Final Exam: A Legal Thriller

by Terry Huebner

  Fahey nodded and said, “When you say possible contacts, what do you mean?”

  “A couple of things. First, we only know the telephone numbers attributable to both the Professor and the Defendant. We do not know necessarily who made the calls or who, if anyone, received them on the other end. Some of the calls are fairly short, only a minute or two, so perhaps the calls involved leaving messages, rather than speaking directly to the party on the other side. Also, the phone calls made from the law school do not come directly from an individual’s phone line. Rather, they are routed through a central phone system. What that means is that phone calls to Professor Greenfield, for example, are recorded to his direct line number, while calls made by Professor Greenfield, show up on one of the outgoing lines available to the law school.”

  Bridget Fahey moved forward. “Thank you, Detective. Could you tell us how many calls were made to and from each particular location?”

  “Of course,” the Detective said.

  Ben knew what was coming and would have to address the phone calls in his cross-examination. He was impressed that Fahey did not overreach by stating definitively that the calls made from the law school were made by Greenfield. Aware of the circumstances surrounding the phone system, she wisely chose to let the jury make that inference for her.

  The Detective continued. “We were able to identify two telephone calls from Professor Greenfield’s apartment to the condominium where the Defendant lives, or lived at the time. We found one telephone call from Professor Greenfield’s apartment to the office where the Defendant worked. We found two telephone calls from Professor Greenfield’s cell phone to the Defendant’s condominium. We found three telephone calls from the law school to the Defendant’s condominium. We found two telephone calls from the law school to the office at the Court where the Defendant worked, and we found three telephone calls from the Defendant’s condominium to the Professor’s direct telephone line at the law school.”

  A murmur rose in the courtroom with these last words indicating telephone calls from the Megan to Professor Greenfield’s office. Judge Wilson struck his gavel. “We’ll have quiet,” he said, “please continue.” With his no-nonsense demeanor, whenever Judge Wilson asked for silence, he got it immediately.

  Bridget Fahey seemed energized by the testimony and Ben studied her intently. Next to him, he could feel Meg begin to deflate. “Could you tell us, Detective,” Bridget Fahey continued, “when these telephone calls began and when they ended?”

  “The first of these thirteen calls took place on October 30th of 2001 and that was a call from the Professor’s apartment to the office at which the Defendant is employed. The last four calls took place in late December. There was a call from the Defendant’s condominium to Professor Greenfield’s office on December 22nd, a call from the law school to the condominium on December 23rd, another call from the condominium to the law school on December 26th, and a second call on that date from the law school to the condominium.”

  Bridget Fahey nodded and continued. “Detective, can you tell the jury the length of these phone conversations?”

  “Yes. Most of them were quite short, only a couple of minutes or so, with the exception of the December 22nd phone call from the Defendant’s condominium to Professor Greenfield’s office, which lasted approximately eighteen minutes, and the last call, on December 26th from the law school to the condominium, which lasted for twenty-one minutes.”

  Megan sighed and more murmuring rose in the courtroom only to be silenced by two sharp bangs of Judge Wilson’s gavel. The sounds of the gavel echoed through the cavernous room and all was silent for almost ten seconds before Bridget Fahey continued.

  She then turned her attention to the items found in Professor Greenfield’s office after the body was discovered. “It seems apparent,” the Detective said, “that the Professor had been in the process of grading final exams at the time of or shortly before his death. We found graded and ungraded exam papers on his desk, on the floor near the body and in his briefcase as well. In his pocket, we found a dog-eared note with the letter “M” on it and two telephone numbers, which later turned out to be the numbers for the Defendant’s condominium and her office at the Appellate Court.” Fahey tried hard to hide a smile. “We also found copies of old calendars dating back from 1991 through the present.”

  “What sort of calendars were these?”

  “These were mainly appointment calendars, some of which had appointments scrawled in and other dates of apparent importance to the Professor written on them.”

  “Did you find a calendar for 2001 in his office?”

  “Yes, we did.”

  “Was there any entry for December 28, 2001?”

  “Yes. The word ‘meetings’ was written in, with no name or time.”

  “Did you find anything else in Professor Greenfield’s briefcase?”

  “Yes, we did. We found a series of cases and law review articles on the field of advances in DNA analysis. From subsequent conversations with others, we learned that Professor Greenfield was apparently researching DNA, presumably in the context of criminal matters.”

  “You say presumably in the context of criminal matters?”

  “Yes, because we did not find any notes or drafts of any articles written by the Professor himself. We only found the research.”

  Fahey then went through each of these documents in detail, from the note to the research, introducing them all into evidence. By now, it was almost twelve-thirty and Judge Wilson decided to adjourn for lunch until two p.m.

  When Court resumed, Bridget Fahey completed her direct examination of Detective Nelson. “Detective, did you ever have any occasion to speak with the Defendant regarding Professor Greenfield?”

  “Yes, we did. On several occasions, we spoke to the Defendant at her condominium and also once at the station, which was recorded.”

