by Lenny Bruce
Now there was a witness to that scene, a young attorney from a prominent Philadelphia family. He couldn’t believe what he saw. He said to me, “I figured maybe his secretary gets a pen, but to be that blatant . . .”
After the hearing, outside the court, reporters asked me if I had any statement.
“Yes, I’d like to say that so-and-so’s a crook!”
“What?”
I gave the details. Then I spotted the witness standing in the crowd. I grabbed him, identified him and asked: “Is this true?”
“Yes, and the whole idea was thoroughly repugnant to me . . .”
The headline in the Philadelphia Daily News read, “COMIC BRUCE CLAIMS TRY AT SHAKEDOWN IN NARCOTICS CASE.” They were going to have an investigation, with me as material witness.
Are they kidding? Let them schlep in Sonny Liston instead. Believe it or not, I have a dread of being a martyr.
Medication in any form proves to be a deterrent to me now. When I was very ill, coming down with pneumonia—in San Francisco, and then again in Miami—I got turned down by doctors.
I said, “I’m sick, are you kidding?”
“Look, there’s a lot of heat on . . .”
The peace officers’ explanation, continually, for the medication I use intravenously is this: they say that I just take the non-narcotic to cover up the narcotic that I take.
The Red Hill Inn . . . Philadelphia . . . over a thousand Methedrine prescriptions later . . . muy-multimiligrams self-injected with disposable syringes that bring memos from irate managers . . . “In all the years that I have been the custodian of the Selkirk Hotel Circuit, we have never had a toilet stopped up with needles before . . .”
There is a well-known hobby shop in the Sherman Oaks section of Los Angeles. It is one of the most unique stores in all of California. They had a $10,000 remote-control sports-car track. One afternoon I went to look at the sports cars.
I wound up being booked on a narcotics possession charge.
Sergeant John L. White testified in court that he saw me drop a matchbook containing a packet of heroin and run into a bicycle shop, that he followed me in, frisked me for weapons, and arrested me.
“Mr. Bruce,” the District Attorney asked me, “do you think that these officers have to frame people? That’s what you’re saying when you deny dropping this pack of matches.”
The judge interceded: “I think instead of ‘framing,’ you can say ‘tell an untruth.’ I’d like that better. ‘Take the stand and tell an untruth under oath’ rather than the word ‘frame.’”
You’d assume that legions of perjurers would ask with feigned innocence: “Well, how come a peace officer swore to God and then lied?”
Yes, why would peace officers lie to the Lord or whatever deity that our hellish Constitution thwarts? They said they had a hobby shop under surveillance. They did not have any persons under surveillance besides the owner of the hobby shop. But they had no warrant to enter the hobby shop, so in order to keep within the margin of the law, they had to wait until a person left the shop who was a criminal.
If they could catch a criminal coming out—namely, Lenny Bruce allegedly drops a packet of matches, which they can construe as a furtive action—then they’d have a probable cause and could go into the hobby shop without a warrant.
Which they did.
The owner was charged with possession of heroin, pleaded guilty and was committed to the Department of Correction as a narcotics addict.
When it was my turn to take the stand, I had refused to swear on the Bible. “It seems like sort of a mockery to do this,” I explained. “I don’t really care to but I will. I don’t mean to be contemptuous of the court, but———”
The judge interrupted: “I don’t understand your thinking in this matter. That is the custom here and the rule is that you have to take an oath to get on the stand.”
(Actually, you have the legal alternative of simply “affirming” to tell the truth.)
The judge continued: “Do you have any objection to it? If it’s a mockery, that is your personal opinion. You have a right to your opinion, but that is the way we do it here.”
“Yes, sir.”
“All right, swear the witness.”
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the matter now pending before this court, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I will tell the truth.
The bicycle-shop man and his assistant both substantiated my testimony that the arrest never took place. The assistant, incidentally, was a 15-year-old kid with a harelip who went to parochial school.
The jury found me guilty of possession of heroin.
I had private detectives interview individuals of the jury—a perfectly legal procedure—and the following is an excerpt from a report of their findings:
Briefly, the . . . jury membership, generally speaking, made various incredible statements; to wit, Mr. Bruce’s manner of dress and his way of taking the oath, both contributed to a number of jurors’ decision that he was guilty as charged. Further, more than one juror expressed knowledge of Mr. Bruce’s activities, which knowledge . . . they denied they had prior to taking an oath in order to serve on his jury. A juror alleged that the jury had knowledge of “other evidence” not “brought out” in the trial, which did influence them in their final verdict. A juror stated that a young boy who was employed in a bike shop, which bike shop was the locale around which there was conflicting testimony, “was obviously tutored”; the juror went on to state that this “tutored” boy witness contributed to the guilty verdict because he had been “tutored.”
One juror had been asked, during the selection of the jury, “Have you read or heard anything about [Lenny Bruce], either through magazine articles, newspapers, or otherwise?” She answered: “No, I have not.”
