Jul 12, 2023
Podcast #28 recounts the testimonies of three black
Washingtonians named Catlett. Claudia Catlett, the Hisses’
household servant, had only one memory of Chambers being in the
Hiss house. She’d likely have seen him more if he’d been
coming by regularly to pick up spy documents. Two of her
sons, teenagers when the alleged spying occurred, did handyman jobs
for the Hisses and received The Hiss Home Typewriter from the
Hisses as part payment for helping them move within Georgetown,
maybe in December 1937. If the Catlett Kids had the
Typewriter in early 1938 (the dates of The Typed Spy Documents),
obviously The Typed Spy Documents were typed when the Hisses no
longer had the Typewriter. That exonerates Hiss, doesn’t
it? Unfortunately for Hiss, the three Catletts proved very
weak on cross-examination, changing their stories often and in ways
that hurt Hiss. Their changes are excellent proof of the
value of cross-examination. And if the Typewriter was in the
Catlett’s house when The Spy Documents were typed on it, how could
Chambers have found it there and done the typing himself? Can
you picture Chambers sneaking into a black household and typing 64
pages of documents? Wouldn’t someone notice a smelly white
guy, missing half his teeth, banging away at the Typewriter for
hours?
FURTHER RESEARCH
Two journalists who covered the trials and were sympathetic to
the Hisses gave remarkably unfavorable accounts of the Catletts’
testimonies. Alistair Cooke (at 183) describes Mrs. Catlett
as “a big comfortable . . . simple, intelligent woman, a devoted
servant and friend of the Hisses with a happy memory of her work
with them and a grateful memory for many favors.” Cooke,
however, describes (at 187) one of her sons as embodying the
extreme low point of human articulateness. John Chabot Smith, who believed Hiss innocent,
concedes (at 373) that the Catletts “didn’t remember the details
very clearly” and “were too vague to stand up under Murphy’s
cross-examination.” Murphy, says Smith (at 374), shot down
their story about the Typewriter “easily, and there was no way for
the defense to repair the damage.” One Catlett Kid “became
more and more confused and resentful” as his cross-examination
wound on.(Smith at 374.). “It was all very confusing and fatiguing,
and by the time it was over there wasn’t much left of Hiss’s main
line of defense.” (Smith at 377.)
The aforementioned Catlett Kid complained about his treatment
by one FBI agent, and Prosecutor Murphy later had the agent testify
that he had treated young Catlett fairly. Lloyd Paul
Stryker’s cross-examination of the FBI agent was a masterpiece,
according to Cooke. Over 40 minutes Stryker “insinuate[d] the
sort of terrorism that would throw an illiterate colored [sic,
remember we’re back in the 1940s] family into more kinds of
confusion than a forgetfulness about dates.” He tried to make
the FBI’s appearance and interrogations resemble an afternoon with
the KGB or The Spanish Inquisition.It was “a bravura performance .
. . that probably few modern lawyers could rival, in this age of
the bureaucrat and the corporation lawyer sticking prosily to his
brief. . . . [Stryker loosed] an ack-ack crackle of
insinuation that had the court reporter’s good right hand shuttling
like a piston” (Cooke at 233) and “squeez[ed] every simple answer
for some diabolical F.B.I. intent.” (Cooke at
236.)
Questions:In evaluating the Catletts’ testimonies, ponder a
few variables. First, what weight do you give their very
friendly association with the Hisses? (The Hisses attended a
Catlett family wedding in the 1940s and paid the Catletts money to
help them find the Typewriter.). Second, can you expect anyone to
remember with precision the month of an event that occurred 10 to
15 years before and that was unremarkable at the time? Third,
the Catletts were black people at a time of segregation, hundreds
of miles from home and surrounded by powerful white men asking them
skillfully shaded questions. Even if it’s understandable that
they gave varying answers, does that leave you able to believe with
confidence any of their answers, whether favorable or unfavorable
to Hiss?
This completes The Hiss Defense. Has it (a) convinced
you that Hiss was not guilty, (b) raised a reasonable doubt in your
mind about Hiss’s guilt, or (c) been such a mess that, added to The
Prosecution’s evidence, it strengthened the case that Hiss was
guilty? I know of a federal ex-prosecutor who says that more
defendants should say absolutely nothing, put on no defense, and
insist that the government has not proved its case, as it must,
beyond a reasonable doubt. He says he always rejoiced when a
defendant mounted a big defense because almost always, in
cross-examining the defendant’s witnesses, he proved things that
were essential or helpful to The Prosecution’s case. Do you
think Prosecutor Murphy proved much with his cross-examination of
Hiss’s witnesses? On the whole, did Hiss’s witnesses help or
hurt Hiss?