made no special oversight findings on this rel'()lution.

B. B'Udget statement No budget statement is submitted.

O. Esti'ffl8te of the Oongre8sional B'Udget Ojfice No estimate or comparison was received from the Director of the

Congressional Budget Office as referred to in subdivision (C) of Clause 2(1) (3) of House Rule XI. D. Oversight findings and recommendations of the Oommittee on

Government Operations No findings or reco~endations of the. Co~t~~ on Government

OJlerations were received as referred to m BubdlVlslOn (D) of clause 2(1)(3) of House Rule XI.

(

6

EXHIalT A

PART VIII - APPENDIX

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ,

Charles E. Wiggins Member of Congress .. 39th District, C.lifomla

July 21, 1976

Hon. John J. Flynt, Jr. Chairman, committee on Standards

of Official Conduct Room 2360, Rayburn H.O.B. Washington, D. C.

Dear John:

As you know, H. Res. 1392, a Resolution to expel congressman Hinshaw from the House has been referred to your Committee.

I have been advised by the Parliamentarian that the Resolution is privileged and may be called up at any time, notwithstanding its referral to Committee. As the spensor of the Resolution, it is my intention to seek recoqnitition at a future time so that the House may express its will in the issues raised.

Pending House action, it is my hope that your Committee will give attention to the Resolution. I suggest the following as appropriate Committee action:

1. That Committee staff authenticate the basic facts. It is my belief that the factual data necessary to frame the issues can be ascertained by a single staff person in not more than two days.

2. That Committee staff prepare a research document reciting the House precedents and the relevant policy considerations. Such a study should not be an advocacy brief. Much of this research has been done by the Library of Congress, and the entire research effort would require a minimum of staff resources.

7

3. That Mr. Hinshaw be qiven ten days within which to file such written memorandum as he deems appropriate in opposition to the Resolution. No oral testimony need be taken. I intend to seek unanimous consent for Mr. Hinshaw to speak in his own defense on the floor, and I anticipate no objection to such a request.

4. That the Committee take no action on the Resolution other than to publish its report as promptly as possible. I should like the report to be available prior to the Resolution being called up.

The procedure which I have described will not inter­fere seriously with the heavy work load of your Committee and will permit the House to have before it a factual statement of the law and policy consid­erations when it votes.

I shall be pleased to meet with you or your staff at any time to facilitate the proper handling of this Resolution.

With best wishes,

CEW:jm

8

ExmBrr B

' .. ~ o;~ ... "" ':-- .... -' ..... I'I1II ;.,I\:~EW :. 1"I1·.~..t"-W

.t.," D( .. Tft.C;~ t;;' c::."L.IFOA'NIA ~. 'C , ~ 0:- ... ,. p .... u BII'I"f\' 110

1- ........... '1:*01..1 • .,.. ....... U.,I P_ .. ...: 111.) ')4.. .. 11 Q;:Ot1(trcs's' of tut '[{nitcb g}tiltclt

~oUSt Df Rtprt5tntatibti

Ul.~~ingl.n. n.c. 20515

Augus t 1.2. H 76

Honorable John ;,. Flynt, Jr. Chairman Committee on Standards of Offici.l

Conduct 2360 Rayburn H. O. B. Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

~"~IW" ........ ' "c' ~~.o,:. ~""O""''''

M" .... lotno.u.aor_ ....... rA;.oV"U

--. Q.o<NI_~-

I"!kYAL "JO(;IUftI:L "'.'1.,"'" ~M_f."DI'f

JoIIfl'H"........_TI'~ ... _,

c::.o"'huna ON ... "o,..,c IfN£RIlIY

It Is my belief that the workload of your committee is such that you .re h.rd-pressed relative to both scheduling and collection of .11 relevant data necessary to form justifiable conc1usions relative to all matters presently pending or which may be referred to YOII. Therefore. I think it approf,Jria,te to state my views to you and to your committee relative to H. Res. 1392 (Exhibit A), authored by Congressman Charles ~iggins, which asks that 1 be expelled from the House ~f Representatives.

rn brief. my views are as follows:

First, the most ~pplicabl~ and anala9~us precedent I could find is found in.Cannon's Precedents, Volume VI. page 405. Section 238, involving Representative John W. Langley from Kentucky. (Exhibit B)

] agree with and support the language and positions taken by the committee in that matter. Particularly pertinent to my case is the fallowing language:

"Without an expression of the individual opinions of the members of the committee. it must be said that with practical uniformity the precedents in such cases are to the effect that the House will not e.pel a Member for reprehensible action prior to his elec­tion as a Member, not even for conviction for an of­fense. On May 23,1884, Speaker Carlisle decided that the House had no right to punish a Member for any offense alleged to have been committed prevfous to the time when he was elected a Member. and added 7

IThat has been so frequently decided in the House that it ;s no longer a matter of dispute. I

THIS STATIONF;RY PRINTED ON PAPER M .... OE WITH RECYOL.EQo F.aERS

9

"It is. however! acain in atcord~n(e with precedent that final action shall not be t.~en until a criminal charge has been disposed of in the court of last resort. (Emphasis added)

"It is well known that Hr. Langley is not partiCipating in the proceedings of the House, and it is understood that his resignation will be immediately presented in case of the refusal of the petition for certiorari.

"The committee, however. are just as stronlly of the opinion that the circumstances require actlon on the part of the House at the appropriate time and agree that: A more serious question arises, however, in the case of Hr. Langley, in that the House could not permit in its membership a person serving a sentence for crime,lt

In addition to the Langley precedent, I would like to bring to your attention information extracted from a Library of Congress legislative Service report Precedents to the Hoyse of Representatives in Respect to Procedure for Censure or Expulsion dated December 29, 1966. On pages lRS • 17 & 18 is found the following language:

"In his work, 'History of the House of Representatives' ~ 1961. George S. Galloway. states that the power to expel has not been resorted to often by the House, and that the House has apparently not exercised it since Civil War days.

