The Chicago Conspiracy Trial and the Press

On September 24, 1969, eight men went on trial in the Chicago courtroom of Judge Julius J. Hoffman. The eight men were charged under Title 18 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Sections 371, 231 (a) and 2101. The two key charges were that first during the Democratic National Convention held in Chicago in August 1968 they had conspired to come to Chicago for the purpose of inciting a riot. Second, during their time in Chicago they had also committed at least one deliberate act designed to incite a riot among the demonstrators at the convention. Two of the defendants, Lee Weiner and John Froines, were also charged under the act with teaching how to make and use an incendiary device to be used to disrupt the convention. Known subsequently as the Chicago conspiracy trial, or colloquially as the trial of the “Chicago 8,” it brought together eight men representing the different strands of the radical movement, which had burgeoned during the 1960s. These defendants included the organizers of some of the main anti-Vietnam war organizations: Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis and David Dellinger, all of whom were leaders in the National Mobilization against the war. They also included two leaders of the Yippies, or Youth International Party, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, who sought to bring change to American society by promoting an alternative lifestyle that included the abolition of money, the promotion of art over work, and the legalization of illicit drugs such as marijuana. Also included was the leader of the Black Panther Party, Bobby Seale. The Panthers were a militant Black Nationalist organization, which sought the right of blacks to self-determination and control of their community free from what they regarded as the exploitation by white business and civic authority. Of the eight, the less-high profile, defendants were John Froines and Lee Weiner, who were both involved in the antiwar movement and had protested at the convention.

Arguably the most memorable incident in the Chicago Conspiracy Trial was Judge Hoffman’s decision to chain and gag Black Panther leader Bobby Seale. As defendant Tom Hayden recalled in assessing the significance of the chaining and gagging of Seale, “Looking back one could argue that without Jerry and Abbie and above all without Bobby Seale, who belongs in a separate category, there would have been no Chicago trial to remember.”

Bobby Seale’s insistence on being heard in court regarding his right to determine his own representation led to his being forcibly silenced. This chapter focuses on two other defendants, Abbie Hoffman and David Dellinger, and their contrasting individual styles of voicing their opposition to the proceedings of the court. Abbie Hoffman was the first of two defendants to testify in the trial. David Dellinger sought to have a voice in calling the evidence of prosecution witness Deputy Police Chief Rochford “bullshit.” Hoffman’s voice was expressed through a legitimate process of the court and Dellinger’s voice through an interjection.

Rennie Davis was the chief organizer of the protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention and one of the leaders of the antiwar faction of the defendants now on trial—the other key defendants in this group being David Dellinger and Tom Hayden. Although all the defendants were opposed to the war, these three defendants were directly involved as leaders in antiwar organizations. Unlike Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, who adopted a more theatrical form of protest aimed to inspire a youth culture, Davis’ primary focus was on ending the war. Consideration of the New York Times’ reporting on Davis’ evidence is central to an understanding of the paper’s representation of the trial. One of the central aims of the defendants in the case was to bring the war into the courtroom. As Davis recalled it, for him “the more serious communication of the inappropriateness of the war and what to us was the real issue in the trial was what we wanted to present.” A focus on Rennie Davis’ evidence allows us to consider the extent to which the New York Times was willing to represent a chief aspect of the defense strategy to make the trial about the war. To what extent was the paper willing to give coverage to Davis’ views about the relevance of the war to the case? Were Davis’ views heard, or was his more radical critique of American actions in Vietnam silenced in the same way that Bobby Seale’s voice was silenced by the paper earlier in the case?

Media scholars have considered editorials as a central part of the voice of a paper, something which defines the identity and values which the newspaper represents. As Santo has argued, “The most precise barometer of a newspaper’s position on political and social questions is assumed to reside on the editorial page—the heart, soul and conscience of the newspaper.” Editorials and opinion columns enable a paper to influence political decisions by expressing a definitive voice on important issues as well as to set the agenda for what the editors and opinion writers regard as the central issues of the day. As McNair has noted, opinion journalism has the, “power to set the dominant political agenda… In this capacity the institutions of the press take the lead in establishing the dominant interpretative frameworks within which ongoing political events are made sense of.”

On February 20, 1970, the 5-month-long Chicago Conspiracy Trial finally concluded. Although Judge Hoffman denied bail for all the defendants, stating that they were clearly “dangerous persons to be at large,” the Court of Appeal for the United States Northern District granted bail for all the defendants and bond was posted by their lawyers on February 28, 1970. In a front-page article the following day, the New York Times appeared to support the decision to release the defendants from jail as they framed the article around the hailing of the defendants’ release by a “shouting crowd of supporters and newsmen.” Clearly, the Chicago Conspiracy Trial and Judge Hoffman’s handling of the case was an embarrassment to the New York Times and the liberal establishment and the sooner the reminder of the apparent oppression visited on the defendants could be removed from public view the better.