“I did.”
Templeton stays on his stool as the homicide detective Argust paws through the box of evidence until he finds the photographs, one set for the judge, one for the witness, and one for us. From the stand, Rubin identifies the photos one at a time as pictures taken by police photographers at Rubin’s direction on the night of the murder. As the witness does this, Templeton has them marked for identification, and when he is finished he moves the entire series into evidence.
“No objection.” I don’t even look up as the photographs begin to flash on the screen for the jury, which now sees them for the first time. Some of the reporters in the front row try to lean forward to gain a glimpse of the screen, which is set at a slight angle toward the judge so members of the audience can’t see it.
The series contains seven photographs that have been culled from among more than thirty taken by police at the scene that night. These come into evidence by stipulation, the judge having leaned on Templeton to drop some of the more hideous close-ups of what was left of Chapman’s head. Most of the shots that survive are sufficiently distant from the body to provide at least some insulation from the grotesque details, blood and brain matter that sprayed the wall behind Chapman as the two bullets slammed into her skull. Strange as it seems, the worst of the lot is a full-body photo showing the high heel that twisted from Chapman’s foot and remained standing upright on the floor as the impact of the rounds spun her in place as she went down. Like a freeze-action shot, it gives the jury dimension, some scale against which to measure the violence inflicted on the victim in the instant just before her death. As this picture goes up on the screen I hear some quiet sighs from the jury box. Even though I am not looking, I can feel twelve sets of eyes as they suddenly take a sharper look at my client.
“Let me ask you, Doctor. You said earlier that you were able to examine the body at the scene, at the victim’s house that night, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And can you tell the jury approximately what time that was when you first examined the body?”.
“If I could refer to my notes …”
“Just a rough approximation,” says Templeton.
“As I recall, I believe it was a little before one a.m. I arrived at the scene about twelve thirty-five a.m. and some of the forensic technicians were still working around the body. So I had to wait just a few minutes before they cleared the area.”
Templeton slows the pace here, thinks for a moment, and allows the photographs of the murder scene now fixed on the screen to do some of his work for him.
“Let me ask you, Doctor, was it obvious to you when you arrived that the victim was already dead?”
“Oh, yes. The initial responding officers didn’t even call the paramedics. As soon as they were able to open the front door, which they had to force, it was apparent to the two officers that Ms. Chapman was dead.”
“And from your own observations before you had an opportunity to examine the body closely, were there any telltale signs that made it obvious that the victim was dead?”
“Yes. There was severe loss of blood and massive head trauma that was plainly obvious from some distance.”
“Are those indications displayed in any of the photographs posted on the visualizer screen for the jury?”
“Yes. You can see them pretty well in shots three, five, and seven.” The witness points to the screen with a small handheld laser displaying a bright green arrow aimed at the tangle of blood-matted hair and the dark pool of blood fanning out from under Chapman’s head as she lies prostrate on the floor of the entryway to her home.
“Also the fact that the blood had a watery quality to it. You can see that here.” Rubin points again with the laser to one of the photographs. “This is indicative of the loss of the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain against impact within the skull. It would indicate that the cerebral cavity of the skull has been compromised in a manner that would result in rapid and catastrophic loss of blood pressure to the brain. Even if the brain itself had not been damaged by gunshot wounds, this loss of blood and cerebral fluid would certainly lead to death within a very short period of time. Three, perhaps four minutes at most.”
“As a result of your initial examination of the body or your subsequent and more complete autopsy, were you able to determine the cause of death?”
“After I conducted a thorough postmortem examination, yes.”
“And what was that cause?”
“Madelyn Chapman died of gunshot wounds resulting in massive trauma to the brain involving both the frontal and parietal lobes. The wounds inflicted resulted in irreversible destruction to major portions of the brain necessary to support life-sustaining functions.”
“You say wounds: how many gunshot wounds are we talking about?”
“Two.”
“Two. You’re certain of that?” says Templeton.
“Yes.”
“And can you give us some idea how long would it have taken for the victim to die as a result of these wounds, in your opinion?” asks Templeton.
“Oh. That depends how you define death. If you’re talking brain-wave activity—what you might measure on an EEG, an electroencephalogram—I would say that death was virtually instantaneous. If you’re talking heart function, it could have taken anywhere from say two to four minutes. It’s hard to tell. As regards heart function, it would depend on how rapidly blood drained from the body and how long it took for the trauma to the brain to interrupt or curtail the electromuscular impulses, the autonomic nervous system that regulates the heart. The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.”
“Whoa!” Templeton has his hands up. “Let’s not get too technical, Doctor. Let’s keep it in the realm of the reasonable for those of us who flunked out of medical school and had to become lawyers.”
Jurors and members of the audience laugh—even Ruiz, until I step on his foot. It wouldn’t do for jurors who are laughing to see the defendant joining in, especially in light of the ghastly photos still up on the screen. As the chuckles subside I can hear Harry growling under his breath at the other end of our counsel table.
