Libak (a legal secretary) was leading the other secretaries in the Waco Law Office in the preparation of several copies of some documents. Each copy had about a half dozen different sections in it and each section had been delegated to a different person, including myself, to prepare. Libak had prepared several sections herself. When the sections were complete, each document was assembled.

I began going through one of the assembled documents and discovered Libak had sloppily used white-out to correct mistakes in the document. Large sections had been whited out and the document hadn't been retyped. I was upset about it.

As I was perusing the document, a lawyer from another firm who was supposed to receive a copy of the document entered the room and asked for his copy. I told him we only had a rough draft prepared but he could have it now if he needed it. I told him I had made several corrections and it needed to be redone. Any copy we would give him now would only be a tentative draft.

He said that was OK. He looked at the papers and pointed out some things had been whited out including some specific important points. He held the paper over a copying machine. A light was shining up through the glass on the machine. I looked and tried to discern what was under the whited out portion, but we couldn't tell. I thought, however, some way could be found, if necessary, to see what was under the whited out portions.

We left together and walked toward the courthouse. On the way he began telling me a little about the case. We walked into a court house and went into what appeared to be a courtroom. Many people were in the room and some type of practice session seemed to be underway.

The people here were preparing the case and the papers I had were documents in the case. A lawyer standing in the front began talking about the case. He seemed to pick up the story where the lawyer who had walked over with me had left off.

He was defending a woman who was being prosecuted by the state for the murder of a man. I knew our firm had previously been involved in a case in which the woman had been a party. I was unsure, however, whether we had represented or opposed the woman. The documents which I possessed had been used in the previous case. They were now going to be introduced in the present murder case. Much of the information in the documents was highly relevant to the present case: except some parts which we didn't think were relevant had been whited out.

Two lawyers who represented the prosecution were sitting among the crowd in the courtroom.

The lawyer standing in the front continued talking about the case. Most noticeable was his continual laughing about the case. He would say something and then burst out laughing aloud. He laughed and laughed.

He was trying to point out how ridiculous it was to say the woman had committed the murder. The prosecutors in the audience were stone-faced. They obviously didn't consider it a joking matter. Their silence seemed to say, "This is not laughing matter."

I was a bit confused about the case and I didn't understand exactly what had happened; but I had the impression that the lawyer doing the talking was only practicing for the real case which would come later when the jury was actually in the room. I thought it was a good idea to practice like that so he could be more prepared when the jury actually did arrive.

Another man entered, went to the front and began talking. He seemed to pick up the story where the lawyer had left off. He was a movie producer. Apparently he had already produced a movie about the case. I began to realize the woman had already been convicted in a previous trial and the present trial was a retrial.

After the woman had been convicted in the first trial, the movie producer had made a movie of the case. He was adamantly convinced the woman couldn't have possibly murdered the man. He began showing us the movie.

The movie graphically showed how the woman had been attacked and beaten. The woman had obviously been beaten and beaten. Blood flew abundantly. The movie showed how the woman had tried to escape. The scene was terrifying and I felt utterly frightened. The man held onto her and beat her as she struggled. Finally the man, while the woman was in a frenzy, had somehow been killed. It appeared the woman had probably killed him, but it had obviously been in self defense to prevent rape.

The movie stirred sympathies in the audience for the woman. Even if she had killed the man, it was obviously in self defense and there could be no justification for having found her guilty of murder.