But private investigator Seymour Wayne’s post-trial taped interview with her elicited the following:
Q. Well, for example, when you, uh, does, er, the newspaper there, the radio, there, the TV———
A. I saw [Lenny Bruce] on TV even before he was on trial.
Q. Before [he was on] trial, er, you saw him on TV. Where did you see him on TV?
A. When he was picked up on the news.
Q. Oh, I see. I did not know they had a movie of it.
A. Are you kidding? It’s been on there since then a couple of times.
Q. Meaning tha———
A. Picked up again! After he was convicted he was picked up again.
Q. . . . Wait a minute, before the trial started there [was] news of his being arrested or picked up?
A. Why, sure. And didn’t you know about this?
The interview with another juror included this dialog:
Q. What about when Bruce got up to be sworn in? What was your feeling about what happened there?
A. Well, it certainly was confusing, uh———
Q. How did you feel about it?
A. Well, it—I don’t think it did him any good, frankly. He almost refused to take the oath. I forget the exact words, but he turned to the judge and said something about isn’t this a farce, or something, that you should take an oath before testifying.
Q. How do you feel about it?
A. Confused, I mean, what I—I don’t know what his back—what his reasoning would be, but they certainly expect people to come up and raise their hand and swear to tell the truth. Now, when he doesn’t, what do you think? I don’t know—I was thoroughly confused at why.
Q. Did you dislike him for it?
A. Not necessarily dislike him. I certainly didn’t understand it. It is a customary thing in court—you testify—or you swear to tell the truth.
Q. How—did some of the other jurors make comments about the incident?
A. Yes, they certainly did.
Possession of heroin is a felony for which I could be given two years in prison. The court, however, adjourned criminal proceedings so that my fate could be decided by “Depart
ment 95,” pursuant to the terms of Senate Bill 81. California’s legislative branch was responsible for this bill, the purpose of which is theoretically to halt the cruel punishment that was being forced upon sick persons, i.e., narcotics addicts.
It is the function of a Department 95 hearing “to determine whether the defendant is addicted to the use of narcotic drugs or by reason of repeated use of narcotics is in imminent danger of becoming so addicted.”
Thus, the judge was making it possible for me to have, instead of two years in prison, ten years of rehabilitation—if I’m eligible—based on the recommendation of two physicians appointed by the court.
“Mr. Bruce, you’re lucky, we’re going to give you ten years of help.”
“I don’t deserve it, really, I’m a rotten bastard . . .”
My Department 95 hearing was held: “The People of the State of California, for the best interest and protection of society and Lenny Bruce, an Alleged Narcotic Drug Addict.”
Dr. Thomas L. Gore, Chief Psychiatrist in Los Angeles Superior Court, stated: “[Lenny Bruce] is a narcotic drug addict.” Dr. Berliner, who “examined” me with Dr. Gore, concurred: “I believe that Mr. Bruce is a narcotic drug addict.”
My attorney cross-examined Dr. Gore:
Q. When did you sign this certificate [stating that Lenny Bruce is a narcotic addict]?
A. I signed it shortly after the examination was made.
Q. You signed the certificate before you came to court today to hear any other testimony, isn’t that correct, Doctor?
A. I made a statement which was very plain English. I signed the certificate in the room immediately above this within ten minutes after you and your client had walked out of the room.
Q. Are you familiar, Doctor, with the provision in the law that enables you to hear all the testimony that comes before the court before offering your certificate to have someone placed in the Narcotic Drug Rehabilitation Center? . . .
A. I haven’t submitted this thing yet. I have it right here in front of me.
Q. Is the copy you have in front of you signed?
A. Yes . . .
THE COURT: It is signed, and Doctor, if you care to, take the court’s pen and strike your signature . . . [The doctors] could easily add or subtract to their testimony if they found pertinent information or evidence adduced which may tend to cause them to alter, or change their testimony.
Q. If the Judge had not directed you to take the pencil and strike out your name, Doctor, would you have changed that signature based on any testimony that you may have heard here today?
A. I haven’t heard any.
Q. If you had heard testimony to the contrary of your own opinion, would you have crossed out your signature and submitted the certificate?
A. If I had heard a dozen witnesses testify, I would still sign the certificate.
There were a few doctors who testified in my defense.
First, Dr. Keith Dittman stated that the best way a doctor could determine conclusively whether or not a man is a narcotic addict would be to hospitalize him and see him develop withdrawal symptoms and then counteract those symptoms of withdrawal with the drug to which he is believed to be addicted. This would be done within the period of a week or possibly two weeks.
Q. Doctor, now can you tell me whether or not you feel any qualified physician could conclusively conclude [as did Gore and Berliner] . . .
that any person was a narcotic addict after a 15, 20, or 30-minute interview and visual examination of the veins?
A. I don’t know of any way that it can be done.
Q. Is it an accepted method to merely visually observe the veins of a person and in the absence of observation under clinical conditions to make a conclusion [as did Gore and Berliner] that a person is a narcotic addict?
A. You mean only to confine it to that? No.
Q. Doctor, could the injection into the vein of a non-narcotic over a period of time under some circumstances produce discoloration or certain visual conditions that are similar to conditions that might be occasioned over a period of time from the injection of a narcotic?
