Sanchez seemed unsure how to respond. Hamilton Reynolds knew what he wanted to say. “I would like to offer two thoughts in response to Kenzo’s remarks. First, Judge Brooks specifically admitted Exhibit One into evidence. Even though Mr. Reilly opposed that, Judge Brooks put no limitations on his ruling when he admitted it into evidence. Second, as I recall, Dr. Farnsworth was questioned by Ms. Klein about the impact of political corruption and greed on Mr. Norman. She said she thought that caused Mr. Norman’s behavior and entitled him to the defense of justifiable homicide. I don’t think Mr. Reilly objected to that opinion. If he did, I don’t think the objection was sustained. So I think both of these instances might be considered evidence of government corruption in this case that we are entitled to consider.”
George Remington had a slightly different take. Something that hadn’t yet been brought up by any of the others. “I don’t know if Exhibit One or Dr. Farnsworth’s testimony is actual evidence of any government corruption, as the term evidence is meant to be used. However, it’s apparent to me that this jury wants to use this case as an occasion to, quote, try government misconduct in the context of a defense to Norman’s possible actions. One way or the other, I think that’s exactly what this country needs right now. Someone needs to do this. The whole country is watching. Maybe that’s why Judge Brooks instructed us as he did.”
Alicia Jackson jumped into the fray. “Listen up. I think Judge Brooks made it perfectly clear that we are free to consider this defense any way we wish. I believe Exhibit One and Dr. Farnsworth’s testimony open the door. Allow us to consider this defense. I, for one, certainly intend to do that.”
Once again, Kessler tried to summarize and focus the conversation. “Okay, then is it fair to say that we consider this defense to be within the scope of our assignment? Does anyone disagree?”
No one expressed any disagreement.
Kessler continued. “Contrary to Mr. Reilly’s argument, then, our jury does consider the government, or our political representatives, on trial here. Just as much as in the case of our hypothetical burglar. As such, I think we do need to direct our attention and focus on the question of political corruption and greed and whether it supports Mr. Norman’s defense of justifiable homicide.”
Sajid Rajesh raised his hand and addressed the group. “As you all know, I have voted that Mr. Norman is not guilty. Therefore, I personally don’t think he needs this defense. Which frankly seems pretty far-fetched to me.”
“I disagree, Sajid,” said Jackson. “I believe our political representatives are corrupt and greedy. I believe this corruption and greed have caused the unprecedented economic and moral collapse our country has recently experienced. And is still experiencing. And that this drove Mr. Norman to take the steps he is accused of taking. Of course, we don’t actually know whether Mr. Norman did anything. But this discussion right now is predicated on the assumption that he did. Which is how eleven of us have voted at this point.
“I would like to list a few items I believe demonstrate this political corruption and greed. Number one. Our government officials allowed Wall Street to make tens of billions of dollars of unreasonable real estate loans to unqualified borrowers on real estate the value of which was permitted to be falsely and irresponsibly inflated. And to sell tens of billions of dollars of worthless real estate-backed securities predicated on such loans. They made a bloody fortune doing this.
“When these bad loans and bad securities all came tumbling down, it brought our country to its knees. Where was the government oversight that never should have allowed this to happen? Clearly it was missing in action. Why? There are only two possibilities: either our government leaders were incompetent. Or they were corrupt. On the take. Or they were both. Incompetent and corrupt.
“They’re not that incompetent. I believe they were—and still are—on the take from Wall Street lobbyists constantly greasing their palms. Can I prove it? No. Do I have to? No! It is perception that drives this analysis, and I believe there are tens of millions of Americans who feel and believe about this exactly as I do. Including Mr. Norman. There’s just too much smoke for there not to be a fire out there somewhere. Not only does this observation suggest—compel—justification, but it also raises reasonable doubt as to who the killer is.
“Number two. It wasn’t bad enough that our political representatives allowed the collapse to happen. Look at what they are doing now. Without reading, let alone understanding, the thousands of pages of legislation they have enacted, they are now spending hundreds of billions of dollars of our money. Supposedly to fix the mess they allowed to happen in the first place. Once again, they are allowing tens of billions of dollars to find their way into the hands of their Wall Street cohorts. To me, this is outrageous. I think it’s nothing less than taxation without representation. Our forefathers refused to succumb to that. Why should we? We shouldn’t! Perhaps Mr. Norman—or someone—didn’t.
“Number three. Time and again, our representatives are ignoring our best interests. They’re allowing more and more jobs to leave this country for foreign soil. Our borders are not secure. Our immigration laws are not being enforced. Instead, they’re being totally ignored. Worse still, our political representatives are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare benefits on illegal immigrants! It’s beyond comprehension that we’re encouraging tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to violate our laws by providing them with these handouts.
“Number four. Look at all the sweetheart deals our political representatives provide to themselves. They set their own pay raises. They give themselves health care benefits that are not subject to the premiums you and I have to pay. Maybe if they had to pay insurance premiums like you and I do, they would be more thoughtful about the so-called health care reform they are now trying to push through. Without proper support or understanding. A one-term congressperson gets a lifetime retirement benefit equal to one hundred percent of his or her congressional salary. And they don’t have to pay into Social Security like you and I do!