"He stated, p. 32: The power of expu1 sian has fre­quently been discussed but seldom exercised by the House especial1v in relation to offenses committed before election. (Emphasis aaaed) ... I. general, the House has been dubious of its power to punish Members for offenses committed before their election.

~ . .. [T]here are three major differences as derived from precedents, between application of the power to expel and the power to censure, by the House.

"The first is that ex ulsien is not exercised for acts occurring prior to an e ection ... " EmphasiS added)

10

The following language appears on page LRS-20:

IIFor instance, the Committee report in the case of Brigham Roberts •.• stateo that, "Both Houses .•. had no right to expel for an act .•. committed prior to his election"

[I]n the case of Victor Berger ... the Committee stateo:

" ... the House of Representatives ... has •.• consistently refused to expel a Member once he has been sworn fDr any offense committed by him previous to his becoming a Member, on the ground that the constitutional power of expulsion is limited in its application to the conduct of Members of the House during their term of off; ce".

Second. much of the reasoning behind the demands that 1 re~ sign, and Congressman Wiggins' expulsion resolution is that pursuant to H. Res. 46. which was passed by the House on April 16, 1975, (Exhibit C) (which both Congressman Wiggins and t voted for)7 I have refrained from voting in my committee activities as well as ~n the House floor. In support of this statement~ I ref~r you to Mr. Wiggins' position as quoted below from Exhibit Ow20 and typical news~aper articles re­counting my inability to vote as the reason 1 should resign. (Exhibits 0-18, 19)

In Exhibit 0-20 Congressman Wigg1ns admits that. 'JOh sure, Hinshaw ~an do some thlngs, he can help constituents get information on legislation, he can help constituents with any problems they have with the executive branch, and un­fortun.tely, he can still appoint people to the military academies. II I think every Member would agree that these functions constitute the bulk of aur respective office's workload and are not as insignlficant as Mr. Wiggins tries to suggest.

He is also quoted as saying. "He sti11 gets his $44,000 congres.ional salary, he still has a .taff and he still has congressional mailing privileges. all of thi~ for a man who canlt even cast a single vote.'1 (Emphasis added) I submit that in this particular regard Mr. Wiggins is over1ooking a similar situation confronting the Delegates fr~m our terri­tories and the Oistrict of Columbia.

Third, it is my considered belief that there are grave con­stitut;ona1 questions involved in Mr. Wiggins' reso1ution. and these questions deserve far more attention and study than could be afforded in a ooe~hour debate. To emphasize

11

this view the l.nguage on pa2e LRS-~O. previously referred to, warrants repeating. " ... IT]he constitutional power of expulsion is limited in its application to the conduct of Members of the House during their term of office",

Therefore. if Con~ressm.n Wiggins brings his resolution to the floor for actIon before your committee has had the time and opportunity to fully review this matter. then I respect­fully request that you and your committee join me in asking the full House to refer the Wiggins' resolution back to your committee for its consideration in an appropriate priority with due coo$ideration for your other pending business. As I understand the procedures on such a privlleged resolution. a motion to recommit would be in order after the allotted debate time has expired,

We have now had three years of the aftermath of "Watergate" and similar matters. including investigations. indictments, convictions, federal legislation setting up a Federal Elec­tions Commission designed to prevent election abuses, and situations on the ho~izon which could lead to similar formal reprimand~ censure, or expulsion resolutions being filed with your committee.

Becau~e gf the serious constitutional questions involved in the Wi99ins' resolution, and because of other matters now underway in the House involving both allegations and inves~ tigatioos of Members with long tenure. it would seem to me that the matter is too serious to have this type of resolu­tion brought to floor debate without the opportunity for all Members havIng the benefit of a full and complete analysis and recommendation of this entire subject by your committee. Such a precedent, i.e.~ to not have s~ch an analysis. would set a poor precedent.

To assist in this regard t I nave attached as Exhibits 0-1 through O-ZU a chronological sequence of some of the politi­cal inve~ti9ations which started in 1974 after the incumbent nistrict Attorney, Cecil Hicks, was charged by his political opponent seeking election as District Attorney as covering up a hit-and-run accident.

With regard to Con9r~ssman Wiggins' charge in Exhibit D-20 that I am dragging my feet on my appeal from a conviction (which I believe to be wholly pol;tically motivated). I have on numeroUS and repeated occasions inquired of my attorneys as to the status of my appeal. 1 have been advised. and the

12

District Court of Appeals has also been recently advised in , Petition, that my appeal seeking to have my conviction over­turned on several grounds - including insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction - will be filed momentarily.

On. of the reasons for the delay in completing this appeal is that my attorneys have been engaged in another political indictment alleging bribery by a City Planning Commissioner from a city in Mr. Wiggins.' 39th Congressional Oistrict. Action on my appeal was somewhat deferred so that this other defendant could have both a speedy trial and an attorney of his cholce.

Fourth, it should be pointed out th.t H. Res. 46 is the sub­ject of a law suit. Michael Patrick Clancy. Petitioner, v. United State'S House of RepresentativeS I et ill t presently pending in both the U4 S. Supreme Court and a Federal District Court in los Angeles, California. which seeKS to declare H. Res. 46 unconst i tutional.

It is ironic that Mr. Wiggins uses as one of the reasons to expel me my abiding wi'th H. Res. 46, while at the same time,. the entire House of Representatives is the defendant in a suit seeking to have that resolution declared unconstitutional.

Fifth, my research into expulsion matters pertaining to the House of Representatives disc~oses that (il nG Member has· ever been expelled for incidents and alleged crimes (no mat­ter how grave) which occurred prior to his becoming a Member, and (2) there have been no Members e,pelled since Civil War days, and Members expelled at that time resulted from charges of treason.

During the course of my research, I obtained two publications from the Library of Congress - one dated December 29, 1966, to which I previously referred~ and one dated March 27, 1972, entitled "Actions by Hous~ of Representatives After a Member Has Been Convicted. A Reasonably Cornpl!te list." For your further consideration, I have enclo~ed copies of each of these publications.

In closing I want to emphasize that r fully expect to be completely exonerated of this conviction and of all other charges against me. If such is not the end result of my appeal, then the example set by Mr. tangley is the course I would follow.

Sincerely. •

iL~~ Member of Congress

13

BACKGROUND MATERIAL. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND EXHIBiTS

1. Prior to election to Congress. I had served for eight years as the elected Assessor of the County of Orange. California.

2. I was first elected to Congress in 1972 and was sworn in January 1973 with the 93rd Congress.

3_ During our 1974 California Primary and General Election con­tests, there were a large number of the usual allegations of mis· conduct against many Orang! County office holders and candidates, Including:

a. District Attorney Cecil Hicks for allegedly covering up a hit-and-run accident involving his alleged girl­friend in which young children were killed - a felony. (Exhibit D-l) ~

b. Congressman Charles Wiggins was alleged to have falsely registered to vote in a place other than his residence ~ • felony. (Exhibit 0-2)

c. Congressman Jer~y Patterson's staff members and campaign workers (eight of them) for allegedly falsely registering to vote in places other than their reside~ces - felonies. (Exhibit~ 0-3,4,5.6)

d. Congressman Andrew Hinshaw for improperly using Assessor employees in his election campaign and accepting a gift of a stereo set after the November General Election but ~rior to being sworn into Congress. The stereo set waS allegedly to influence his actions as a County Assessor - felonies. (Exhibits D-7,8,9)

e. California Assembly candidate Richard Robinson and' nine campaign workers for allegedly falsely registering to vote in places other than their residenc •• - felonies. (Exhibit 0-10)

f. California Assembly candidate Marlin McKeever for allegedly falsely registering to vote in places other than his residence - • felony. (Exhibit 0-11)

Additionally, after the elections were over. there were investi­gations started against several members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and several City Council office holders for alleged misconduct of one kind or another.

14

4. The allecations against Ccn~rf~5~an Hinshaw, referring to events which~took place prior to hiS te;ng elected to.the S3rd Congress two years prior. were full¥ and completely dlscussed during the 1974 Primary and Gener.l Ejection cont~s~s, and ~insh.w was reelected by votes in excess of 59,000. (Exhlblts 0-7,8,9)

5. Hinshaw's reelection was contested in the House Administration Committee by his General Ejection opponent using the same allega­tions put forth in the Primary and General Elections of 1974. The Elections Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee, chaired b¥ John Dent, notified me by Jetter dated March 25, 1975, (copy attached marked Exhibit 0-12). that the subcommittee granted my Motion to Dismiss. with prejudice. It should be pointed out that Congressman Wiggins was a member ~f this subcommittee and I am informed that he supported the subcommittee's views. notwith­standing his personal knowledge that both he and I. at that time. were being investigated by the same District Attorney for alleged felonious conduct.

6. The House of Representatives. passed H. Res. 46 on April 16. 1975. which states that: Resolved, That rUle XL!I~ ef the House of Representatives is amended by inserting immediately after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:

10. A Member of the House of Rep~esentatives who has been oonvioted by a court of record for the commission of a crime for wh~ch a sentence or two or more yea~s I ·imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in the business Gf eaeh committee of which he is then a rnembe~ and shGuld refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House~ or of the Committe~ of the Whole House, urtle5~ or until judicial or executive proceedings result in reinstatement ef the presumption of his innocence or until he is reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.

Congressmijn Hinshaw and Congressman Wiggins voted for this resol ution ..

7. Q. Congressman Pattersen's aisistants were indicted, pled guilty to falsely registering at places other than their residences and were sentenced for having com-. mit ted a misdemeanor.

b. Ass.emblyman Robinson and nine'of his campaign workers were indicted for falsely registering at places other tha~ their residences. The indictment of Assemblyman Roblnson was su~seQuently quashed. His campaign workers pled gUllty and were sentenced for having committed a misdemeanor.

15

L. Congressman Andrew Hinshaw was indicted on eleven miscellaneous and unrelated counts. Eight counts were dismissed and Hinshaw went to tri.l on three counts.

d. Ass.ssor Jack V.llerga was indicted and convicted for consulting with and advising a government agency outside the St.te of Californi., the County Assessor of Spartanburg, South Carolina, as to how that assessment jurisdiction could improve its p~~ocedur~ •. One juror was quoted liS saying that hlS convlctlon resulted from a $20 detour en an airplane ticket which enabled him to go to Spartanburg at County expense. This convictlon has been appealed, but the Appellate Court has not yet handed down its decision. (Exhibit D-13)

8. Congressman Hinshaw was convicted on two counts of bribery -accepting a $1,000 campaign contributio~ in May 1972, and ac­cepting a gift of • stereo set in December 1972. both .llegedly to influence his actions as CD~nty Assessor. Hinshaw had been sworn in as Representative in January 1973 and January 1975.

9. After convictiont Hinshaw conducted himself in accordance with H. Res. 46 and refrained from voting.

10. County Supervisor Robert Battin was indicted for using his office staff in his campaign for Lt. Governor. (Exhibit 0-14)

11. City of Fullerton Planning Commissioner leRoy Rose was indicted for three counts of bribery, principally on testimony of a sing1e person who is also a friend and political supporter Df Ilistrict Attorney Cecil Hicks - and who was granted immunity from prosecution. This indictment was dismissed and subsequently the District Attorney refiled the cr.arges and doubled the charges from three to six. (Exhibits 0-15,16,17)

12. There were demands for H~nsha~ls resignation initiated ~y some of hi~ political opponents and others, citing as the reason for those resignation demands the fact that Hinshaw was not voting in either committee activities or on the House floor. (E.hibits 0-18, 19)

13. Hinshaw filed Notice of Intent to appeal his conviction.

14. Hinshaw filed for reelection in March 1975.

16

15. Hinshaw's princip.' opponents 'But of the eight running ag.inst him) former Congressman John Schmitz. CalifDrnia Assembly­man Robert Badham, and Mrs. Alicia topper at a public forum. st. ted they do not agree with demands that Hinshaw resign.

16. Hinshaw finishes fourth in the Primary Election out of a field of nine candidates.

17. Wi99Jns steps u~ pUblic attack. against Hinshaw without waiting for the Standards of Official Conduct Committee to review his resolution and to issue a r~pDrt on its findings. (Exhibit D-20)

18. Supervisor Battin convicted for using County office staff in hi5 campaign for Lt. Governor. This case is to be appealed~

*Exhibits deleted; available in committee files.

17

EXHIBIT C

FILED FEB 251916

•

l:f >'Ii:;; S!;?ER! OR COU!'!T 0" THE S~ATE' OF CALI?ORlIIA

IN AND FOR T:!& C OUlI~Y 01' ORAltaE

::~'~'.~: I: Tho;! J.~'.:.:-::i : ... ::,~' :.:." ';.h2 Cc~.n,:;y ot Orange". Sta-.::e of' :a::.~;.~!-_!..:, _~. ~:'i!$ :!'".';i~:::'"·e!"".,,;~ ..... ':;;:"6\:o~ .. aoc'..lss:s Ar:!:l?;::\·/ if. jG~~Sc. .. ;'-.l :'! a ~e:'::::'-J to-til:: -;i:::s.t~c .... _ of See.a;io!1s .l,0':-4.o7 of tr.a P~l:=l :~~e u~ ~~~ 3~~te of :~l:~)~~~a, in that on or aoo~t t~e 16ch day ~:' ;:o-.re;::::e~J 1971 t a:ld 1!i -::;e -;:'j~lve o::on';:'1S preced~ngJ in 'the =c:.:.~~tj· 0:'" :)range, S:.a;;e c:!' Ca:,:,:"'o!':"I1a, tr:e said A.i:~D?E~·1 J. Po ll·i':;;;.;'; :~:l ,;ill.:"',,;;:ly J unla:!!':"!::'l~: ::.~::i : .... e:onio·J,sly ";ake the property or -;:.e- CO:'::".':-] 01" Orar.t;-;- J co!:s:!.s~!:;g o!' r-~IJb.ey J property J and the vall.:.9 ·:;f .l.:n:g !-:'s":.a.r.;:;a t.alaph:;, .... e -;:>::.: ah5,~gi!s :!on an anCun~ exceeding t,,;:} :.·..:.!".c~e.:i ;'c':'lars ($200.00) .;!.:t.:'r: a pe~iod. of' tuelve consecut1'/e" =.:;:rt.hs, 1".l:-:!.::tg \~'hi:::h I;~!':"e t.ha 5a~d defenc.a!1t~ ANDRE',.} J. HIUSH.t.~·l, '~as 5.n o:":,.:.c-ar and ~:::]:'?.or~e ~t -:.::e said COI..I.nt.y of' O:'.:!!1ge.

It; :"5 :"'..i!"'the::o £.lleg-ec. -;::20:: :he c:-:'::-.'S! alle6ed .in this !."irs~ :::::o.:.n~ 0;:" ';;~:!.s Ind1c:::.en: :;5.3 c.~s::c.".erol'd by "';;!1e ?eoi,'le i,rit~::'n ::"i~~e yea~5 il.~edlately precedin; ;~~ ca~a 0:- this Ind1ctnent and not ;::'!"r tt',=reoto.

!t ~s fur~he~ a:lebed ~~~: ~~ ~he ~f~~ :h~ cri~9 allesed in ~his first count or this Indictn~nt \liaS com.1Ii tted". the de!endam: ;:s.s the .Assessor oi" the Cou!"'~:;y of Orang.e, California.

COU~!T II: The Gr"and Jury of the County of Orange ~ State or Californi~, by this seco~d oo~;t of this Ind1ctm~nt) hereby fur~ -:;her acc~ses ANOR::':I J. HIN"SEf..W of a FelonY:t to-\>Ii t: Violation of"

