Faith and Justice

by Peter O'Mahoney

  Anderson shook Hunter’s hand and pulled out the chair where he was to sit. He took one deep breath before he sat down, looking to the windows with the blinds drawn, not allowing any sun to stream in or any sense of hope to escape.

  Anderson’s brother and sister-in-law arrived first. They were the type of people that arrived for the train twenty minutes early and were stressed if they weren’t going to be on time. They patted Anderson on the back before sitting behind him in the gallery. Then came his friends and supporters.

  Michelle Law entered the courtroom next, and she was surprised to see such an audience. However, she walked to the desk with her head held high, her back straight, and her vision focused.

  Over the next hour, the rest of the court pews began to fill. Anderson’s quiet family and supporters on one side, looking timid in their fear, and the loud, proud, and angry supporters of Reverend Green on the other side of the court. If Hunter didn’t know any better, he would have thought he had walked in on a court case in the South during the times of segregation.

  The reporters came last—fewer than Hunter expected. However, there had been another school shooting the day before in Wicker Park, and that had taken the media’s attention away from the first days of the high-profile trial.

  “Five minutes,” the bailiff called out, alerting everyone to the fact that the spectacle was about to begin, and Judge David Lockett was to enter the courtroom.

  Hunter looked over his opening statement one last time, then rested his hand on Anderson’s shoulder.

  Anderson nodded his response, too nervous to speak. His fate lay in the files on the table, his future in the hands of someone else. Anderson made sure the wastepaper basket under the table wasn’t far away, in close enough reach if he needed to vomit.

  “All rise. The Court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Lockett presiding.”

  The slight and wearied figure of Judge Lockett edged through the courtroom, his eyes down until he sat behind the judge’s bench. He moved files to the left, checked that his pen was working, huffed, and then raised his eyes to look at the full courtroom before him.

  After Judge Lockett had announced the procedure for the audience and defendant, he talked to the bailiff, who then welcomed the members of the jury to the courtroom. Awkwardly, they walked to their places, a few stumbling on the seats. The eyes of the courtroom were on them as they silently sat down; some were nervous, others thrived in the environment.

  Juror eleven certainly did the latter. His chest was puffed out, his shoulders back, and his chin up. He was wearing his best checkered shirt, which was at least ten years old, his best jeans, and his best boots. He had cut his hair the night before, had his eyebrows trimmed, and his ear hairs clipped.

  The voir dire, the juror selection process, was arduous for both the prosecution and the defense. Both sides dismissed so many potential candidates that it should’ve been referred to as a deselection process. With the murder case headlining news for weeks, it was hard to find people who hadn’t been influenced, commented on, or sympathized with the events.

  Under Formal Opinion 466, the ethical guidelines provided by the American Bar Association, Esther Wright used her skills to scour the publicly available social media posts of the potential jurors. That search eliminated five potential jurors—having already voiced opinions on the murder of Reverend Green or the guilt of Amos Anderson.

  Neither side wanted sympathizers with the defendant or the victim—Hunter used his seven peremptory challenges before they had reached nine jurors, and Law had used hers quickly after. The challenge for cause, used by the judge to reject a juror, was used for every second person that was brought in front of them.

  Hunter rejected all the possible supporters of Reverend Green and the Baptist church, and Law rejected all the people who could have been offended by one of Reverend Green’s speeches. Despite statistics stating that over 30 percent of the Chicago population was black, only two sat on the jury of twelve. That alone infuriated Reverend Green’s supporters.

  Although Hunter felt the jury was leaning in his favor, there was one person on the jury that could cause him a problem.

  Juror twelve was tall, broad-shouldered, and intelligent. A retired African American doctor who had worked his way up from the projects to a successful life, he claimed he had never heard of Reverend Green’s name, and had been traveling on a cruise ship in Alaska for the past three months. Hunter argued that the juror must have known the name due to all the media coverage, so it was almost impossible to avoid. However, the judge sided with the prosecution, turning Hunter’s luck on its head.

  Juror twelve had a healthy glow, and a very nice suit, but more than his looks, he had respect as a doctor. Both Hunter and Law knew that it would be a long deliberation regardless of evidence, regardless of the strength of either case. Juror eleven and twelve both looked argumentative and stubborn, and would naturally choose the opposing sides of a dispute.

  Despite the jurors’ potential for arguments, the true facts of the case were indisputable.

  Reverend Dural Green was beaten in an alley behind the Congress Hotel on February 1st, and he died as a result of the wounds he sustained.

  That was fact.

  But there were no direct witnesses or any direct evidence of Anderson’s involvement, and that left the door slightly open for Hunter to argue there was reasonable doubt.

  With one week scheduled for the prosecution’s case and three days for the defense, the jurors were anticipating a lot of evidence to come their way. After Judge Lockett informed the jury of their duty and read the instructions to them, Law was ready to lay all her cards out on the table.

  She opened her statement sitting behind her desk, but when she got into her speech, she stood to emphasize her point.

