The Speed of Life

by James Victor Jordan

  “Think Enron,” Aurora said.

  “Enron was a drug case?”

  “No, Enron was a big case.”

  “So why don’t I have an army working on this.”

  “Because what I need right now is a scalpel, a mind like yours – sharp as a stiletto, hard as a diamond. And I can’t risk a leak. When the time comes, you’ll have an army.”

  “Why didn’t you tell me about this before?”

  “Before when? You’ve been back for two days. You were on medical leave when van Keet told us that he was working for Ryan Hunter.” Aurora glanced at her watch. “Listen, we’ve caught the Erasmus kid in a cloud of smoke so thick there’s only one reasonable conclusion. We’ll prove he set the fire if he doesn’t tell us who did. Anything else? I have to hit the send button for this brief in—” she checked her watch, “ninety-seven minutes.”

  “I’d wager a million to one Ismael couldn’t pick Hunter out of a lineup—”

  Aurora shrugged, sat and faced her monitor.

  “Or vice versa. What if Ismael can’t give you Hunter?”

  “Read the files,” Aurora said. “Find out if Orion Trading is a client of Georges Bohem.”

  As paragraphs flow seamlessly from the mouth of Henry Smythe-Russell, Estella regrets that she hasn’t yet read the Orion Trading files.

  “Hank,” she says. “I’ll read your cases and get back to you.”

  “I don’t want my boy in jail another weekend.”

  “He can talk.”

  “Maybe,” Smythe-Russell says with emotion, “Saad Dalramy, may he rest in peace, has faded from your picture of this case!”

  “I’ll call you back,” Estella says. She hears him clear his throat. “Hank, can’t it wait?”

  “I just want to say” his voice quavers, “Estella, I’m so very sorry about what happened to you.”

  As a rape victim, she hasn’t been publicly identified. “How do you—” she says. And then after a beat, “Of course, Georges Bohem, Mr. Slick-as-Silk.” Neither lawyer says anything until Estella says, “And damn it, Hank, how am I supposed to prosecute the Erasmus case while you’re defending my son? Not that that’s your problem.”

  “I’m not going to talk to you about that, Estella. But I can tell you that Mr. Slick-as-Silk persuaded Murray Rabin to dismiss the charges—”

  “No way,” Estella says with glee. “Hank, you’re not messing with my head, are you?”

  “So at this time, there’s no conflict. I’m glad you’re happy about this. I take it you believe in Andrew’s innocence.”

  “And you don’t?”

  “The injunction against speaking to your son is dissolved, though we’re asking you, please don’t talk to him about the case.”

  “Send me the order, will you, Hank? E-mail it to me now?”

  “I can’t. It’s filed under seal to protect your identity. Aurora has a copy, though.”

  Of course, she does. But all that Estella manages to say is, “Thank you, Hank.” As she hurries from her office, her canaries are singing.

  Aurora gestures to the chair beside her desk. “Want tea?” she says

  Estella says, “There’s an order in Andrew’s case.”

  Aurora hands Estella the papers she’d brought to her office forty-five minutes earlier. Estella sits on the chair beside Aurora’s desk, willing her hands not to shake as she reads:

  Sir Walter Raleigh

  In The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District

  In and for Miami-Dade County, Florida

  The State of Florida,

  Plaintiff

  Case Number 12·2678

  -vs-

  Order On Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss Felony and Probation-Violation Charges Following the Preliminary Hearing

  Andrew Good-Eagle Godfrey,

  Defendant

  ____________________/

  The State Charges Defendant Andrew Good-Eagle Godfrey as an accessory to the aggravated rape of Ms. Estella Verus, Godfrey’s mother, an Assistant United States Attorney, a first-degree felony, and with grand theft of a 2004 Ford pickup truck belonging to Billie Bower, a third-degree felony.