“This is sheer insanity. There’s simply no reason why our political representatives shouldn’t be subject to the same laws and economic constraints that you and I are. We pay our taxes while we constantly read about one public official after another caught not doing so. Yet House Speaker Jamison wants to tax your and my retirement benefits to pay even more welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. Why? Because she expects amnesty to make these illegal immigrants legal voters. She wants their votes when she stands for reelection. She’s bribing these illegal immigrants to get their votes when they do achieve amnesty.
“Frankly, it’s no wonder Mr. Norman may have felt he needed to protect his family of man from this kind of continuing and escalating abuse. I’m only surprised that millions more of our Americans are not out doing the same thing—yet.”
Humberto Gonzalo was clearly upset and offended by some of Jackson’s remarks. “Hey, Jackson, where do you come off talking about immigrants that way? I have a lot of relatives who are supposedly illegal who are working their butts off to put food on their tables. Without taking any welfare handouts. They are the backbone of this country.”
Things were getting a bit heated. Alston Smythe didn’t like what Gonzalo had to say. Or the tone with which he said it. “Wait just a minute, Gonzalo. Nothing Professor Jackson said is unfairly or uniquely directed at Latinos. No one is above the law. Everyone should have to comply with the law. You’re not going to tell me that someone has the right to rob a bank because he or she is Latino. Why would you tell me that they have any more right to break the immigration laws in this country? I believe we should provide the money for our illegal immigrants to become legal in some rational and appropriate way. However, until we do that, we should stop coddling and supporting them. One should not be criticized for speaking out in this way.”
Kessler was worried the discussion was getting out of control. “Hey, folks, I think we need to dial this back down a notch. Personally, I agree with
an awful lot I’ve heard here this morning. But aren’t we getting a bit carried away in terms of the evidence that was actually presented in this case? Oh, and by the way: we seem to have worked through another morning break. We’re nothing if not passionate about this case and the issues it presents. However, if we’re going to set an example of the public starting to take back control from our political representatives who have become our masters rather than our servants, then we have to do so calmly and effectively.”
Hamilton Reynolds had been waiting his turn. “You know, I’ve been listening to all of this too. I’m also very concerned about our public officials. I think they’ve been doing a terrible job and I really think we need a way to do something about this. To say something about this. To make them accountable. Just like you and I are.”
Kessler thought it was time to move on, to get some further direction and focus. “I’d like to make a couple of suggestions. I think we should break for lunch. And be prepared when we return to decide where exactly we think all of this discussion is leading us. To the extent our little jury is any kind of microcosm of our society at large, there seems to be a strong consensus that our representatives are not serving us very well. And, in fact, have really let us down. Selfishly serving themselves more than the public. Perhaps constituting an even worse threat to our nation than Wall Street has been.
“However, we are certainly not a legislative body. We have no ability to fix everything that ails our country. What we must do is decide Mr. Norman’s fate. But there’s no reason why we can’t send some kind of a message to our political representatives at the same time. Let’s meet back here at one thirty this afternoon.”
* * *
AFTER LUNCH, THINGS BEGAN to fall into place in terms of a possible defense of justifiable homicide. While the various jurors had their own respective opinions on what was wrong with the country’s political representatives, and what needed to be repaired, there was no disagreement that governmental processes had become extremely dysfunctional. And that many political representatives had moved away from serving to being served. On this the jury was unanimous. Without exception, each of the eleven jurors who had voted guilty indicated that he or she was also prepared to vote that Mr. Norman was entitled to a defense of justifiable homicide.
It was Sajid Rajesh who then returned the jury to the task at hand and surfaced what would become the last issue the jury would debate. “I have a serious question in my mind that we have not yet adequately addressed. As you know, I am the only one right now who is voting not guilty. The rest of you are voting guilty at the moment. But with Mr. Norman being entitled to a defense of justifiable homicide.
“Guilty plus an eligible defense amounts to the same as not guilty. So it seems clear that Mr. Norman is going to go home a free man at the end of this trial. I don’t think any one of us disagrees with that result. However, I think there is a question of emphasis that we must consider.
“In voting not guilty, I have placed the emphasis on Mr. Norman. I simply think there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty. In doing so, by definition, my approach plays down the message I think we want to send our representatives about their failings. I do agree with each of you that our government has failed us terribly and must be told this. And that it should somehow be required to improve its performance, and its service, to the people it supposedly represents. However, I am uncomfortable characterizing Mr. Norman as having murdered Senator Wells just so we can criticize our corrupt government.
“Those who vote guilty and find the justifiable homicide defense available send such a message to our representatives more clearly and loudly than my true not guilty vote. But at what expense to Mr. Norman? The answer is that in order to do this you are finding Mr. Norman guilty. A result that I continue to think is entirely unfair to him personally. I think we need to consider this oddity—finding Mr. Norman guilty just so that we can strongly denounce the shortcomings of our government.”