  *****

  “On February 1st of this year, Reverend Dural Green, of the Grand Crossing Baptist Church, attended a function at the Congress Hotel to deliver a speech on the effect that faith and the church community has on the treatment of depression. He often did this sort of thing. He had argued that finding the good Lord was the first step to curing depression.

  Also at the function was Amos Anderson, the man sitting at the defense table.

  He also gave a speech that day and stated that faith healing was the way to cure depression. You see, Mr. Anderson is a faith healer. He ‘heals’ people through the movement of hands, the air, and possibly, the wind. Who knows? There’s certainly no scientific evidence that supports Mr. Anderson’s claims of healing.

  Reverend Green called this form of healing a fraud, a scam, or worse yet, the Devil’s work. Reverend Green was a very loud opponent of Mr. Anderson’s claims.

  At around 8.45 p.m. on February 1st, Mr. Anderson argued with Reverend Green, and that argument became physical. Two men of supposed ‘peace’ became violent, and Reverend Green was seen grabbing Mr. Anderson by the neck.

  Only two hours later, Reverend Green was dead.

  Beaten to death in the alley behind the Congress Hotel.

  A minister, a man of peace, was beaten to death in an alley.

  His parish was devastated.

  My name is Michelle Law, and with my team, we will present an astonishing amount of evidence that will leave you with no choice but to convict Mr. Anderson for the first-degree murder of Reverend Dural Green. My opening statement is to provide you with a roadmap, if you will, of the prosecution’s case against Mr. Anderson, as anything I say now is not considered evidence.

  Fed up by the constant attacks on his profession, Mr. Anderson intended to murder Reverend Green that night. He intended to murder the minister. He invited Reverend Green into the alley to discuss their differences further. Of course, Mr. Anderson had no interest in a discussion.

  You will hear from witnesses who will state that they saw Mr. Anderson standing near the alley only moments before the murder took place.

  You will hear from witnesses who will state that they saw Mr. Anderson get in
to a physical altercation with Reverend Green that night.

  You will hear from witnesses who will talk about the hatred that Mr. Anderson had for Reverend Green.

  But more importantly, you will also hear from expert witnesses throughout this case who will provide details about the evidence taken from the scene of the crime.

  One such expert witness will explain the DNA evidence that was under Reverend Green’s fingernails. Another expert witness will provide details about the blood that was found on the sleeve of Reverend Green and its match to Mr. Anderson’s DNA. And a third expert witness will detail what sort of blow caused this heinous crime.

  You will also hear the testimonies of the Chicago Police Department detectives that were at the scene of the crime, the detectives who made the arrest, and the members of the department that executed the search warrant of Mr. Anderson’s apartment.

  They will detail what they found at the crime scene and present photos to you. You will hear from Detective Browne who will give evidence and state that he found Reverend Green’s necklace at the home of Mr. Anderson. Reverend Green was seen wearing that necklace on the night he died; however, it was not found at the crime scene.

  You will hear from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as they detail the cause of death.

  You will hear from the arresting officer who will state that Mr. Anderson seemed nervous when they arrested him the next morning.

  Without the intervention of the hard-working police officers of the Chicago Police Department, Mr. Anderson would be back out on the streets. Without the intervention of the police, a killer would still be on the loose on the streets of Chicago. Out on the street where they could attack vulnerable people. Attacking the defenseless people of this city.

  Causing chaos on the streets.

  Causing violence, crime, and pain to our great city.

  That’s what murderers do.

  And to take that killer off the streets is a win for our city. A win for all of us.

  But, I must say, it’s only half the battle.

  The other half of the battle is to convict killers, which happens in here, within these walls, in this courtroom.

  This week, you have an opportunity to make our city safer. Safer for you, and safer for families.

  Don’t be swayed by the entertaining show that the defense will present. Don’t focus on what might have been. Don’t think about possibilities.

  Focus on the facts. That’s your job. That’s why you’re here.

  And if you look at the facts, if you look only at the evidence, then it will lead you to only one possible conclusion.

  Only one.

  Amos Anderson murdered Reverend Dural Green.

  He must be found ‘Guilty’ of murder in the first degree.

  Listen to the evidence, listen to the witnesses, and make your decision based on the facts.

  Thank you very much for your duty to this great city.”

  *****

  The jury was transfixed by Law’s speech. They couldn’t take their eyes off her as she delivered the speech with passion and fire. Hunter was the same; he appreciated her great performance.

  After only one speech, one statement, Law already had the jury in her soft hands. To them, she was the voice of authority, the voice of justice. They were all on the side of the good guys.

  In contrast, Hunter’s speech wasn’t about to reject the facts, or dispute the prosecution’s evidence; it would focus on the technicalities of the law.

  He knew that his client’s personality wouldn’t win this case. He knew that he couldn’t win based on his client’s appearance. The only hope he had for the case was to present the facts as they were, focus on the missing pieces, and then create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror.