18

~~~~l?~~ :~~-~a7 ~f ~ne PeJ.~l Coda of the State of Cal!forn!a~ in :;":':.5.'; or. 0:' 2.::l0Ur. thE' 15th da~ .. ,J~ November) 1972" in the Count:;r ot ')::,,::.~.s;"?: I S-:;E.te 0:: CaU .. fo!"l'.ia J thoe said ANDRS~1 J. Hn'SH'-~': did "h'111-:'',;lly, uf!~a~;:"'u!ly and felcmiaasly take the property of the Cou.nty 3~ Or~ngeJ cons1sti~g of ~on~y and the value of lon~ dis~ance ,,:elec~one toll ch2.rs:es in a.~1 a:~.:>unt exceed-ins l:;\>iO hund!"ed dol1aros '~200.00) \:ithin a period of t"ielve consecutive months, during ;:;10: .. 'Cii.t! 'Che said defendan'C, ANDREW J. HINSHAW, was an officer End e::.ployee or the said Cou~t~· of Orange.

It is further alleged t~at the crime alleged in this seco~d count of this Indict.rr:ent \,:as discQver"ed by the People \'11thin three ::ears ililiediately p!'eceding ~he date of this Indictment and not p!':Lor the:'eto. *'

It is further alleged tha.t at the time the crime a.lleged in t:'1is secor.d count of this Indictment \'las co;:n.llitted, the defendant ',ljas the Assessor of the Counvy of Orange, California.

comn III: The G:-and Jury of' the County of" Orange, State of Ca.:'..! rcr~1a.J by this '[;h~rd c:oo..:nt of thls Indictment, hereby !'u=-ther ==-'J.:::L.:ses /;!;:::':is\i J, ?:NSH,1_il 0:: a Felony.J to-1'Iit~ Vlo1at:!.on of Seo­:1o~ 72 of t~e Pen21 Code of tr.e State of California, in t~at on c:' E'.or)...l~ ,,;_~ 2nd day of Ju~~" .L971, in th8 COlt:lty or Ora:1g~, State ~~ '::al1f::-::12., t!'),;, s3..id A!.JD?'::;\~· J. HINS~~A\,' did ldllfully, ur..!.a ... :­:~...:.:'ly I a:!o :;lo:1i'JL.sly ~ '\~iL_'"! ir.ten;:; to defraud, pres.:?nt for allow­;!'''''l.ce ~r.j pa:r:--ent ':.:: an of:':. :=.r of TOne County of Orange, a false a.:-Ij !"r<::.uc.ul-!nt c~~i;:tJ bill, ac:ount, voucher and w'rit1ng agal!".s~ ~a~::i: ":'').,.;;-';:; 0:: Or's'r,;::e, s~i:" J.:"":""ice;- of tha County of O!"a..:1.ge being :~6~ ~~d :~~~e 2~:.:~:!~~d ~~~ ~ilo~'~d to pay said bill, accQu~t s,::':1 ·,;.,,\it::;; ~f 2:c~u~~.?, to-, !.~; c:airr! 1'01" cx~enses tn:;Zi.l~!'ed t;):1

::. ":!"1; t:. ~:",;:;.:.a a.~':: ....,':!:c.:.: '., :':~:;::,a5~a,

::::0:;;:7 I';: ':l':le 0::'"3.:1C. Su!"j' of the County of Orange, State or :':a:.!.forn:'a, cy this i"o\l:>th ::: ;)t..:'.t of this IndlctrrLent, her~ty ft;,r­tn;;r acc~so!s ANDRea,} J. HINS:"l_';W of a Felony J to-w-i t: Viola-;;1on of Se~tiona ~cij-~81 Of the Pe~~l Code of the State of Calirornia, in tnat on or abo~t the 27th day of July, 1971, in the County of urar.ge, Sta~e of CalirQ:r'r'!.ie.~ the said ANDRE\'; J _ HINSHA\f'did will­fully 1 L:.r.la~:rully ar.d fe!or:.iously take the personal prop~t't.y of the C~un~y of Orange, Califo~nlal consisting of la~ful n~ney of -::h-e ur.ite.1 States J i:hich Il"-'~l:-E'~· \iaS j:)ub11c fc.nds of the Cou:"~ty of '::'1!.;;i;e.

It !s fJrther alleGed ~~a; the erir.e alleged ~n t~is ~ou~th COllnt of tl:is IndictlTlent ·.~as discovered by the People ..... ith5..n three :.'e~r's i~:.",,=,d.ia:~ly preceaing ';;1':= da';e of this Indictr.;ent ano. not 9:'lor tneT';;"Gc.

CQU}lT V: The Grand Jury or the County of Orange", St2.i:e of -:alifornia, by this fifth. count ot this Indictment hereby further accuses MtDRE\" J. HINSH.IIJ'1 of..' a Felony ~ to-l'11t ~ Vi~lat1on of Sec ... tion 68 of the Penal Code of the State of California, in that on or about the 13th day of Decer.be~, 1972, in the County of O~ange, State of Callfol"l1ia, the said P-~~DREt4 J. HINSHA\" did willfully,

19

:.lr.la:';fill:i.y ar,j k:1o~lin~:,~; sa ... :,. ::,.::::=~"!e aro'::' ag::-ea to re:c,,=!.";-a o!' a:-.:1 :"rorn the Taney Co:t~?o!"a.'~iC4, a c!':':e, !;o-l-,·it: ste!"'eo co-.po!"J.S'!"!ts for the PUl'pose of irti'::,J.ene~:.g -:::= 2.tjtior. or said Qe-i·enje..:':t an1 u:;Jo!l an agreer:oent and t.:.~:iS':,s;a!".~!.!:S t!:.at the vote,) o:Q!.~:'a!l 9.!",ci a~tion at sa1a defendan: U~J~ a =~~:er then a~d ther! p~~jing e~~ which might be brough~ ~efo~~ ~~5 said def~nd~nt in ~1s official ~ayaclty.J to-r:lt: ~.ss'!s.so!' of J!"E.nge C04nty, Ce.11!'o!"nia, should os influenced thereby, sai~ d2t~~1ant being then and there an executive officer and e:.ployee ~!' the County ot Orange, S~ate at Cal1tornia.

