“And you just said you couldn’t rule out the possibility that he was lifted into the Dumpster?”
He has no choice. “Correct.”
I point to Leon and say, “Given Mr. Walker’s illness and his diminished strength, what are the chances that he could have lifted a two-hundred and ten pound?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
I turn to Judge McDaniel and insist, “I’ve stipulated to Dr. Beckert’smedical expertise and I’m asking for an expert medical opinion.”
McNulty won’t let it go. “Dr. Beckerthasn’t had a chance to examine the defendant.”
No, he hasn’t. Judge McDaniel makes the right call. “Sustained.”
More smoke and mirrors. “Dr. Beckert,” I say, “you’ve told us about the victim, but you haven’t told us anything about the murderer.”
He gives me a well-rehearsed perplexed look. “I’m the Chief Medical Examiner. It’s my job to examine the victim and determine the cause of death. If you’d like to know more about the murderer, you can talk to your client.”
There’s a smattering of chuckles in the back of the courtroom, but I’m not amused. “Dr. Beckert,” I say, “I realize that you haven’t had an opportunity to examine my client. On the other hand, you should be able to make some determinations about the murderer.”
“Such as?”
It works better when the lawyer asks the questions. “Was the murderer male or female?”
“Male.”
“How do you know?”
He points toward Leon and says, “Because I’m looking at him.”
More chuckles in the courtroom. “Based upon your autopsy,” I say, “did you find any conclusive forensic evidence as to whether the murderer was male or female?”
The triumphant smile is replaced by a scowl. “No.”
“Was the murderer short or tall?”
“I believe the murderer was taller than the victim.”
“How do you know?”
“The angle of the knife wounds suggested the murderer had a height advantage.”
“And it fits within your theory if the defendant was taller than the victim, right?”
“Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.”
“Sustained.”
“Dr. Beckert,” I say, “isn’t it possible that the victim could have been standing on the ground while the killer was standing on the raised loading dock? This would have given the appearance that the murderer was taller than the victim, right?”
Beckert’s voice is dismissive when he acknowledges, “I suppose that’s a possibility.”
“So your finding is at best inconclusive.”
“In a stabbing case, it is impossible to determine the relative heights of the parties with absolute certainty without a witness.”
That’s all I need. “Dr. Beckert,” I say, “you also concluded that the murderer was left-handed, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”
“On what basis?”
“The angle of the stab wounds went from left to right.”
“And you’re aware that the defendant is left-handed?”
“Yes.”
I approach Beckert and hand him my pen. Then I turn my back to him and say, “Would you mind showing the court precisely how you believe the defendant attacked the victim?”
“Certainly.” The courtroom is silent as Beckert stands in the witness box and goes through a pantomime exercise of showing how a left-handed killer would have stabbed Grayson in the back. When he’s finished, I turn around and he hands the pen back to me.
“Thank you, Dr. Beckert,” I say. Then I turn to the judge and ask, “May it please the court, I would like to ask my colleague, Ms. Fernandez, to join me for another demonstration.”
McNulty is up. “Objection, Your Honor. We had no advance notice of this.”
Judge McDaniel gives me a skeptical look. “What’s this all about, Mr. Daley?”
“We would like Dr. Beckert to comment upon another potential scenario. I promise I’ll tie this together very quickly.”
She decides to give me a little leeway. “Go ahead, Mr. Daley.”
Rosie joins me in front of Beckert. I hand her my pen, then I turn my back to her and say, “Would you please demonstrate how a right-handed person might be able to make stab marks in my back that are angled from left to right?”
Rosie takes my pen in her right hand and then lifts it across her chest and up above her left ear, then pretends to stab me using a backhanded motion that would inflict wounds running from left to right. The entire demonstration takes only a moment.
I turn back to Beckert and say, “Isn’t it possible that the person who stabbed Tower Grayson may have used his or her right hand to do so?”
McNulty doesn’t like what he sees. He leaps to his feet and says, “Objection. Speculation. Calls for interpretation of information that has not been introduced into evidence.”
Judge McDaniel glares at him over her reading glasses and says, “Overruled, Mr. McNulty. The witness will answer.”
I can detect a hint of resignation Beckert’s tone as he says, “I suppose it’s possible that the murderer may have used his right hand to stab the victim.”
That’s all I wanted, but Beckert feels compelled to add a final swipe. “In my best medical judgment, however, I believe that the victim was stabbed by a left-handed man.”
So there.
I say to the judge, “Move to strike. Dr. Beckert had already answered my question.”
“Sustained.”
Beckert thinks about adding another editorial comment, but his better judgment prevails.
I glance at Rosie, who shuts her eyes. I won’t win this case with Beckerton the stand. It’s enough that I won a few minor points against one of their stronger witnesses. I look at the judge and say, “No further questions, Your Honor.”
*****
Chapter 44
“Did You Say it was the Right Hand?”
“Analyzing fingerprints and blood spatter patterns is an essential element of good police work.”
— Sergeant Kathleen Jacobsen. Profile in San Francisco Chronicle.
McNulty is standing next to the evidence cart when he turns to his next witness and says, “Please state your name and occupation for the record.”
“Sergeant Kathleen Jacobsen. I am a senior evidence technician with the San Francisco Police Department, specializing in fingerprints and other chemical and physical evidence.”
She’s also very good at her work. Jacobsen is a gray-haired sage who has paid her dues in the basement of the Hall. One of the first lesbians to work her way up the ranks, she has a bachelors from USC, a masters from UC-Berkeley and a quarter of a century of experience. She is frequently asked to testify in cases in other jurisdictions, and her unquestioned expertise and no-nonsense demeanor put her in the top tier of forensic gurus in the country.
McNulty is showing her a serrated hunting knife that’s wrapped in clear plastic. “Can you identify this object?” he asks.
She closes her eyes and nods. Then she reopens them slowly and says in a tone that leaves no doubt, “It’s the knife that was found in the defendant’s pocket.” It doesn’t take her long to identify the rest of the physical evidence and I object only once. It is what it is. Then McNulty leads her through her fingerprint analysis. She clutches her report as she answers perfunctory questions about her methodology, then McNulty goes in for the kill. “Sergeant,” he says, “were you able to identify any fingerprints on the knife?”
“Yes.” Her tone is clinical when she says she found three identifiable prints.
McNulty’s stern look turns smug. “Did they match the prints of anyone in this room?”
Jacobsen uses her report to point at Leon. “They match those of the defendant,” she says.
McNulty has what he needs. “No further questions,” he says.
I’m in front of the witness box quickly. “Sergeant,” I say, “on page four of your report, you
indicated that the three identifiable fingerprints on the knife matched the thumb, ring finger and pinky of Mr. Walker.”
“Correct.” She says there were two other smudged prints that she believed came from Leon’s second and third fingers. She acknowledges that she can’t positively identify them.
I pretend to leaf through her report, then I hand it back to her and say, “Would you mind telling us which hand the identifiable prints came from?”
Now it’s Jacobsen’s turn to make believe that she’s looking through her report, which she could recite verbatim. Her tone remains even when she says, “The right hand.”
“Did you say it was the right hand?”
“Yes.”
Perfect. I’m looking for one-word answers. “Are you sure about that?”
McNulty pops up. “Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered.”
“Sustained.”
I arch an eyebrow at Jerry Edwards to suggest that I’ve just let him in on a deep, dark secret. I turn back to Jacobsen and say, “Have you read Dr. Beckert’s autopsy report?”
“Yes.”
“Did you notice that he concluded that the attacker was left-handed?” I leave out the fact that I just tried to convince Beckert that a right-handed person could be equally guilty.
“Yes.”
“Are you aware that Mr. Walker is left-handed?”
“So I’m told.”
The hook is in the water. “How do you account for the fact that Dr. Beckert concluded that the assailant was left-handed, yet the prints on the knife were from my client’s right hand?”
Jacobsen does a perfect imitation of Mount Rushmore. Her arms are folded and her voice is even when she says, “If you had read page seven of my report carefully, you would have noted that I listed five other fingerprints that were smudged and therefore unidentifiable.”
It’s an attempt at misdirection. “So what?”
“We believe the smudged prints were from the defendant.”
Not good enough. “But you don’t know that for sure.”
“It’s consistent with the circumstances surrounding this case.”
“It’s consistent with your theory of the case.”
“Objection. Argumentative.”
“Sustained.”
I hand the bagged knife to Jacobsen and ask, “Did you conclusively identify any fingerprints from Mr. Walker’s left hand on this knife?”
“We believe that some of the smudged prints were from the defendant’s left hand.”
“Yes or no? Did you identify any fingerprints from Mr. Walker’s left hand?”