  At the preliminary hearing, the State was represented by Deputy State Attorneys Gnossos Poppodopulis and Lisa Margolis. The defendant was represented by his counsel, Georges Bohem and Connie Knight of Collins, Dickens & Swift. At the hearing, the State called four witnesses: Jan van Keet, the confessed rapist; Ms. Verus; Sgt. Jerome Crocker of the Miami Dade Police Department; and Florida Highway Patrol Officer Sergio Marquez-Hernandez. Godfrey called no witnesses.

  After the preliminary hearing, Mr. Bohem filed briefs in support of defendant’s motion for dismissal of the charges and for dismissal of a separate charge of probation violation. The Court now makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law and enters its order on Godfrey’s motions.

  THE RAPE AND RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES

  In July of this year, Godfrey was charged with possession of thirty tablets of LSD. He was placed on probation for one year and required to complete a drug-diversion program. If he violates the terms of his probation, he will be sentenced to prison on the drug charge. Among the probation terms was a curfew during the first six months, prohibiting Godfrey from driving between sunset and sunrise or being in public during those hours except in the company of his mother.

  Van Keet testified that he was introduced to Godfrey by Billie Bower, Godfrey’s friend. Based on Bower’s recommendation, van Keet hired Godfrey to deliver packages containing diamonds.

  On Friday, September 13, of this year Godfrey failed to make a delivery of diamonds worth $15,000. Bower and van Keet were waiting for Godfrey when he left home the next day. At gunpoint, they forced him to come with them to van Keet’s home in Coral Gables, where van Keet told Godfrey he would have Bower “take care of him.” Bower is 6’ 2”, two hundred pounds. He is a professional body builder and has won body-building contests at the national level. Godfrey is slender, 5’ 7”, one hundred forty pounds.

  Godfrey told Bower and van Keet that when he arrived at the shop where he was to deliver the diamonds, there was a sign on the door saying: “Closed for Shabbat.” He said that he intended to deliver them on Sunday morning and that the diamonds were in his bedroom, hidden in the back of his upper dresser drawer. Shortly after midnight, van Keet left Bower, armed with a shotgun, guarding Godfrey. Godfrey told van Keet before he left where he could find his mother’s gun. Godfrey said, “Mom likes rough sex. Show her a good time.”

  Using Godfrey’s house key, van Keet entered the home of Ms. Verus. He admitted raping her and testified that he did it at Godfrey’s behest. Afterward, he searched for but did not find the diamonds in Godfrey’s bedroom. When he returned home, he found Bower gagged and bound to a chair, his neck, arms, and chest bruised. Godfrey was gone and so were diamonds that were worth, according to van Keet, more than $350,000.

  Bower told van Keet that he was guarding Godfrey as instructed when he was blinded by a bright violet light. Then he was choked until he was unconscious. There were bruises on Bower’s neck. Van Keet told Bower that his truck wasn’t in the driveway where it had been when van Keet left and wanted to know if Godfrey had permission to take the truck. Bower said that Godfrey did not have permission to take his truck.

  Van Keet then took Bower to an emergency department, where he told the medical staff that Bower was hallucinating. Van Keet testified that he hasn’t seen Bower since he left him at the hospital. The police haven’t been able to find him. The State could not obtain Bower’s hospital’s records because of federal and state privacy laws and privileges. However, the physician who treated Bower described his injuries when he was interviewed by Sgt. Crocker and confirmed that Bower had suffered the physical injuries described by van Keet and had had a psychotic episode, and had been taken to the psychiatric ward and placed on a 72-hour hold. When the time on the involuntary hold expired, Bower was released from the hospital and hasn’t been seen or heard fro
m since.

  Ms. Verus testified that she was awakened by van Keet, who threatened her with her own gun before beating and sodomizing her, breaking her two front teeth, her mandible, two ribs, puncturing a lung, and lacerating vaginal and anal tissue, causing her to, in her words, black out. While Ms. Verus was unconscious, van Keet used his cell phone to take photographs of her battered, bloodied, nude body.

  When Ms. Verus awoke, she phoned a friend. She was incoherent when the police found her.

  She was hospitalized for one week, wore a cervical collar for four weeks, and missed ten weeks of work. Since the rape she’s had unexplained (to herself) bouts of crying, withdrawal, and melancholia. She testified without hesitation or doubt about the events and details of the rape. Though at times she did become tearful, angry, or subdued, her affect was appropriate. In no respect did her testimony conflict with the detailed statement she gave the police while she was hospitalized.

  The evidence against van Keet was overwhelming: his semen was on his victim’s bed sheets and he left a handwritten note placed under Godfrey’s wallet and keys, warning her not to call the police. After van Keet was apprehended, Ms. Verus identified him from photographs and in a lineup. Van Keet was charged with a plethora of major felonies and faced life imprisonment. Quixotically, he was also charged by the United States Attorney with assault on a federal officer, Ms. Verus.

  THE ARREST AND INVESTIGATION

  Florida Highway Patrol Officer Marquez-Hernandez testified that at 2:37 a.m. on September 15, Godfrey was driving north in Bower’s truck on I-95 near the Atlantic Boulevard off-ramp, his left tail light out. The officer activated his emergency lights, and Godfrey pulled over. Godfrey had no driver’s license. He told Officer Marquez-Hernandez that his wallet and keys had been stolen, that the truck belonged to Bower, who had given him permission to drive it. A computer check with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revealed that Godfrey was on probation and restricted from driving at night. He was taken into custody on a charge of violating his probation. Godfrey has made no further statements to the police. No diamonds were found in Bower’s pickup truck, on Godfrey’s person, or in his home that he shared with his mother.

  The State Attorney argues, persuasively, that Godfrey, who was headed away from his home at the time he was arrested, was fleeing, which is evidence of his consciousness of guilt. He also argues that Godfrey had time to warn his mother and that his failure to call her is further evidence of his guilt.

  Godfrey’s room in Ms. Verus’s home was searched, his computer was taken as its hard drive stored potential evidence. On the hard drive was a ten-page document titled “Sounds of Silence.” This document describes a six-year-old Seminole boy witnesses a gruesome homicide: the boy’s mother kills his father.

  MOTIVE

  The state argued that the document proved motive, that “Sounds of Silence” is a personal journal entry and that its psychiatric expert witnesses would testify that it shows that the defendant sought revenge against his mother for his father’s death. Mr. Bohem objected to this evidence on the grounds of relevance, that its admission would be more prejudicial than probative. Mr. Bohem also made an offer of proof, advising the court that the document, “Sounds of Silence” was material for a short story Mr. Godfrey had written. The court now rules that the document will not be admitted in this proceeding because the state’s burden here does not require a showing of motive.

  VAN KEET’S PLEA AGREEMENT

  In a plea agreement with the State Attorney and the U.S. Attorney’s office, van Keet agreed to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney in an ongoing federal criminal investigation, the nature of which was not revealed during the preliminary hearing. Asked about the federal investigation all van Keet would say is: “I only answer questions. I don’t know what they’re looking for.” Ms. Verus had no personal knowledge of the investigation.

  In exchange for his cooperation in the federal investigation, all state charges against van Keet, including the sodomy and other brutal injuries he inflicted on Ms. Verus, were dropped. He pled guilty to the federal charge of assault on a federal officer, Ms. Verus, and is in federal custody serving a one-year sentence, after which he will be deported to his native country, South Africa, where he’ll be given a new identity in a witness protection program.

  APPLICABLE CRIMINAL PENALTIES

  If convicted of the accessory charge, Godfrey faces a sentence of nine to fifteen years. After release from prison, it is customary for the State Attorney to seek indefinite civil commitment of an offender convicted of a violent sex crime. If released from prison – by having served his term or by parole – and from civil commitment, Godfrey would have to register as a sex offender and remain on probation for life. Where he lives and the type of work he would be allowed to do would be severely restricted.

  If Godfrey is found guilty of third-degree grand theft, he could be sentenced to the state prison for up to five years.

  THE EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

  It is the burden of the State at the preliminary hearing to show some evidence, no matter how remote or unpersuasive, that each crime the defendant is charged with was committed and some evidence that the defendant committed the crimes. Chavez v. State, 832 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2002).