  “What did she tell you?”

  “She told us first that although she knew Professor Greenfield as one of her teachers in law school, she had no personal relationship with him of any kind other than professor/student. She also told us that she had not seen, heard from or spoken with the Professor in many, many years, perhaps not even since graduation. Finally, she denied having a sexual relationship with the Professor and denied knowing anything about the circumstances surrounding his death.”

  Fahey then went through the laborious process of playing back the tape of the interrogation performed by Detectives Nelson and Cole of Meg at the station. “Are you telling us,” the tape spat, “that you have never had a personal relationship with Daniel Greenfield?”

  “Yes, I am. My only relationship with Professor Greenfield was as his student.” Meg’s voice on the tape sounded shaky and unsure.

  “Did you ever have a sexual relationship with Professor Greenfield?”

  “No, never.”

  A few minutes later. “Have you ever been inside Professor Greenfield’s office at the law school?”

  “Not for many years. I may have been in there years ago when I was a student to talk to him about class or something, but not since then, no.”

  The tapes went on for a long time, Meg’s hesitant voice and repeated denials made Ben feel somewhat uncomfortable and caused Meg to look down at the table. He slid a card toward her. “Look calm” was written on it. She nodded and tried to pull herself together, without complete success.

  The jury paid rapt attention to the sound of Megan’s voice on those tapes, and Fahey let them play on and on, beyond the time her point was made, filling the courtroom with Megan’s often quavering voice. Then with a dramatic flourish, she turned off the tape recorder. “Detective,” she said with all the solemnity she could muster, “did you ever learn that any of these statements made by the Defendant were untrue?”

  The Detective nodded. “Yes, we did,” he said. “We learned she had a sexual relationship with Professor Greenfield from Samuel Dorlund, another professor at the law school.”

  Ben
was on his feet. “Objection, this is hearsay.”

  Fahey knew it was coming. “Your Honor, we would ask that you allow it in light of the fact that Professor Dorlund will so testify later in this trial.”

  Judge Wilson nodded. “I’ll allow it for the time being, pending Professor Dorlund’s testimony. Should he not so testify, Mr. Lohmeier, you may renew your objection at that time.”

  Fahey continued. “Did you ever learn any of the other statements made by the Defendant were false?”

  “Yes. We learned that the Defendant had been inside Professor Greenfield’s office, the scene of the murder, when she originally said that she hadn’t.”

  “How did you learn this?”

  “We learned it when we identified her fingerprints on the murder weapon, the baseball bat, and when we matched hair found at the crime scene to the Defendant.”

  Ben thought about objecting, but held his tongue. Despite the fact that Nelson’s statements were technically inadmissible legal conclusions, he figured that Judge Wilson would probably allow them. Moreover, Ben knew he could probably address the evidence better in his own case, as well as in his closing argument.

  “Did you learn it any other way?” Fahey continued.

  “Yes. When we found the victim’s blood on a scarf owned by the Defendant.”

  Bridget Fahey walked slowly to her seat as Scott Nelson’s words hung in the courtroom like a shroud over the freedom and future of Megan Rand Cavallaro.

  Ben rose to his feet and offered the Detective a slight smile. “Good afternoon, Detective Nelson.” He wanted the jury to see that he bore no animosity toward the Detective and that, if anything, the Detective was merely misguided, not malicious. The he picked up a file and moved out from behind the counsel table and toward the center of the courtroom. He stood there for a moment, then held the file up and said, “I have those telephone records you were speaking about earlier today with Ms. Fahey. You said you identified thirteen calls that could have taken place between Professor Greenfield and my client, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes, that’s right.”

  “Of those thirteen calls, isn’t it true that five of them came from the law school to either my client’s condominium or the office where she works at the Appellate Court?”

  “Yes, that’s right.”

  “And you can’t tell for sure who made any of those five calls, can you?”

  “No, not for sure.”

  “Because the way the phone system works and the phone records are gathered, those calls could have been made from any telephone within the law school?”

  “I believe that’s right, yes.”

  “And of the remaining eight calls, three more were directed to my client’s office at the Appellate Court, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “Those calls too could have been made to anyone at that location, isn’t that right?”

  “I suppose that’s possible.”

  Ben paused and moved closer to the witness. “And of all those thirteen telephone calls you identified, only two lasted longer than two minutes, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes, that’s right.”

  “And the others could have been just one party or another leaving a message?”

  “That’s probably true.”

  Ben looked at the telephone records for a minute then continued. “Isn’t it also true that Professor Greenfield was a member of the Reunion Committee for the 1992 graduating class at the law school?”

  “Yes, he was.”

  “Isn’t it also true that my client was a graduate of the law school in 1992?”

  “As you were yourself, yes.”

  “And my client was also on that Reunion Committee, wasn’t she?”

  “Yes, she was.”

  “There were other members of that Committee as well, weren’t there?”

  “Yes.”

  “How many?”

  “I believe about eight to ten.”

  “Some of those were also Professors at the law school, weren’t they?”