She casts a quick, but perturbed glance at McNulty before she says, “No.”
It isn’t a homer, but it might be a single. I walk back to the cart and pick up Leon’s jacket, which is also wrapped in clear plastic. I drape it on the ledge in front of the witness box. “Sergeant,” I say, “you also had an opportunity to analyze this jacket, didn’t you?”
“Yes. The defendant was wearing it when he was arrested.”
“And you’ve identified stains that match the blood of the victim?”
“Yes.”
Here we go. “Could you please show us where you found those stains?”
She points to the right sleeve and the right shoulder of the jacket, just below the neckline. “We found blood stains here,” she says.
“But Dr. Beckert concluded that the victim was attacked by a left-handed man. Presumably that arm would have been closest to the victim.”
“Not necessarily. The killer may have used his right arm to subdue the victim.”
“Did you find any evidence that the attacker attempted to subdue Mr. Grayson with his right arm? Perhaps some fingerprints on his body?” She’s already given me the answer.
“No.”
“In fact, your report noted that the blood spatter pattern was somewhat atypical for an attack involving multiple stab wounds, didn’t it?”
“There was slightly less blood than I might have anticipated in a multiple stabbing.”
“You also indicated that there was no blood at all on Mr. Walker’s pants.”
“I noted that those apparent discrepancies can be explained in the circumstances. If the attacker had a long reach and the victim was moving away at the time of the assault, there would have been less blood on the attacker’s jacket and none on his pants.”
Bullshit. “It’s also the only explanation that fits your version of the story.”
“Objection. Argumentative.”
“Withdrawn.” I keep going. “When someone is stabbed, isn’t it true that the blood flies in a projectile fashion and lands on the attacker in the form of droplets?”
“Generally.”
I look at the jacket. “I don’t see any droplets, but I see several patches of blood.”
“That isn’t uncommon, Mr. Daley. The blood spreads through the material after it hits.”
Maybe. “But the customary droplet pattern isn’t present here, right?”
She holds her ground. “Not necessarily.”
“Aren’t these stains consistent with a scenario where the knife was wiped on the jacket?”
“Not in my judgment.”
“Isn’t it possible that somebody trying to frame my client wiped the knife on his jacket?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
I can’t get Jacobsen to change her conclusion as we volley back and forth for another ten minutes. We’ll put on our own blood-spatter expert later who will refute her analysis. It’s almost ten o’clock when I make one final run. “Sergeant,” I say, “the knife that we’ve been discussing was found in the pocket of Mr. Walker’s jacket, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”
“Could you show us which pocket?”
She points to the jacket and says, “That one.”
I turn to the court reporter and say, “Let the record show that Sergeant Jacobsen has pointed to the right front pocket.” I look at Jacobsen and say, “Isn’t it odd that a left-handed man handled the knife only with his right hand, and that he tried to hide the knife in his right pocket?”
“Not necessarily.”
“Sergeant,” I say, “given the totality of the circumstances–the right-hand fingerprints, the right pocket, the blood spatters that don’t match up–doesn’t this suggest that a more plausible explanation is that somebody murdered Tower Grayson and tried to set up Leon Walker by wiping the bloody knife on his jacket and putting it into his pocket?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
I’ve just started speculating. “Doesn’t it seem logical that somebody trying to frame Mr. Walker would have put the knife in his right hand because he didn’t know he was left-handed?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
I try once more. “Doesn’t it seem more likely that the killer would have wiped the victim’s blood on Mr. Walker’s jacket without considering the expertise of people like you?”
“Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Daley is making his closing argument.”
I am.
“Sustained.”
It’s all I can do. “No further questions,” I say.
*****
Chapter 45
“We Should Give Judge McDaniel Some Options”
“William McNulty scored big points in the opening round of Leon Walker’s preliminary hearing.”
— Legal analyst Mort Goldberg. Channel 4 News. Thursday, June 9. 9:50 A.M.
Jerry Edwards offers a succinct analysis of my performance in the hallway outside Judge McDaniel’s courtroom during the recess. “You’re getting your ass kicked,” he says.
Thanks. I try to brush him off. “We have to talk to our client,” I say. “We’re starting our defense later today.”
“I hope you have something more to offer than unsubstantiated accusations against the cops and convoluted mind games with the evidence gurus.”
“We’ll make our points when we put on our defense.”
MD04 - Final Verdict Page 34