  The State argues that by giving van Keet his house keys, telling him where to find Ms. Verus’s gun, and making sexually suggestive remarks about his mother, Godfrey had the intent to have her raped and caused the rape. It further argues that Godfrey knew of van Keet’s violent propensities because he himself was abducted by van Keet and held hostage at gunpoint. Lastly it argues that Good-Eagle stole Bower’s pickup truck, which was taken without his permission and with the intent of depriving him of its use.

  The Court doesn’t agree that the evidence supports these conclusions; however, the elements of abetting a rape are less stringent than what the State argues it has established. Anyone who either assists the principal of a crime before the fact or gives the offender aid to commit the crime is guilty as an accessory. Fla. Statutes 777.03 (1) (c).

  Here, through van Keet’s testimony, the State has produced evidence that Godfrey assisted in the rape of Ms. Verus. Also through van Keet’s testimony, the state has produced evidence of grand theft of Bower’s truck. The evidence, however, must be admissible. Stephenson v. Rice, 574 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). If van Keet’s testimony is inadmissible, then the charges against Godfrey of being an accessory to his mother’s rape and of grand theft must be dismissed because the state will not have met its burden.

  In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Bohem observes that if Godfrey were bound over for trial, by the time his trial began, van Keet would be beyond the subpoena jurisdiction of this court, living under an assumed name in South Africa. Because van Keet would be unavailable to testify at Godfrey’s trial for aiding and abetting the rape and grand theft, his testimony in this proceeding would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule and would, therefore, be admissible at the accessory and grand theft trial. The transcript of van Keet’s testimony in this proceeding would be read to the jury.

  Before this proceeding began, Mr. Bohem, on Godfrey’s behalf, served the U.S. Attorney with a subpoena duces tecum, requiring production of evidence relating to the federal investigation of van Keet. The subpoena was narrow in scope, seeking only documentation of statements made about Godfrey, allegedly made by him or about the rape. In his affidavit to this Court filed in support of his request for the subpoena, Mr. Bohem claimed that he needed the information to adequately cross examine van Keet in this proceeding.

  The U.S. Attorney had the federal court quash the subpoena authorized by this court.

  Accordingly, Mr. Bohem argues that in this proceeding because he was unable to adequately cross examine van Keet, a violation of Godfrey’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides in part: “In all criminal proceedings the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . be c
onfronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory processes for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”

  Although the right to confront one’s accusers dates to early Judaic Law, the Confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment finds its origins in the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. Ohio v. Roberts 448 U.S. 56 (1980). Decision by Justice Scalia.

  Lord Cobham, Raleigh’s alleged coconspirator against King James I, implicated Raleigh in an ex parte examination before the Privy Council and in a letter. At Raleigh’s trial, Cobham’s out-of-court statements and his letter were read to the jury.

  Raleigh objected to this evidence, claiming Cobham lied to curry favor with the king to save himself. Suspecting that if he were confronted in court before the jury, Cobham would recant, Raleigh demanded that the judges call him to appear, arguing, “[t]he proof of the common law is by witness and jury: let Cobham be here, let him speak. Call my accuser before my face..”

  The judges refused, and despite Raleigh’s protestation that he was being tried “by the Spanish Inquisition,” he was convicted and sentenced to death. He was taken from the court to the Tower of London, where he was beheaded.

  One of Raleigh’s trial judges later lamented, “The justice of England has never been so degraded and injured as by the condemnation of Sir Walter Raleigh.” After Raleigh’s death, a series of statutory and judicial reforms limited the abuses of conviction on ex parte testimony, including promulgation of the rule that a suspect’s confession could be admitted only against himself and not against others he implicated. G. Gilbert, Evidence 216 (1791).

  Following the passage of the Sixth Amendment, early state court decisions held: “No man shall be prejudiced by evidence which he had not the liberty to cross examine.” Moreover, the opportunity to cross examine must be adequate. e.g. State v. Webb, 2 N.C. 103 (1794) decided a mere three years after the adoption of the Sixth Amendment.