Nevertheless, Sams, who was found "stable and intelligent enough to give reliable testimony" by a court-ordered psychiatric examination last summer, will testify against Seale and Huggins.

The cornerstone of the prosecution case against Huggins will be a tape recorder, which was also used as evidence against McLucas. Supposedly made the night of Rackley's murder, it allegedly contains the voice of Ericka Huggins making self-incriminatory statements.

The fact that so much of the evidence to be used against Seale and Huggins has already been used against McLucas-and, in a sense, "verified" by his conviction-has influenced the popular attitude towards their case, and may affect its outcome. In one way, the "popular attitude" has already begun to shape the trial.

The last three months have been spent selecting a jury to try Seale and Huggins-three months in which public interest has lagged. Over 900 potential jurors, drawn from the area's rolls of registered voters, have been screened, and only ten have been approved by the court, the prosecution, and the defense and then been empaneled. Many of the rest have been found to be overexposed to the immense publicity surrounding the case.

Each of the panels of 50 jurors considered at a time has been disposed of in a predictable way. A certain portion fail to appear in court at all, either willfully or because the jurors have moved away, died, etc. Then a certain portion is excused by the court on account of the financial or personal hardship which would result from jury duty.

Those who do appear are given a long, rather fatherly introductory lecture by Judge Harold M. Mulvey on the legal procedures to be followed in the case and on certain of the principles involved, such as the importance of presuming the accused innocent until proven guilty.

As many of the potential jurors are nervous about the prospect of becoming involved in a notorious trial, Mulvey reassures them that "I'll be right there sitting beside you just in case anyone gets out of line." Nevertheless, on occasion, women jurors have burst into floods of tears at the first glance from Charles Garry, Seale's lawyer.

Most of them have heard or read quite a bit about Garry, who has defended so many Panthers on so many charges all over the country that the Party calls him the only true "White Panther."

THE questioning begins. The prosecutor, Garry, and Huggins' lawyer, Catherine Roraback of New Haven, probe the juror's attitudes-whether it is a deep-seated prejudice or an opinion formed by reading the evening paper-towards the case, the defendants, and the Panthers in general.

Unlike McLucas' lawyer, Garry and, to a lesser extent, Roraback play up the involvement of the Panthers in the case, and the trial's political nature. Garry even takes every opportunity to remind the juror of the connection, introducing himself time and time again as, "representing Mr. Seale, co-founder and chairman of the Black Panther Party."

Thus Garry and Roraback have established the jurors' opinions of the Panthers as issues in the selection. Opinions of police and black people in general as well as acquaintance with parties involved in the case are also issues. Once the defense lawyers or the prosecution has ascertained that the juror is prejudiced, they either use one of their peremptory challenges, or convince Judge Mulvey that he should be excused.

The prosecuting attorneys seem to assume that a juror is "safe" unless something-if, for example, he is black-makes them sit up and take notice. As of last week, the state's attorney's office had used only 30 of its allowance of 60 peremptory challenges, while Garry and Roraback had used all but one of theirs.

Scores and scores of jurors are excused immediately because they watch the evening news or read the daily paper and have formed opinions about the case. Of course, many of those who profess to have opinions may be merely trying to avoid an unpleasant duty. And many of those who deny being prejudiced may have an ulterior motive for getting on the jury.

Many jurors are excused by the judge after a brief questioning because they state, for example, that they would need to hear some evidence to prove that Huggins and Seale were not involved in the Rackley slaying. It is clear as these people leave the courtroom that they have no conception of why they were excused, that they see no contradiction between their statements and Judge Mulvey's careful admonition about the presumption of innocence.

Those jurors who survive these tests undergo fairly intensive questioning, usually from the defense: