Charles R. Richey

Charles R. Richey was the United States District Court judge hearing the Democrats’ $1 million civil suit against the Committee for the Re-election of the President. In the account of the Watergate investigation, his most consequential appearance is a procedural reversal: he sealed pretrial testimony that could have brought sworn statements by senior political figures into public view before the election. His unexpected effort to explain that decision to a reporter then made the appearance of judicial independence part of the story as well as its stated rationale.

Role in the civil suit

The suit was brought by Democratic Party chairman O’Brien, who alleged potential involvement by Charles Colson in the Watergate break-in and said the developing facts pointed toward the White House. Richey was hearing the case as reporting about the break-in and its political connections continued. The suit therefore carried significance beyond the parties’ civil dispute: testimony gathered in its proceedings could inform public understanding of the scandal while the criminal investigation was still unfolding.

Reversal and sealed testimony

On August 22, Richey reversed an earlier ruling and ordered that all pretrial testimony in the case remain sealed and unavailable to the public until the proceedings were complete. The order meant that sworn statements by John Mitchell, Maurice Stans, and others would not be published before the election. The reversal was notable because CRP’s lawyers had made no motion for it. From the bench, Richey said he had acted out of concern for the constitutional rights of those under investigation. His stated reason was thus protection of the subjects of the testimony, while the practical effect was to postpone public access to potentially consequential evidence.

The call to Bernstein

Several hours after issuing the ruling, Richey telephoned Carl Bernstein at The Washington Post to explain its basis. He described the danger of releasing civil-suit testimony before a criminal trial. Richey had never met Bernstein, and the call came without warning; Bernstein was dumbstruck. In the course of explaining himself, Richey raised a question Bernstein had not considered: whether anyone might think the judge had been approached to secure a favorable result for the Committee for the Re-election of the President. Richey insisted that he had discussed the case with no one outside the courtroom and that political considerations had played no part.

Significance and limits

The scene presents Richey’s ruling and his later explanation as separate but connected matters. The sealing order delayed access to testimony until after the proceedings, including during a crucial period before the election; the call showed the judge concerned that the decision might be interpreted as politically influenced. The account does not establish that anyone had approached him, or that political pressure caused the reversal. Its force lies instead in the contrast between an order with immediate political consequences and Richey’s unsolicited effort to make clear that, in his account, constitutional concerns—not political considerations—had determined it.