Moreover, rules of law might have prevented the prosecution from presenting portions of this evidence to the jury. For example, though expressly recognizing that Oswald’s wife could not be compelled to testify against him, District Attorney Wade revealed to the Nation that Marina Oswald had affirmed her husband’s ownership of a rifle like that found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.[C5-250] Curry stated that Oswald had refused to take a lie detector test, although such a statement would have been inadmissible in a trial.[C5-251] The exclusion of such evidence, however, would have been meaningless if jurors were already familiar with the same facts from previous television or newspaper reports. Wade might have influenced prospective jurors by his mistaken statement that the paraffin test showed that Oswald had fired a gun. The tests merely showed that he had nitrate traces on his hands, which did not necessarily mean that he had fired either a rifle or a pistol.[C5-252] The disclosure of evidence was seriously aggravated by the statements of numerous responsible officials that they were certain of Oswald’s guilt. Captain Fritz said that the case against Oswald was “cinched.” Curry reported on Saturday that “we are sure of our case.”[C5-253] Curry announced that he considered Oswald sane, and Wade told the public that he would ask for the death penalty.[C5-254] The American Bar Association declared in December 1963 that “widespread publicizing of Oswald’s alleged guilt, involving statements by officials and public disclosures of the details of ‘evidence,’ would have made it extremely difficult to impanel an unprejudiced jury and afford the accused a fair trial.”[C5-255] Local bar associations expressed similar feelings.[C5-256] The Commission agrees that Lee Harvey Oswald’s opportunity for a trial by 12 jurors free of preconception as to his guilt or innocence would have been seriously jeopardized by the premature disclosure and weighing of the evidence against him. The problem of disclosure of information and its effect on trials is, of course, further complicated by the independent activities of the press in developing information on its own from sources other than law enforcement agencies. Had the police not released the specific items of evidence against Oswald, it is still possible that the other information presented on television and in the newspapers, chiefly of a biographical nature, would itself have had a prejudicial effect on the public. In explanation of the news policy adopted by the Dallas authorities, Chief Curry observed that “it seemed like there was a great demand by the general public to know what was going on.”[C5-257] In a prepared statement, Captain King wrote: