Brent Marks Legal Thriller Series: Box Set One

by Kenneth Eade

  “And the CIA. But there was a huge cover up and they just sent the sacrificial lambs to court-martial as fall guys. The stink rose all the way to the top.”

  “I know. Rumsfeld offered to resign over it.”

  “Turns out the torture was sanctioned by the Department of Justice.”

  “The memos from the DOJ telling the president’s staff that torture was legal.”

  “Dude, it’s not torture. It’s enhanced interrogation techniques. One of the guys who wrote the memos is now a Ninth Circuit Justice.”

  “Great, just what I need.”

  “Well, our Colonel Masters served at Abu Ghraib.”

  “No shit?”

  “No shit. And his right hand man was none other than…”

  “Let me guess. Sergeant William Brown.”

  “I’m seeing a cover up here.”

  “It’s not a cover up. It’s a cover ‘all the way up.’”

  “You’re right. I’m saving this one for rebuttal. Find out as much as you can about Masters and Brown.”

  “The sex experts?”

  “That was Masters and Johnson.”

  “The law firm?”

  “Be serious for once in your life.”

  “That would be no fun.”

  ***

  The next adverse witness Brent put up for his case in chief was Special Agent Ralph Jeffries, the lead FBI agent who coordinated the search of Catherine and Ahmed’s home without notice. He identified the members of Jeffries’s team and their function, and then tore right into him like a rabid dog.

  “Special Agent Jeffries, your team conducted surveillance on Ahmed and Catherine Khury, is that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “When I refer to “you,” Special Agent Jeffries, I am referring to you or any member of your team. When I say, “you personally,” it means only you, okay?”

  “Yes.”

  “You wiretapped Catherine and Ahmed’s cell phones before Ahmed went to Iraq, isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “And that was without a wiretap order to tap the Khury’s cell phones in particular, correct?”

  “We had a wiretap order.”

  “But that wiretap order was not a court issued order, was it?”

  “It was a national security letter.”

  “Issued by the FBI, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “Sir, your national security letter order did not specify Ahmed or Catherine Khury, is that correct?”

  “That is correct. It directed a roving wiretap relative to money laundering operations in Iraq of suspected al Qaeda operators.”

  “In this case, the roving wiretap was directed at Sabeen Khury, wasn’t it?”

  “Yes, it was.”

  “So when Sabeen made a phone call to the Khurys, you listened, correct?”

  “Correct.”

  “And when he sent an email to Ahmed Khury, you intercepted their emails, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “You also secured Ahmed and Catherine Khury’s credit report from Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “And that was without their permission, wasn’t it?”

  “We didn’t need their permission.”

  “Move to strike as non-responsive. Answer the question, sir.”

  “Objection!” Nagel interjected.

  “Objection sustained,” said the judge, irritated with Brent’s usurpation of his authority. "I will rule on the motions here, Mr. Marks. Agent Jeffries’s answer is stricken. You will answer the question, Agent Jeffries.”

  “It was without their permission?”

  “Yes.”

  “And without their knowledge?”

  “Yes, without their knowledge.”

  “This national security letter issued by your bureau, it had a non-disclosure provision in it, didn’t it?”

  “Yes.”

  “And that non-disclosure provision prohibited the recipient from disclosing its existence, isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “So, for example, Experian was prohibited from disclosing to the Khurys that their credit report was given to the FBI, correct?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And Verizon was prohibited from disclosing to the Khurys that their telephones had been tapped, right?”

  “Yes.”

  “And, on May 26, 2006, you entered the home of Catherine and Ahmed Khury, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “You did not announce yourselves, correct?”

  “Correct.”

  “And you gained access to the home by having a locksmith pick the lock on their front door, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “This search was also authorized by the national security letter?”

  “Yes.”

  “Without Catherine’s permission?”

  “Correct.”

  Brent guided the jury through the search of the Khury’s home with Jeffries’s testimony, disclosing every detail.

  “And you left the home with photos of Ahmed from the Khury’s family photo albums that you had seized?”

  “Yes.”

  “And took a laptop and a PC from their home?”

  “Yes.”

  “Again, without their permission?”

  “Yes.”

  “And without a warrant?”

  “Yes.”

  “Agent Jeffries, in all the material you took from the Khury home, you found no evidence that either Catherine or Ahmed Khury was involved in any terrorist activity, is that correct?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And in all the records you examined that you obtained from the national security letter, you found no evidence that either Catherine or Ahmed Khury was involved in any terrorist activity, is that correct?”

  “Correct.”

  “Agent Jeffries, finally, in all the telephone calls you intercepted, you found no evidence that either Catherine or Ahmed Khury was involved in any terrorist activity, is that correct?”

  “We found communications with Sabeen Khury, a suspected terrorist.”

  “Move to strike as non-responsive. Answer the question please, sir.”

  “Granted, answer the question.”

  “That is correct.”

  “And in all the emails you intercepted, you found no evidence that Catherine or Ahmed Khury was involved in any terrorist activity, correct?”

  “No, sir. We found emails to arrange meetings with Sabeen Khury, a suspected terrorist.”

  “You found emails to arrange a meeting with Ahmed Khury’s brother?”

  “Correct, in Iraq.”

  “Where both Sabeen and Ahmed Khury were born?”

  “Yes.”

  “And where Sabeen Khury still lived?”

  “Yes.”

  There was not much Nagel could hope to gain from cross-examining his own witness. Brent had spoiled his party by calling the witness for his own case, so Nagel just rolled with it and emphasized the points he wanted to make without unnecessary repetition of the damaging ones.

  “Special Agent Jeffries, the national security letter you received from the FBI was part of an authorized international investigation into terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by Section 505 of the Patriot Act, isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “So your team did nothing against the law in executing the order, right?”

  “Objection!” Brent interrupted. “Calls for a legal conclusion.”

  “Sustained.”

  “Special Agent Jeffries, did you stay within the parameters of the national security letter?”

  “Yes, we did.”

  “And was your department in possession of intelligence reports that showed a clear and present terrorist threat from Sabeen Khury?”

  “Yes.”

  “Thank you. No further quest
ions, Your Honor.”

  CHAPTER FORTY-SIX

  Brent was beat up from the day at the trial and beat himself up more on the freeway on the long trip home. His eyelids felt like there were weights tied to the eyelashes, and he fought to stay alert. It would have been smarter to take a hotel downtown to avoid the trek. He wondered what it must be like for the thousands of people who made a one or two hour commute every day, because it was pure torture for him. When he arrived home, he could feel the blood pounding in his head, and every pulsation was painful. Opening the door, he raced the cat to the kitchen.

  “Advil first, Calico.”

  In cattish selfishness, Calico mewed incessantly for her dinner. Every utterance seemed to create a new headache for Brent, who struggled to get the cap off the Advil, poured a glass of water hastily, and eagerly gulped down three tablets as if he was fulfilling his last dying wish. Then the phone rang.

  “Fuck!” the expletive echoed against the walls, which made even the cat take a break from gulping her food.

  “Hi honey!” It was Debbie, all happy and cheery.

  “Hey Deb, I really can’t talk right now.”

  “What’s the matter? Calico got your tongue? Ha ha!”

  Her lame attempt at humor was not even mildly amusing for Brent.

  “Yes, ha ha,” he said in a ‘courtesy laugh.’ “I really have to go, Debbie, I’m not feeling well.”

  “What’s wrong?” Her curiosity demanded a medical explanation inevitably leading to more unnecessary conversation that could not possibly help his headache.

  “Got a headache. Can I call you back in a while?”

  “Sure.”

  Brent hung up and slumped into his living room chair. “I hate the goddamn phone,” he said to the cat, who looked up at him with curiosity, swished her tail, and then rubbed against his leg in gratitude for her dinner.

  He checked with the office: Forty-five unanswered messages. The financial pressure he was experiencing by neglecting attention to his other cases and concentrating on the trial had built up, complicated by the fact that he, and not Catherine Khury, had been paying all the expert witness fees and jury fees. Rick was taking his investigative fees on the come.

  Brent slumped back in his chair and waited for the Advil to take effect. Mental exhaustion resulted in his dozing off a bit, which was never known by him to be a good cure for a headache, but obviously his body needed it.

  He awoke from the nap to a rapping at the door. Rising and grumbling, Brent approached the door and opened it.

  “Surprise!” It was Debbie.

  “Deb, I’m not much in the mood for surprises.”

  Debbie pushed Brent aside gently and came in. “I have just what you need,” she said. After a warm bath, a massage and some intimate personal attention, Brent agreed and decided to write the maker of Advil to complain.

  CHAPTER FORTY-SEVEN

  Brent had to squeeze two more expert witnesses in, so he saved the most interesting one for last, and first called Marvin Ketzler, an actuary and fellow of the Society of Actuaries and member of the American Academy of Actuaries. Ketzler had spent 25 years in the insurance industry in risk assessment. He couldn’t tell you if anyone was a good person or not, but he could tell you within $100 of what he or she was worth in dollars and cents.

  Ketzler testified that, had his life not ended as it did, Ahmed Khury would have, most likely, lived to be at least 85.4 years old, and would have had another 32 years of gainful employment ahead of him as an accountant. He calculated his future salary, discounted it for the future value of money, and calculated that, in dollars and cents, Ahmed was worth $5.9 million to his family.

  The next witness in Brent’s case in chief was Doctor Stephen Ransen, a forensic psychologist. Dr. Ransen took the witness chair and talked to the jury in a very unassuming bedside manner. He outlined his 42 years’ experience in the field, his medical degree, psychiatric residency, that he was a Diplomate in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry, and the fact that he was also a Qualified Medical Examiner in the state of California. Dr. Ransen had authored over 60 articles, including those on suicide prevention, and had an impressive alphabet soup collection of professional affiliations.

  “Dr. Ransen, you were hired by the Plaintiff to make an assessment on the mental condition that led to Ahmed Khury’s suicide, is that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “Can you outline for the jury, please, what facts you have examined in order to make that assessment?”

  “Certainly.”

  From that point on, Brent was just a bystander, as Dr. Ransen took over the jury mind, body and soul. He made eye contact with each and every member, and spoke in a calm, reassuring, almost hypnotic tone.

  “I have been listening to the testimony of the witnesses the past three days concerning the conditions Mr. Khury endured while detained. I have also examined both autopsy reports, all reports of his medical condition while incarcerated, as well as his historical medical reports before incarceration.”

  “Doctor, from your examination of all the evidence, have you been able to form an opinion, within a reasonable medical certainty, of the cause of Mr. Khury’s suicide, if it in fact, was a suicide?”

  “Yes, I have.”

  “Can you please explain that opinion and your basis for it to the jury?”

  “Yes, of course. From my examination of the evidence, I am not entirely convinced that Mr. Khury took his own life. I concur with the opinion of Dr. Orozco. However, there is evidence of suicidal impulses on the part of Mr. Khury, and it is my opinion that these impulses were not controllable by Mr. Khury and were the result of a mental condition caused by the treatment of his jailers.”

  Dr. Ransen explained studies to the jury, in layman’s terms, of the effect of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, and sensory overstimulation on psychiatric syndromes.

  “These studies point out in detail what psychiatrists have known for a long time: that severe restriction of environmental and social stimulation has a profound deleterious effect on mental functioning. That solitary confinement was purposely used to “break down” Mr. Khury mentally so that he would be susceptible to the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been described in court is extremely troubling.

  “But Mr. Khury did not only experience solitary confinement. He was purposely deprived of all sensory input for long periods of time, as a perfectly acceptable form of treatment by his captors. This treatment, which was specifically aimed at making him mentally dependent on his interrogators, contributed to his unstable mental condition.

  “Observations in the numerous studies have shown common features in cases of sensory deprivation, such as intense desire for extrinsic sensory stimuli and bodily motion, increased suggestibility, impairment of organized thinking, oppression and depression, and, in extreme cases, hallucinations, delusions, and confusion.

  “After even a brief time of sensory deprivation, a normal individual is likely to descend into a mental torpor. This is like a blanket of fog that comes over your mind, and impairs alertness, attention and concentration.

  “An individual subjected to long periods of sensory deprivation becomes incapable of processing external stimuli, and becomes hyper-responsive, overreacting to any kind of sensory stimulation. Over time, the complete absence of stimulation causes any stimulus to become noxious and annoying. For example, if I clapped my hands like this, normally you would not find that too annoying. If, however, you were subjected to that noise after a long period of sensory deprivation, you may find it to be unbearable.”

  “Doctor, does the fact that Mr. Khury was not only subjected to sensory deprivation, but also long periods of sensory overstimulation affect your opinion?”

  “Yes, there are a number of studies on the effect of sensory overload on the mental state.”

  Dr. Ransen went on to outline the findings of the medical articles on sensory overload. As he spoke, Brent watched the jury to make sure that they would not
be lost in the medical mumbo jumbo that doctors tend to engage in, but Ransen broke it down to the lowest common denominators.

  “These results of cognitive and intellectual impairment from sensory overload are exacerbated by the sensory deprivation Mr. Khury experienced. Imagine coming from an environment with absolutely no outside stimuli, which, as I stated before, makes an individual hypersensitive to any tiny stimulation, to being bombarded with loud noise and bright lights for 24 hours a day.

  “The psychological effect of such overstimulation is devastating. The exposure of Mr. Khury to the type of treatment he experienced at the hands of his captors reasonably lead to uncontrollable impulses to commit suicide on his part.”

  “Dr. Ransen, do you have an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether a reasonable person would perceive Mr. Khury’s treatment to create a danger to his medical condition?”

  “Yes, I do. It is my opinion that, not only did his captors treat Mr. Khury with deliberate indifference to his expressions of suicidal tendencies, but also they were actually trained in the techniques they used and knew that they were being used to break him down mentally. Further, they knew that these techniques were dangerous.”

  “Objection and move to strike!” barked Nagel. “Lack of foundation!”

  “Overruled.”

  “Doctor, how do you know that they knew these techniques were dangerous?” Brent asked, moving in for the kill.

  “If what you have heard in the past three days has turned your stomach as much as it has mine, imagine what the jailers, who actually witnessed the cruel and heartless treatment Mr. Khury was subjected to thought. And imagine how it would be to inflict such misery on another person day after day and be hardened to the point of indifference. If my dog were treated the way Mr. Khury was, I might be compelled to commit murder, Mr. Marks.”

  “Objection! Move to strike as prejudicial.”

  “Overruled.”

  Each juror’s face was frozen in shock, and no matter how Nagel plotted and schemed to twist the testimony of Dr. Ransen his way, he knew that it would not diminish the emotional effect that it had on the jurors. The knockout punch having been delivered, it was time for Brent to rest his case.