COUIIT VI: The Gr .. "d Ju:,y ~:: ~he County of O:oa.r.ge. State of California" by this si;{~h C:O"..l..."':~ Qf' til1s Indictment" het"l!b:r further accuses AND~EW J. HINS:!:A\i' of a Felony ~ ttl-wit: Violation o!' Sec­tion 68 of the Penal Cod~ of ~~e State of California, in th~t on or about the 18th da.y of Hay ~ 1372, in the County of Orange, St-ate of California. the said AND~E;~ J. llINSHA1; did "ill fully • unla"­fully and knowingly ask, reoe!.\"e ar.d ag!""ee to receive Oi" an~ f::"o:.l James Buxton and the Tendl Ccrpcrat1on~ a bribe, to-wit: a ca~­palgn cont~lbut1on in tne a~ou~~ o~ $1,000 tor the purpose of 1n­fluenc1ng the action of said d=~endant and ~pon an agreement and understa.nding that the.vo~e, oti::l1on and action of' sa.id detend.e.nt upon a matter then and the~~ pe~~ir.g and which might be b~ough~ before the said derenda~~ 1~ h~5 o~tie1al capacity, to-wit: Assessor of Orange CO':Jh -;y, :=-1~:":.:on1a, should be 1nfluenced ther-!­by, said defendant be~~; t~en ~~d ~he~e an executive or~1cer and employee or tha County or j~ar.~a" State of Californ!a.

COl::1T VI!: The O!"'ana J'.;.r''i ':I:''' the Coanty of Orange~ State of: :a11fo:r-n1a, by this se\-e!lt!:. :0'.:.:1-: of' th1s Inci1ctmen!., hereby fUr"­t;.her accuses A~JaR8W J. H:;::;SX;.~·: 0.:"' a F<elony, to-wit: V1olation of Section 68 of the Penal Coie of ~~e Sta~e of California, in that "n or about the ~5th da.:! of :·:a:.-- ~ 1372. in the Count::r of C~=t~ge, State of Callforn1.ri, the sa!.: ';'.:;J?3H ;;. nI.I;S}!A~i did w11:!.fully J

~~lawrull, and knowingly as~, ~e~eive a~d aSree to ~eoeive ot and trom Ron Steelman J a b:-i'te, -;0-:·:1 t: campaign cont!'~b~t:ron$ for the purpose of in:luene1~g t~e action of said de£enda~t and upon. an agreement and u:;ae:'s': a.r.'!~ng tha-= the vote, opln.!.o!1 a.",d action or said defendant upo~ ! ~etter tber. and there pending and ~h1ch might be brought b~fo~~ ~he said defendant in his o~r1c1al capacity, to-wit: Assessor of ~:,a~ge County. California, should be intluenoed thereby" said ~e~~~dan~ being then and there ~n exe­cutive orr1c~r and e~ploJee cf ~~a Goun~y of O~a~ge~ State of California.

And the Grand Jury turt~e~ alleges that froo on or about ~he 12th d~ of October, 1972, a~d fo~ seven days iumed1a~ely there­art.er,' the said ANDR~"': J. :n:~S::_~~il was outside the State of Cali­fornia.

COUNT VIII: The O::-an:i :1,;1::Y a t the County of Oran&e J Sta.~e of Celifo!"nie.~ by this eig::. .. h co'~::-;; of' this Indictment I ne::-ecl fur­ther aecuses Ai"lDRE14 J. 1i:;:?iS~;:,'; 0:" B .Felony» to-wit: Vlo1-2.tion ot: Section ~24(1) of the P~~a~ ~c=~ ot the State of Ca11ro~~1a, in that on or about the 27~h ~~J ~~ Oc~ober" 1972~ in the County o~

20

::';,:--.ef.-, S-:-=.':o5' c~ Cal:'f'or'!".ie, :':.9 sai:! .... ~mR::l,\. J. HIliSH"A!': ~·:a~ ,»33=55::- '::>::' O:,s.:.;;e C'ounty, :a:::.t:).':"nie.~ and fl.5 such 'W~E\ cha:=-oge:i ';!.:.:: ~:::e ";:'a::'ls,:"e:' end di3b-.:..~.=-=~.;::1'·v of public mcnie$. tc;>-\·:it: :' .... :'" . .::.,;; c:' ::-:a C~·J.:-:.'t;y 'of Ora."};=- ~ a!'!.d did 'Jnla·:ri"ully a1?propl"'1ate-. SL:.:!lt :';:.:::::- :"'~o:.:es ';0 his o',.;n 115~ ~r . .:l to the use of e.nothe:'. (\-lages of" :':::-:::5 So'-'~~.:'.~i5.) . _"

::r.n::, :r:.:: ::;:ahe Orand J;..t!"! Ij~ the County of Orange.t· State :¢r ;: :'c:'!:'c:':!ia, r:.y t!lis nin~h c:)''':''';\: of this Indlctr..ent,· he!'ebY.~"'lJiti1er.: ='-::!":'S=5 .~.::J~:::',{ J. HIJ!SHA1,1 0::" ~ ?elony, to-~·tit: Violation of 8ec- .' :.~~~ ~2~(1) o~ t~e Penal Co~e of the State oT Califarn1a~ 1~ that c:; 0::" s:;:'ou:;. the 15th day of ::o":er1ber, 1972, in the Count~' of. Cl'angifJ ~'::s:>= :J:!' Ca::"iforr..ia

J the saic hmmEW J. HlrrSHA1~' was AsSes,Sol!" of

'):"'~:".~; Go'!.:.:::~· ~ California, a::'!a es such Has- charged with th; trans": .:-.-=:" ~!':.d c.~S::l~r5e:1ent of p~;:::,l!c :nonies, to-i'11t: fund~ of the. ,'1. Cc· .... :1.-:y of Ct"E.nge ~ and did ur.:a-;o;fully ap.propriate I;>uc.h pUbl~.Q. , J~ -:=-:-:~e5 to his Olo(n use ar..d to t!-'.e use of .. another. ("'ages. ot Georg, '~ ;:~-;():" .. )

