The Catonsville Nine File
About the siteAbout the collections
HomeThe planning and consequences of the Catonsville Nine actionThe trial of the Catonsville NineHistorical context of the Catonsville Nine actionProfiles of the Catonsville NineBrowse the collections
Some pertinent facts: Catonsville 9 action
1 / 4 Next
Some pertinent facts: Catonsville 9 action
View smaller version of imageDivision of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library
Collection: Cornell University Library
Date: 1968
Date of Digitization: 2004
Source: Daniel and Philip Berrigan Collection at the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library
Original Dimensions: ?
Creator: ?
Description:
These are some notes pertinent to the trial of the Catonsville Nine in Baltimore in October 1968.

Transcription: 
1

                                                             Some Pertinent Facts
                                                             Catonsville 9 Action


The question:    Jury conscience!

The 9 defendants are convicted of: (three counts, 18yrs total
          and 22,000. fine):

          a)	distroying and mutilating of property in custody
                  of the US govt. in excess of $100 willfully & damage
                          (10 yrs. and $10,000)

          b)    distroying and mutilating of property of the US.    distruction of bush
                     govt. 
                                       (3yrs. and $2,000.)

          c)	interfering with the administration of the Selective
                     Service system. of 1967 
                                   (5yrs. and $10,000.)

            [first of the original four counts - conspiracy to do all
                  three acts - was dropped]

 At the trial all the defendents admitted the act or acts and
           even took pride in them.

      they argued on intent - that they lacked criminal
             intent (what they did was right in view of their
             belief that this War is illegal, immoral and uncon
             stitutional.

	Defense had experts to prove reasonable grounds but these 
               weren’t necessary for the governmtnt conceded:

                      1)  that reasonable men could hold that the War 
                             was illegal and immoral. (first time)

                      2)  that the defendents were sincerely motivated 

  of interest - 
           No mention of napalm by govt.