</s>and meaningful reflection upon the gravity of the contemplated assassination. The clinical evidence which the defense presented relative to appellant's mental capacity in effect consists of the testimony of two psychologists, Schorr and Richardson, and two psychiatrists, Dr. Marcus and Dr. Diamond. The other four psychologists called by the defense (Seward, De Vos, Howard, and Crain) merely attempted to interpret and verify the findings of Schorr and Richardson and never observed or tested appellant. Their testimony is thus entitled to negligible weight. People v. Bassett, supra, 69 Cal. 2d 122, 140-43, Martin Schorr, a clinical psychologist, examined appellant at the county jail for several hours on November 25, 1968, and for most of the following day, administering several psychological tests including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MPPI), the Thematic Appreciation Test (TAT), the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt, and the Rorschach. (Rep. Tr. pp. 55/40, 5547.) Mr. Schorr testified at length regarding his opinion, derived from the test results, of appellant's general mental and emotional makeup. But it was only 180. 2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176

The search of Adel Sirhan's bedroom and the seizure of trash from behind his residence were lawful. The police officers arrived without a warrant on June 5, 1968, after Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination. Adel gave consent to search the property with the oldest male member of the household, claiming he was a part owner until August 1963.

The trial court found that the officers had authority from Adel, whom they reasonably believed had authority to grant consent to their entry. Recent case law upholds the constitutional validity of a consent given by one joint occupant to a search of the premises.

The cases cited by appellant are distinguishable from the present case. In Tompkins v. Superior Court (1959), the officers searched without disclosing their purpose or obtaining prior warning, whereas in the present case, Adel was advised of his rights and gave consent to the search.

The search was conducted in good faith and with reasonable belief that Adel had authority to grant consent to their entry. The trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence, and this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

People v. Egan, Vandenberg v. Superior Court, People V. Murillo, People V. Fry, and Stoner v. California upheld the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, rejecting strained applications and allowing consent to searches in various circumstances.

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156-y_sec_001_ser_1--part_5_of_7.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search