'::JIJ:::r X: The "Grand J'J:'~' of the County of' OrangeJ State·.qf: ~~~ ':::;:: ~:'.c :"'"1:c, oy t!1is tenth cO·J!l-; of this Indictrr.ent. hereoy t"u.::-ttfei" i:.'::: .. 5-5E. ... :~:::t:=:'.'! 3. H.!NSH.O:,i o!' a ?elony~ to-l:it: V16) . ..at1on c~ Sec:­:~:~ -~~(l) o~ t~~ Pe~al c~~~ :~ the State of Cal~forn1a, i~ ~h~t ::::: ~::' ~::c..r: :;.'::! 21st day c:: :'e:::e!""bel") 1972; in the COUllty 'ot ::'~:'.£"-eJ 3::::::.e ~!' Cali!'ot'!1ia J t~;;!' sa:!.d A~~JRE\'l J. HINSHA1-! \·;,as Asses­s:::~ .... .::;:" J~::..:~~ ;::)..1'1ty J Cali,:-,::~ ..... ::'a, and 8.5 5!-,ch \'·as char-;e.::! \'i1t=.t tlie :::"~:".s; .. ~::,, ~;.i 5:S::l...!'!:i';-i':cr:"'; c:' ~.:.~:ic r;onies". to-~!l·t; fl!nds of the :: .. :-.-;:. :>:' ::':-a:" . .;:=, a:"!d did _:::a· ... ·.: ....... lly a.pp.::-opr!_at~ such pub11c. ~:::~-=:; -::. :-.:'5 .: .. :::: us~ a:-!1 -.::: ""-::e us:; o~ a.r:.o-;.r.e::-. {\i.abe-a of' ,Joe s-: ?-:--.::'".~ :It:. ;: .

.. _- ::' ·.··;,~·:::h is c'::Il"':~:,a:,:: ::0 the rO-:";n~ for~= and effect Q~ the S-;a~""J.:.e :'..n s:..;.~h eases r'laae 2.;.c. pI"ovided." ar.d a6a1nst the· pea-de' an4: . '!':'~::-.~:J 0':" -:';-.9 People of ~:;e S':.a';e of' Ca.liforn~a. '

21

z;, _.- ... ". r ;:I -,. ~ 'I'" r ~ • .... . ... .:::. ................... . -.r.: ~ ~ o. e.t"1an ~ Gr~nd J UI'Y J

.:, . .:.r..~y of ~r~:oge/_ State of Californ:!a, ~O~ t~e year 197q-75~

C3CI:' RICKS C~::;I:' :::LC::S) V:!.strict. Attcl":1ey for the CO';'::1,';;Y 0;: D~a~5e, St a.te of California

22

_ WlTllESSES EXJUoUllZ!l 3:::o'ORE THE GR,\ND JURY -

JOE CERNIE KEN l1AC LEOD HI['LIAi-l HUGHES JP.CK PATRICK AUGUSTINE HERRERA ALICE HAIIDOVA KAREN liORTHEN SANDRA NORTEN RALPH l1ABTIII IHNSTON BOl;t~AN

JMiES Jr:U DEVINE RONALD STEEL!4AN EDI'IARD KATO VIARREN HA Yl'IARD PAUL M. STEWART VALERIE CLARK JEAN GRUBAUGH JOHN EBERT LAURA HAGAN JOHN DAVIS HOI'IARD \lHITCOf13 PHIL ROEHR '

~like RAITH

DICK HERS JH! BUX~ON* JOE}r CCLErliAN CP.ARLES KENN8rrT JOE: STP.~CHECK ';'''AlS HINSHA\l =::H!N C. NORTE:, l/AYIlE EVERETT :,!..I!.X F. DUNN JA~I1ES r·:c CLURE ALFRED VASQUEZ SAlolUEL E. DYER JACK VALLEAGA :<iICHAEL PATTN<:R JOHN BURT 011 DAVID aZRTRAND .~liDREH H. HINS;tAW arLL HIllSHAI, GERI FORD DON STO~Y IRSNE BSATTY 'IIILLIAM L. EVANS ANDREIi J. HINS"A\;

Presented by the Forecan ot the Grand Jury of the County of Orange~ State of California, for the year 19~1 in the presence of the Grand Jury~ to the Superior Court of the-state of California, in and for the County of Orange, and filed as a record of this Court, thls 6th day of H •. v , 19~.

w. B. ST JOHN, COONTY CLER~ and Cle~k of the Super~or Court of the State ot Ca~ifornia) in and for the County of Ora.:l.ge _

By: J. ft rJ (I': C i3,.,. t> f

CECIL HICKS, DISTRICT ATTOP~1E:Y of the County of Orange, state of California

DdS ,~Ji:u·Mw· A yg~\W~~ OFI~Fllt~ ON ~IU Iii lHI5 or"et

"""'. MAY 13 1975 "_ WILLIAM E. ST JOHN

C.~"'f 0., ...... Clod ... It.. S~...,'I .. e,"." .,II~. SI,t. ole.lIIo ... ,. I" Inol,"

~r .. I 0,..,_

23

ExmBrr D ,

f \ LEO JAN '2 6 \916

~l)~' 'y cl,'\; IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TilE STATE OF C~LIFORNIAWllL\~; ~ ~t:l~ <'"~",.'fj

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE .. _-_ • - - •

The- P/:!opfe or du~ Stace 01 Cahlomia Pla.intiU

n.

No. C-34033

VERDICT ANDREW J. HINS8AW

Ddemdant

We:' the Jury in the abovt I!'nutic:'d aCliOfl find tb~ Defendant, ANDREW J. HINSHAW,

GUILTY of the crime of Felony, to-wit: Violation of Section 68 of

the Penal Code of the State of California {B~ibery), as charged in

Count V of the Indictment.

L

24

EXHIBIT E

rtlt:o, JI\N2& 1976

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~d~ . CoUI't

IN AND FGR THE COUNTY GF GRANGE Will.\' .' . 1

C!-~

The PlNJpl.e of the Stall' of C.lifomi. Plauuirl

ND, C-34033

ANDREW J. Hl~SHAW VERDICT

We the Jury io me abQ'IIc C'nli.tled IIcli,on find the Ode-ndill'" I ANDaEW oJ. HlNSHAW,

GUILTY of the crime of Felony, to-wit: Violation of Section 68 of

the Penal Code of the State of California (BriberY)6 as charg~d in

Count VI of the Indictment.

25

EXHlBrr F

IN TIlE SUPERIOR COURT OF T~\ ,STATE OF CALIFO~ I LED IN AND FOR THE C~NTY O. ORANGE "'_ "

ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT FEB 25 1976 {eo-l&Menl1o state PIt ...

