311.6121 Gorin, M. N./28
The Embassy of the Soviet Union to the Department of State 59
It has come to the attention of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that in the course of a recent trial held in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California in the city of Los Angeles in which two Soviet citizens, Mr. Michael Gorin and his wife, Mrs. Natasha Gorin, were among the defendants, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California [Page 923] resorted to a series of inferences and allegations against the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as well as against its diplomatic and consular officers in the United States.
Without desire to pass on the merits of the charges against the above-mentioned Soviet citizens nor to comment upon other aspects of the case, the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, upon instruction of its Government, invites the attention of the Department of State to the conduct and some of the remarks of the Federal official entrusted to represent the United States Government in the Court.
The instances of the United States Attorney’s unusual statements which are quoted below are taken from the Stenographer’s Minutes in the case entitled “United States of America versus Hafis Salich et al.”
As it is known to the Department of State, Mr. Gorin, when detained for many hours by the Federal authorities on December 12th without a warrant, exercised his right to bring this fact to the attention of the Embassy of his country in Washington, since at the time there was no Soviet consular officer in the city of Los Angeles. This procedure which, as the Department of State is well aware, is the normal one to be resorted to by any foreign national under similar circumstances, has been construed by the United States Attorney as evidence against the defendant. After eliciting from Government witnesses the fact that the defendant, Gorin, communicated with the Chargé d’Affaires of his country at the time of his, Gorin’s detention and arrest, the United States Attorney addressed the Court in this language:
“Mr. Harrison: If the Court please, it is our contention that these are admissions of the connection of the defendant, Gorin, with the Russian Government showing that the information they were gathering was for the benefit of a foreign government and shows his contacts and his connection with it.”
(Minutes, page 442)
To the objections of the counsel for the defense against the introduction of these facts as evidence and to his statement that:
“when a national of a foreign power is arrested in this country, he has the right to call upon the Ambassador of his country and talk to him, seek his aid or assistance in connection with his arrest, and that any statement made upon such an occasion unless it be by way of an admission or confession, is inadmissible in evidence”
(Minutes, ibid).
the United States Attorney responded:
“It is an unusual situation where a national will call an Ambassador three thousand miles away …60 it certainly shows more than the [Page 924] casual report of a national or a request of a national to his Ambassador”.
(Minutes, ibid)
The United States Attorney eventually succeeded in introducing the defendant’s routine contact with the representative of his country as evidence against the defendant and as an important factor of the defendant’s guilt.61
After having originally asserted that Mr. Gorin, in connection with his arrest, had been in direct telephonic communication with Ambassador Troyanovsky the Federal Prosecutor agreed with counsel for the defense to stipulate that such communication could not have taken place in view of the Ambassador’s absence from the country. The United States Attorney, however, coupled this admission with the following gratuitous remarks:
“Mr. Harrison: Since then, I believe I have read in the paper what happened to the Ambassador last summer, so I am willing to accept the stipulation.
“Mr. Pacht (Counsel for the Defense): You mean, what is alleged to have happened?
“Mr. Harrison: I mean to accept what the press reports state.”
(Minutes, page 832)
In a like manner the meeting between the imprisoned defendant, Mr. Gorin, and Mr. Ivanoushkin, Vice Consul of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in New York, who was dispatched to Los Angeles, as the Department of State was notified by the Embassy, was equally construed by the United States Attorney as evidence against the defendant. Alleged statements, attributed to Vice Consul Ivanoushkin by the Government witness, Lieutenant Maxwell, according to which Mr. Ivanoushkin advised Mr. Gorin not to admit any connection with certain evidence in the trial, were utilized by the Federal attorneys against the defendant. The Federal Attorney permitted this testimony of Lieutenant Maxwell of the United States Navy who was detailed to overhear conversations between the Vice Consul and the defendant Gorin, and in arguing against the objection raised by the attorney for the defense, stated that he believed that the version of the conversation between the Vice Consul and the defendant was “one of the links in the case.” (Minutes, 495–501). The Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics already had had opportunity to bring to the attention of the Department of State the fact that according to the information at its disposal the statement imputed to the Vice Consul was wholly unfounded and that his conversation with the defendant was entirely confined to the usual questioning about the defendant’s physical welfare and his right to counsel.62 These [Page 925] facts which as it is hoped, were brought in due time by the Department of State to the attention of the appropriate agencies of the United States Government, were wholly ignored by the United States Attorney.
Finally in the course of the trial the Federal Prosecutor and his assistant time and again suggested an intent and desire of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to weaken and undermine the national defense of the United States; in their comments they cast aspersions on the friendly feelings of the Government and of the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics towards the United States and assumed to interpret the foreign policy of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus in summing up to the jury the United States Attorney stated:
“Would it not be just as probable that Japan and Russia may get together against the United States? Isn’t it more likely that Stalin, dictator that he is and Japan with their emperor form of government, come to a combination against the United States? …63 I think that it is worth some study and some thought when they tell you what a good friend Russia is of this nation.”
The record discloses analogous statements by the representatives of the Federal Government before the Court as well as such instances as discourteous references to a member of the Soviet Government, Mr. Michael Kaganovitch, People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry.
Reserving its opinion on the question to what extent inferences and allegations by the Federal Attorney might have affected the verdict of the jury, the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon instruction of its Government and for the purpose of such action as the Department of State may deem appropriate, expresses its belief that the remarks and the conduct of a high Federal official in the course of that trial were not in accord either with international usage or with the friendly relations existing between the two countries.
Washington, March 18, 1939.