  “Yes, I believe there were four other Professors besides Professor Greenfield.”

  “Would you find it unusual for one member of a Reunion Committee to contact another?”

  “Perhaps not, but your client and Professor Greenfield knew each other more than just as members of the Reunion Committee.”

  Ben nodded and moved even closer. “So you say. But you really don’t have any evidence whatsoever as to what was said in any of those telephone conversations, do you?”

  The witness looked at Ben for a long moment then said, “No, I suppose we don’t.”

  “The parties in those telephone conversations could very well have been talking about the Reunion Committee.”

  “Yes, I suppose they could have.”

  Ben stood before Detective Nelson as though he were calculating something in his head. Then he continued. “So, really, all you’ve got for sure is three calls from my client’s home to Professor Greenfield’s office, only one of which took longer than two minutes, isn’t that right?”

  “I wouldn’t exactly put it that way.”

  “No, of course you wouldn’t. Regarding that Reunion Committee, didn’t Professor Dorlund tell you that he gave Professor Greenfield a packet of materials regarding the Reunion Committee?”

  “Yes, he did.”

  “Now you don’t think the Reunion Committee was a motive for murder, do you?”

  “No, I wouldn’t think so.”

  “Didn’t he also tell you that a list of all the Reunion Committee members with their telephone numbers was included in that packet?”

  “Yes, he did.”

  “You never found that list in Professor Greenfield’s personal effects, did you?”

  “No.”

  “Not in his office, or in his briefcase, or in his apartment either?”

  “No, we never found it.”

  “Do you think maybe the killer took it?”

  Nelson paused as though considering the question. “It’s possible,” he finally said.

  “Any reason why the killer would take it?”

  “I don’t know.”

  “You never discovered that my client had it, did you?”

  “No.”

  “You never found any notes on that research you say Professor Greenfield was doing either, did you?”

  “No, we didn’t.”

  Ben walked over to the side of the courtroom where various pieces of evidence already introduced in the State’s case sat on a table. He picked up a baseball bat wrapped in plastic and grabbed it by the handle, moving it back and forth as though testing it for his next at bat. “You say this is the murder weapon, don’t you?” he asked holding it up.

  “Yes, that’s the murder weapon.”

  “You know this because the medical examiner was able to match this bat to the wounds on Professor Greenfield’s skull, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes, that’s true.”

  Now Detective Nelson looked a little curious as Ben waved the bat slightly as though standing before home plate. “This is one of Sammy Sosa’s actual baseball bats, isn’t it?”

  “Yes. I understand that it was one of the Professor’s prized possessions.”

  “In fact, this is Sammy Sosa’s autograph right here on the barrel, isn’t it?” Ben asked indicating with his forefinger.

  “It’s supposed to be his autograph, yes.”

  “This is a big bat,” Ben said, swinging it slightly, “kind of heavy.”

  “Objection,” Bridget Fahey said, “there doesn’t appear to be any question here. Mr. Lohmeier appears to be living out some childhood baseball fantasy.”

  “Get on with it Mr. Lohmeier,” Judge Wilson said. “Objection sustained.”

  Ben waved the bat back and forth again. “This is no fantasy. This is a bat used by a professional baseball player, one of the best in the world, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “And it’s a
pretty good-sized bat too, isn’t it?”

  “Yes, I suppose so.”

  “And what you want all of us to believe is that that woman over there,” he turned and pointed at Megan, “picked up this large baseball bat and used it to kill a grown man, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes, that’s right.”

  Ben said, “Huh,” shook his head and made a face of disbelief, then walked toward Detective Nelson and handed him the bat. “Here,” he said, “take this for a minute.” Nelson took the bat. “There was also testimony earlier in this trial about finding my client’s fingerprints on this bat.”

  “I’m aware of that, yes.”

  “Why don’t you show us where those fingerprints were, if you know. You can stand up if that makes it easier.”

  Detective Nelson held the bat awkwardly, then looked around as if for assistance. He looked up at the Judge, who nodded and said, “Go ahead. Stand if you like.”

  He rose slowly to his feet and stood before Ben holding the bat. Ben looked at him, his arms crossed. Then he pointed at the bat and said, “Now, I believe you folks testified that there were two fingerprints belonging to my client on that bat, isn’t that right?”

  He shrugged. “Yes, two of your client’s fingerprints.”

  “Anyone else’s fingerprints?”

  “There were several of the victim’s fingerprints on the bat as well, but no one else other than those two people.”

  “Those fingerprints allegedly from my client, they were from her right hand, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes, I believe so.”

  “There were no fingerprints from her left hand?”

  “No.”

  “Can you show us where those two fingerprints were?”

  Detective Nelson studied the bat for a few moments and then pointed at it with his right hand, holding it about twelve inches from the end of the handle with his left. “I believe the thumb was here and the forefinger was over here,” he said indicating.

  Ben pointed at the bat again. “Why don’t you go ahead and put your fingers on the bat in approximately the position you say that my client’s fingerprints were left.”