- ;.'.

Ca!C No. C .:::.~~!l!:=~'t==:::::=::... ''''- .

Prt'klllt:. ~! '" ...... H .. , .,c R08E:i<-r P; KNEELAND

JIIW ... ,. "'I iUH_NII tiNwr

. ~.~- .. I : ~ ft.

" ANDRE:W a. HINSHAW

MIC~A£L R. CAPIZZI, Dep. D.A. ,."hicu4U ... no~u,.

W. ~~SHALL MORGAN

(2)

of. ("tlme of'' Felony. to-wlt:c , , , 'r ~-"-. '- ,

ltt Y!olatiQQ~' ., Section 68 of the Pena.l Code of thl!!! state of California l ... trl".Mn '" can ~II ......... Tnt:, I"UU~III' "'''lItO 010110 IUI_nu,,,. fUUllf, ,,. AliT ~'"Ln .. 1

.. lth ptlor fll!!~ t:rn'¥:ietioas.1I- foll_.:

DAT~. COWITY AND STATE CRIME. DISPOSIT[ON..

, ,

, ,

oei~ada;itll;. bcea'i:ii:Jd ]n-c:u!JUHIy (0;--0 .- d~"I11.11~. ~lvii oiCbp:' •• mi'"rimitiae act or actS -;o,;;:bich he h .. been conwclcd. '.

De/ea.dant was not limed w,ith II dellCllr weapon lit die- tim~ 01 his commission olthe o/fp:llse or. concealed , . iWIt.I"'.~llIflj - - , .. •• ~ •

dc"dlr W!!".~ .r. -!hI! tim!!" of bit IiItCSr. ""ia-,in the IIfIlI'ltnin, of SecdoL'ls 969e: .. lid 3024 gf the Penal coae. Dde~d:liAt was not. atml!d whh II deAdly "'Cfl.p<lrI .. t the ti~ of hJs commiu]on (of th~ t;>f/l!'n5t: within me ........ "/II" ... n

1IIII1NJn~,.t Se:crJo .. .I" 96~ "r .. ! 120n of the P~n" ~t". ~I.endanr did not " fire.rm jn .hill conuniuhm. of the offense within the lIIeanrn~ -of ~(:"tio.na 969d .nd

IUU.D .... ID "D' UlI-II

12022.j 01 the Penal eode, ". :;..

_. ._ ..• '. un,"",." 'ORUOI'" '''1''''U'l~T T~ t .. ~ "ou., Dr ""I~" "HI."DAHr ..... n.wnUO.1

Dr/endant was not .djudged.n hlibirual.:;rlminal within ene meanin& of Sub-divi5io~ or: ~l ~(;tioll 644 'W&I O ..... , • .,.,. r ~ , .. J 1;1. 1101

• ·of the Penal Code; II.nd che ddcndlnt is not. II.tI PI.bitu.1 r:rim-inll in .(CClrd.net -..,jth Sub-dj\'ls.ion (c) of th"t Sli!efion. "~I 911 '. "1I>t1 •

.,;:&!t. __ , ..... ~ ...

26

0) IT IS THEREfORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED thu dte .aid defendant be puollhed by illl.".Ja"_ ment jn the S(jatc' Pri!lOll of ftll: StlIIle: of Ohf.,mi" leI the t.elm pru.,.ldl:d by I ... , and dI,,[ he be rc ... niled UJ lILe Shl':riif "I the County o( Onana!: Ilon4 by him debvcrr:d f.j:l the Dirct'lor of CouectioM of die: Sr.IC- (II o..lifoml. at

Institution, for Men at:. Chino. California " Court: recolJUtlended minimum sentence. _' _

:' ..:.. :::

Court released defendant on his own recogni~&nce pend~P9 II Iii owered, thal $eotc'ncc~ .. b.n be serv.ed in r.eSp!:-I:-t ro Of!.1I: _pom.el I'll folio.=- (CC Uf 0):

appeal.

• lind in u:specl.to an)' prlotlntOfllpleted IClircnc<:'C15J as follln!'s (ee Of CS):- .. ". ~ ~ • o:.~

Concurrently- (" ~.:

.---~---------'-----~--------'----- -. I , , . ,~(4)-Tolh-eShelj(foTd.e· cou'iity of Orange aiidtO chifiir~ci:';;ol ccuuitfor.,.r -thli--Cali fOrrii&..,-Qit1 tul;1 On ~--;;;~~~~-~r~'i ~~.~:~~.;) ;~-r-:~-a ~ ._. -nu • h .. _. --r--- u ._- • .- ,-. , q ~~

;-'" PursuIIoOilo we ~foresll.i:d illdpebt:this-i~··w c:o.a1m.nd you~th~·s.id Sherinl to' delivcr U;-i'l.bO";;.niiiii-d .defe.' t - - . . .... - - -'.-- '. ... . - .. - '-"-"-~--- --4

'_. illtQ the custody of the Direc:tolof ~~/£cc:r.ida. AI WI!" Cdilottlia InulIubOIl fClt Men "--~-.-.-- -~ .~ ..,I

.1 'Chino. ;-c.lif~;i •• -aty~w·e;rb~;t~on";ni.e';ce:' .--.~~.- .. _~...J

'.

:;, .. Stll~t af C.liIo~i"l Collnty of Otlln~ _ $11.

I do hereby cenify the foresoin3 tD No • true and COrlett .bstl"act of tbi! judliment dul)' IJIIIde lind _lIIinutt-s or duo: t.llperior court ~n me ahave enticled aeEiatl ~" plovidt-d by Pen.1 Code Se(;r~!, 1213." ~ , ... ~.

-'.F"'e"b"r"u"a"'r""y'--____ , lSJ~.

By , F '/77 .. -'-:1 '~orQn~ ... ' ROEERT P. KNEELAND ~- '~~-" -... --- .

;:-::-:;::::-;:;:::::::-:7:""...:..:::=:..::,:.:.---______ ]udSt- of thc Superior Court of the Stale of Calife-mil in .nlll lar Ihe County of OtJItlgt, .,. 't . .,

Proba.tIon lI:polt .uached.

Probation Icpo!r not IIovailabl<:'. ,.

27

EXHIBIT G •

..tt·o~ Appellate District, 'I ",oj, I 0..1. 0 OftAN8! county/Ron. Robert P. lCneeland Judge Superior Court No C-34033 Co_ ofActkJaJ~G_ra_nc...d,--Th_._ft ______ _

Nollce of Appeal Filed, J - 2 - 26 -76 DIVISION !WO

:.. "

o