"San Francisco" went to the San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Archives to investigate the hoary story about Los Angeles police detective Lloyd Martin and the boys dangled over cliffs [in the mid-70's]. The story is confirmed (details below), but Los Angeles policeman Martin Lloyd wasn't pinned [identified] for it. Along the way, some interesting information surfaced about California's (then-unique) sex offender registration laws and special "spousal" testimony rules.
The reports come from one of the first known "sex ring" prosecutions. The investigations began with a film processor's tip , and centered initially on boy-film production and distribution. Already, lethal vice cops had established their pattern of initiating investigations and prosecutions, conducting warrantless searches, then abusing boys and threatening their parents to get damaging statements from boys to support the charges brought by police. These reports also show one of the first post-World War II boy-love cases where sensational publicity was used to discredit defendants before trial and thus ruin their careers.
The Hollywood Chicken Ring ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The events occurred in 1973. The first of the Hollywood "chicken ring" defendants was acquitted December 14, 1973. There were 14 defendants indicted October 26, 1973, including Guy Straight (a pioneering gay journalist and activist who made boy films), Bill Byers (an heir to a Texas oil fortune) and Chris Lewis. The following day, the prosecutor held a news conference for the "overground media" to sensationalize the story and demonize the defendants in the public's eye. As usual, many of the people in this "ring" had never met each other before the prosecutions began, but their employment and personal lives were ruined by the bad publicity.
The investigations had begun in September, after a film processor gave police copy of a boy-film made by Guy Straight. The film purportedly showed adolescent and pre-adolescent boys in sex. The judge said it was the first time he had seen so many charges brought by police which weren't based on the complaints of parents. None of the 14 cases was initially based on a complaint by either a parent or a boy ~ they all came from a policeman. The judge admonished the jury, "Charges of this kind are easy to make, but difficult to disprove".
Extorting testimony ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first defendant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to link the defendant to any porn movie business. The jury heard testimony that Administrative Vice Detective Lloyd Martin had obtained the signatures of two "young brothers" (10 and 12 years of age) to blank depositions which he later filled with "testimony" from his notes. "But he [Martin] didn't see anything wrong with that because he'd been taking notes while talking to them. Everybody in the courtroom knew he was being ridiculous, of course," said defense counsel after the trial. The boys had been taken to Juvenile Hall [detention center] after their mother refused to help Martin extract testimony from the boys. The defendant said, "Three days later ~ just to show you what a dirty cop can do ~ he convinced the juvenile authorities to have them taken from their mother and placed in a foster home. Then he called her up and said he could get them out if she would sign a complaint against me and order them to cooperate with him." Their mother said "The boys didn't want to testify against Rusty, and I didn't want them to. Rusty was like a father to the boys." Eventually, the boys signed the blank deposition form.
During the trial Danny, a 13-year old, was asked when was the last time the prosecutor, James Grodin, had rehearsed his testimony with him. Danny said, "this morning". Another boy told the jury of a conversation he'd had with Danny in the courthouse men's room: Danny told him that Martin also had threatened him with juvenile hall [detention center] if he didn't provide the testimony Police Detective Lloyd Martin wanted.
The younger boys' mother (Patricia Prue) said, "It's been a terrible harassment. We've been subpoenaed and subpoenaed. That cop is on an ego trip at the expense of others' lives." She said that two days before the trial of the second defendant began, she was visited by a policewoman "who said she would have me declared an unfit mother for the boys." After the trial she said, "Something terrible is happening in America. These people (the police) think they can do anything they want to, and they're getting away with it. I think they're sick. Rusty was our friend. Look what they've done to him."
Dangling Boys Over Cliffs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During the second "chicken ring" trial, "One youth testified he had been dangled over a cliff on Angeles Crest Drive last Spring [197x] by two policemen who, he said, wanted him to admit to engaging in sexual acts with men. ... One of the boys stuck to his story ... that he was driven to the edge of a cliff on Angeles Crest Drive north of the city [of Los Angeles, California] last Spring and was dangled over the side by two policemen demanding that he name men who had allegedly engaged in sex with him."
Deputy District Attorney Grodin, the prosecutor, admitted both to Dave Glascock of the Gay Political Action Council and to the court that the incident may have occurred. But in this instance it appeared that neither Los Angeles police detective Lloyd Martin nor any other undercover vice cops could be blamed, since the youth stated that the police were uniformed. [sic; should this be NOT uniformed?] In his summation to the jury Grodin conceded that one of the prosecution witnesses may have been held over a cliff, but added, you sometimes have to go to extremes because these kids are afraid to tell the truth. He added that statements which the youth may have made at the time were not part of the trial testimony.
Spousal Testimony ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is standard procedure to not compel spousal testimony in criminal cases, as implied by the constitutional guarantees of privacy. In California in 1974, persons 14 years of age or older who willingly participated in a private sex act could not testify against their [sex] partners. In both of the first two "chicken ring" cases only alleged sexual activities with boys under 14 were prosecuted.
Registration of Sex Offenders ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The California law requiring registration of sex offenders, constructed on the same [legal] model as the Nazis, sex offender registration laws introduced to Germany in 1935, extends to misdemeanor convictions. That law was unique in the United States as late as 1974, when James Birch appealed his conviction for "lewd and dissolute conduct" after entering a "guilty" plea to a misdemeanor charge. Undercover police had arrested him and reported they saw him urinating against a wall of a parking lot. On Birch s appeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must take "an active, protective" role by informing a defendant of his right to counsel and the court must provide counsel if the defendant can't afford it, and he must be warned of the registration requirement for anyone convicted.
The court declined to rule on Birch's contention that his conduct was not "lewd and dissolute" because the trial record did not establish that "sexual motivation" was behind Birch's act of "relieving himself in a public parking lot." The decision in this case, _Birch on Habeas Corpus, Crim. 16771, was written by Justice Matthew O. Tobriner.
===============
Sources: ~~~~~~~
The report of extorting testimony, "L.A. Jury frees first 'chicken ring' defendant" by Doug Sarff, Staff Writer, appeared in _The Advocate,_ San Mateo, CA, January 30, 1974 (page 3). The report of dangling boys over cliffs surfaced in the second trial. "Cliffhanging Testimony: Jury: Second 'chicken ring' defendant guilty" appeared in _The Advocate ,_ San Mateo, CA, [date to be determined], 1974 (page 5). The report of Justice Trobriner's decision in James Birch's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction, "Defendants must be warned of registration law, says court ," appeared in _The Advocate,_ San Mateo, CA, January 30, 1974 (page 16). Copies of these [gay] newspaper reports are available.
"One example: a young boy testified in court that two uniformed Los Angeles Police Department policemen held him over a cliff to get him to admit to having sex with a man." Footnote: The Advocate, San Mateo, CA, January 30, 1974.