Rajesh’s remarks set off still another round of debate. Some agreed with him. And were ready to change their vote back to not guilty. They really did not want to see Mr. Norman castigated. But had voted guilty primarily because they wanted a forum in which to take on the government. Others, including Gonzalo, really did feel that there was an important principle to be protected in requiring some kind of limitation on the meaning of reasonable doubt. In this respect as well, it seemed that Mr. Norman was again being used as a foil to make a broader point that did not necessarily have all that much to do with how people really felt about him.
The debate continued for several hours with no apparent solution at hand. Once again, it was Steve Kessler who brought the issue into perspective. “Personally, I have all but concluded my thinking. I believe that when the dust settles here, I will vote not guilty. I simply don’t want Mr. Norman to become a pawn in all of this. I would rather compromise matters somewhat and let the world know that Mr. Norman was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors based on an extremely large number of potential perpetrators mad as hell at our political representatives. While I think that might not be quite as strong as the message sent by formally finding the defense to be available, I think it comes close enough and it would allow us to find Mr. Norman not guilty. Which is what I think most of us truly want to do.
“By the way, I note that we have been talking about various messages that we would like to send. But we haven’t discussed just how we intend to send those messages. I don’t think that happens automatically. This is a subject we will also need to consider before we finish our work. Nevertheless, we have spent a long day. I think many, if not all, of us are spent. Emotionally as well as physically. As such, I think we should adjourn for the evening and pick this up again in the morning.”
On that, at least, the jury was unanimous.
CHAPTER 127
Sunday, August 9, 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.
KLEIN HAD TRIED TO reach Reilly on Saturday night, but never got past his voicemail. He returned her calls Sunday morning. She filled him in on everything that had happened and everything that she had learned the night before from Lotello. She then pitched Reilly on a joint motion to drop the charges against Norman. “He’s clearly not guilty, Vince. I can’t imagine that you want this jury coming back with a decision under these circumstances any more than I do.” Actually, it was not really all that clear exactly who had done what to whom. But in the face of these astonishing events, Klein certainly had to make a run at this. First to Reilly. And then to Brooks.
If Reilly was going to cooperate, he wasn’t making it easy. “There’s no way I’m going to agree to anything like what you’re suggesting unless I first hear this straight from the horse’s mouth. I’m talking about Lotello.”
Klein said she would try to set up a conference call that morning so Reilly could ask Lotello whatever he wanted to ask him.
* * *
SHORTLY AFTER NOON, ON a conference call, Reilly made Lotello walk him through the whole Hollister drill. Not that he honestly needed to hear it again. The last thing he wanted was for the jury to come in on this case. He stood to lose a lot more than he stood to gain. He couldn’t help but imagine being stained for life as the prosecutor who allowed the defense of justifiable homicide to be expanded on his watch. Kind of like the fellow in the bottom of the ninth who strikes out to give the pitcher a no-hitter. “Okay, Leah, put your motion together and I’ll join.”
“Vince, I’m happy to draft whatever we need. But I think we might be better off speaking to Judge Brooks first. To see what he wants. I’m not honestly sure Brooks is going to want a written motion here.”
“You might be right. Why don’t you see if you can figure out how to reach Brooks on a Sunday.” It was her motion. And his day off. He figured she should be the one spinning her wheels on this. Particularly on trying to figure out how to reach Brooks.
* * *
TWO MINUTES LATER, KLEIN’S phone rang. It was Lotello call
ing her back. “Got a pen?”
“Sure. What’s up?”
“Brooks’ private home number. Here it is.” Lotello rattled it off.
Klein wrote it down. “And you have that number how?”
“Can’t hear you, Klein. You’re breaking up.” Click.
Smoke was coming out of Klein’s ears. He’s doing it again. This man is … incorrigible!
CHAPTER 128
Sunday, August 9, 2:00 p.m.
BROOKS RETURNED KLEIN’S CALL in a matter of minutes. Klein gave him the short version of the story. Brooks listened quietly. Without voicing any interruptions. When she finished, he didn’t ask any questions, either. His response was succinct: “Okay, Ms. Klein. Four thirty this afternoon. Lotello’s hospital room. You, Reilly, Lotello, and me. Make sure everyone is on time.” He hung up without another word.
CHAPTER 129
Sunday, August 9, 4:30 p.m.
OF COURSE, WHEN BROOKS said 4:30 p.m., he meant exactly 4:30 p.m. Everyone knew this. Everyone was on time. Including most of all Brooks. And the court reporter he brought with him. Who quickly set up her equipment.
Just then, the nurse in charge walked in with a scowl on her face larger than life itself. “What do you all think you’re doing? This patient needs his rest. You all have to leave. Right now! Out!”
Judge Brooks could scowl with the best of them. And he certainly was not used to having people lecture him. He handed the nurse his card. The room was very quiet. Lotello, Klein, and Reilly watched with amusement to see who was going to win this showdown. Little did the nurse know she never stood a chance.
Once again, softly enough that one could have heard that proverbial pin drop, Brooks asserted his authority: “Madam, less theatrics, please. If you don’t mind. Until I say further, this room is now mine. If you have a problem with that, go find the person who runs this hospital. Have that person come see me. Now scoot! I have a meeting to run here. And I want to get it done quickly. So this patient can indeed get his rest. You’re wasting our time, Madam.”
The Puppet Master Page 37