A. Yes.
Q. During the course of your examination of Mr. Bruce, was it brought to your attention . . . that he had received over a period of time any Methedrine?
A. He told me who was prescribing it. I asked him if it was all right that I call that doctor to talk with him about it, and I did, and the doctor confirmed that he was by prescription giving Methedrine and the hypodermic syringes.
Next Dr. Norman Rotenberg, whose patient I have been since 1959, was called to the stand. My attorney examined him.
Q. . . . Now, Doctor, in your opinion, are you able to distinguish between marks that exist on a person’s arm that might have been occasioned by an injection of narcotics or may have been occasioned by an injection of a non-narcotic?
A. No, in my opinion there is no method of distinguishing between marks, sir.
Q. . . . Dr. Rotenberg, over the years . . . how many times would you say you saw Mr. Bruce?
A. . . . Perhaps I have seen him a dozen times in the office.
Q. With regard to these 12 visits over approximately a three-and-a-half-year period of time—or let’s say, four visits, approximately quarterly, every three months—let’s talk about those. On any of these visits, did Mr. Bruce appear to you to be undergoing withdrawal from narcotic drugs?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Are you familiar with the traditional symptoms that are occasioned by someone who has a reliance upon a narcotic drug when he is going through the withdrawal or needs that narcotic drug?
A. Yes.
Q. And none of these symptoms appeared, is that correct?
A. They did not.
Cross-examination followed:
Q. Now, Doctor, if a person takes Methedrine, would that stave off going through the withdrawals [of heroin]?
A. No, I don’t think it would. No, sir, it would not.
Q. In other words, he would go through the withdrawals even with taking Methedrine?
A. Yes, if he was a narcotic addict.
Q. . . . Now, Doctor, Mr. Bruce told you that he suffered from a lethargic condition; is that right?
A. Lethargy?
Q. Yes, that is sleepiness and this and that.
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the conditions of a person who is under the influence of heroin?
A. Some of the conditions.
Q. Would that be one of the conditions that would be produced in the person who is taking heroin? Would he be lethargic?
A. He could be, yes, sir.
Q. Also, Doctor, you gave him a letter stating that, in substance, that if the police see fresh puncture marks on his arm, that could be from Methedrine?
A. Yes.
Q. Also, it could also be from heroin, could it not?
A. It could be from anything, yes, sir.
Q. . . . A person reading the letter would see the fresh marks and couldn’t know if that was from heroin or from Methedrine?
A. I feel there is no way of determining what it was from. He could merely state that I had prescribed a drug for him and that he had been using it intravenously.
Q. . . . Could you say at this time with your experience that he is not an addict?
A. I say definitely that Mr. Bruce is not a narcotic at this time.
Q. . . . But you don’t know if he is within the last two weeks and few months ago, you don’t know whether or not he has taken an injection of heroin?
A. I don’t know, no, sir. Redirect examination by my attorney:
Q. Doctor . . . in your opinion, is Mr. Bruce a narcotic addict?
A. No, my opinion is that Mr. Bruce is not a narcotic addict.
Q. In your opinion, is Mr. Bruce in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict?
A. No, my opinion is that this man is not in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict.
Then came Dr. David Neimetz, who had administered
a Nalline test [the accepted means of determining drug addiction] which, he testified, indicated that “there was no narcotic in Mr. Bruce’s system.” A week later, another Nalline test also proved negative. On the day he testified, during a court recess, he administered still another Nalline test. Result: negative.
Q. Doctor, in your opinion, is Lenny Bruce a narcotic addict?
A. No.
At one point, the judge asked him: “Supposing, now, the individual is a narcotic addict on a given day and he is unable to either obtain the narcotic due to unavailability of the drug or he is incarcerated for one reason or another, and he is unable to obtain the drug until the physical need for the drug has disappeared. Would you consider that individual to be addicted at that time?
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, certainly, because at this particular time the person would probably be having withdrawal symptoms due to his inability to get the drug.
THE COURT: In other words, after the physical need for the drug has ceased—say, after three weeks there is no withdrawal evidence—would you consider that individual to be a narcotic addict?
THE WITNESS: Medically, you couldn’t consider him to be an addict. You’d have no basis, nothing to base it on.
THE COURT: Supposing the psychological need continued, Doctor, for the drug?
THE WITNESS: Well, this is getting into the realm of what is an addict, the basis and theories.
Hmmmm, could Lenny Bruce be a psychological addict?
“Are you thinking about it now, Lenny?”
“Yeah, I’m thinking about jerking off and taking dope . . .”
The final witness for the defense was Dr. Joel Fort, a specialist in public health and criminology, with particular interest in narcotic addiction, dangerous drugs and alcoholism. He is director of the Center on Alcoholism in Oakland and lecturer in the School of Criminology at the University of California in Berkeley, where he teaches a course dealing with narcotic addiction, dangerous drugs and alcoholism.
He is Court Examiner in Alameda County and Chairman of the Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association Committee on Alcoholism and Dangerous Drugs. He was formerly consultant to the Alameda County Probation Department. For two years he was on the staff of the U.S. Public Health Service Narcotics Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, and he also worked at an addiction research center there.