  The reasonable doubt of one person.

  That was all he needed.

  *****

  “May it please the court, Miss Law, her team, and members of the jury. My name is Tex Hunter, and with my team, we will present the reasons why you cannot convict Mr. Amos Anderson of this crime.

  On February 1st, Reverend Dural Green died. That’s the fact as presented by a police report.

  Indisputable fact, and we are not here to dispute that.

  As the prosecution has informed you, your job as a member of this jury is to reach a verdict based on the evidence.

  Not assumptions, not expectations, not probabilities—but evidence.

  Not potentials, not likelihoods, not chances—but evidence.

  You must be clear on that.

  You cannot fill in the gaps yourself. You cannot make up theories based on your bias. You cannot convict a man based on your assumptions.

  An assumption is defined as something that’s accepted without proof.

  Without proof.

  I make this clear to you because there will be gaps in the case, there will be holes in the prosecution’s case. And it’s in those gaps, in those questions, that you will find reasonable doubt.

  Let’s be clear—there’s no direct evidence, none, that states Mr. Anderson murdered Reverend Green. None. There are no witnesses to the event, no witness that saw them in the alley together, and no surveillance footage that shows the event.

  It’s here that you will find doubt.

  It’s here that you will find uncertainty.

  In a court of law, you cannot convict a man based on assumptions. You simply cannot do that. You need to make a decision based on the facts. The evidence.

  By now, your question should be: What is reasonable doubt?

  It’s doubt that still exists upon reason and common sense, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence.

  You will find that you have that reasonable doubt at the end of this case. Even after all the pieces of evidence are presented in this case, you will have reasonable doubt based purely on common sense.

  I’m here to explain to you the undeniable fact that, right now, Amos Anderson is presumed innocent.

  That’s the way our system works.

  Time and time again in this case, you’re going to hear about the presumption of innocence. That means right now, Amos Anderson starts this court case with a blank page. The presumption of innocence means that suspicion, bias, prejudgment, and assumptions have no place in your thoughts.

  That’s your responsibility.

  And it’s a big responsibility.

  Together, we’re going on a journey. On that journey, I will tell you where the police, and the department’s laboratory and apparent ‘experts’, have ignored obvious evidence, used false science, performed untidy fieldwork, and rushed to a very wrong and early judgment.

  That’s why we have a justice system. That’s why police themselves don’t decide the guilt or sentencing of the people they arrest.

  We’re here, together, as a safeguard, as the thoughtful and considered end point to the process.

  You will hear from experts who will show you where the gaps exist in the police work. You will hear from specialists that will show you where the prosecution has made assumptions and not based their case on the facts.

  And you will hear from people who will state that their lives have been saved by the work of Mr. Anderson.

  That’s right.

  Mr. Anderson saves lives; he doesn’t take them.

  I will help you in this process, and together, we will find Amos Anderson ‘Not Guilty’ based on the reasonable doubt that lies within the prosecution’s assumptions.

  Judge Lockett will remind you throughout our journey not to make up your minds until the journey is done, because it may be in the last moment of the trial that you discover the reasonable doubt in the final piece of evidence.

  There’s no evidence, no evidence, that will reasonably convict Amos Anderson of this crime. You will have reasonable doubt at the end of this case, therefore, you can only make one decision.

  When our journey comes to a close, I will stand before you and ask you for a verdict o
f Not Guilty.

  Thank you for your time, and thank you for listening. I wish you well.”

  CHAPTER 32

  The prosecution started their witness list with the coroner and his report, the worker who found the body early in the morning, and the paramedic that declared Reverend Green deceased at the scene of the crime.

  They were all solid witnesses, people who gave an-in-depth picture of the scene, but nothing game-changing, and certainly, nothing that would convict Anderson of the crime.

  “The prosecution calls Rosa Santiago to the stand.”

  And there she was—the main witness that placed Anderson at the scene. Law wanted to end day one with a bang, a chance for the jurors to walk away from the first day with Anderson’s guilt in their minds.

  Rosa Santiago was unsteady in her walk to the stand. Her shoulders were slumped forward, her eyes focused on the floor, and her hands fidgeting. Her clothes were too big, and her glasses were equally oversized. Her timid demeanor was matched by her stick-thin body shape.

  “Please state your name and vocation for the court.” Law was gentle in her approach with the witness. She had softened her voice, seeking to calm Rosa’s nerves.

  “Rosa Jasmine Santiago. I work as an administration manager for a large stock market firm.” Her voice was shaky as she sat in the witness box. Public speaking wasn’t her strength.

  “How long have you worked in that company?”

  “Yes,” she replied awkwardly. “I mean, five years, ever since I graduated from college.”

  “What did you study at college?”

  “I did.” She played with her glasses. She didn’t want this pressure; she didn’t want to be a witness. She was merely a person in the wrong place at the wrong time. “Sorry. I’m so sorry. I mean, I studied accounting and economics at a community college.”