“Doctor, can you tell the jury what evidence you found during the course of your examination of the victim, both at the scene as well as during your postmortem autopsy, to substantiate your findings as to the cause of death?”
“Upon examination of the victim’s cranial cavity I discovered both a bullet and bullet fragments, all contained within the soft tissue of the victim’s brain.”
Any residual smiles quickly dissipate inside the jury box.
“As a result of your examination of the victim, were you able to determine whether there were wounds other than the two bullet wounds that you have already identified found on the victim’s body following death?”
“I was, and there were no wounds other than the two bullet wounds previously stated.”
“Other than the two bullet wounds to the victim’s head?”
“That’s correct.”
According to the witness, there were no gunpowder burns or stippling around the two wounds in question, eliminating the possibility of close-contact wounds with the muzzle of the pistol placed close to Chapman’s head. According to the witness, given the size of the firearm in question, the shots would have had to have been fired from at least eight to ten feet to avoid the discharge of hot powder and gases onto the victim’s hair and scalp. Also, the trajectory of the wounds would have been awkward for a close-in shot, as the weapon would have had to have been held above Chapman’s head.
Rubin makes these points as they bring in more pictures, this time from the autopsy. Again these have been carefully vetted by the courts to exclude shots that are likely to cause jurors to lose their breakfast. Included among the photographs are two macro shots, one of a clearly recognizable lead bullet and the other of shards and fragments, flattened pieces of a dark substance with irregular shapes and edges, all laid out on white cloth with a ruler acro
ss the bottom for scale.
“One of the bullets was largely intact,” says Rubin. “It was sheared on one side, probably when it struck bone, and was somewhat deformed. It would be my opinion that it mushroomed under impact with the victim’s head, both the bone of the skull and the soft tissue inside, as it radically reduced speed and lodged in the brain matter. The transfer of kinetic energy, the pressure caused by the entry of this bullet to the inner skull, caused a sizable portion of the skull at the posterior base of the victim’s head to be blown out.”
The graphic description by the witness, along with autopsy pictures offered up on the screen by Templeton’s master of the computer, has the desired effect. Templeton looks toward the jury box to make sure that they have absorbed all of the grisly detail.
“I found this bullet lodged just inside the cerebellum of the victim’s brain at the base of the neck.” The witness reaches around with his hand to the back of his neck as if to indicate location for the jury, and the judge describes this for the record.
“The other bullet was somewhat different, probably the second round that was fired. This bullet was of a different composition and it fragmented into multiple pieces inside the victim’s skull. This was found during my postmortem examination lodged in several places, all of them contained within the skull, and had to be debrided from the brain tissue.”
“In layman’s terms, Doctor?” Templeton wants him to define debrided.
“The bullet fragments had to be removed by scalpel and forceps from the brain tissue in which they had become lodged,” says the witness.
When I glance over at the jury, two of the women have their hands to their mouths, their gazes recoiling from the autopsy shots as Templeton’s tech causes the pictures to linger on the screen.
“Doctor, from your treatment of bullet wounds as well as from your experience as a medical examiner, are you familiar with what are called jacketed bullets?”
“I am.”
“Can you describe for the jury what a jacketed bullet is?”
“The term jacketed refers to a metal lining that coats the outside of a bullet. A jacketed round is usually either a total metal jacket—what is known as a TMJ—or a partial jacket of some kind. That is, the softer lead component of the bullet is either completely covered by a harder metal material or partially covered. Copper is a common material for bullet jackets.”
“Thank you. Now, during the course of your examination of the victim’s body, did you find any evidence that the two bullets that struck Madelyn Chapman had any kind of metal jacket?”
“I did not.”
“So the bullet fragments that you found were not part of a metal jacket that dislodged from either bullet in your opinion?”
“No, they were not.”
I look at Harry, who glances back with a quizzical stare. Neither of us can tell where he is headed. The pathology report indicated that the two bullets were unjacketed rounds but the significance of this is unclear.
“Did you weigh the two bullets in question? The largely intact bullet and the fragments of the other bullet?” Templeton asks.
“I did.”
“And what did you find their weights to be?”
“May I look at my notes?”
Templeton turns and directs his gaze toward me.
“Mr. Madriani, any objection?” says the judge.
“No objection, Your Honor.”
Rubin opens the file sitting in his lap. “With regard to the partially deformed bullet, we found the weight to be two hundred and twenty-seven point two grains. With regard to the fragments from the other bullet, the total grain weight was one hundred and ninety-seven point six grains. It is possible that I was unable to locate every fragment of this second bullet. The fragments did not respond to X-ray.”
Nor was this in the witness’s written report.
“Do you have any idea what the calibers of these two particular bullets were? What size barrel or firearm they may have been fired from?” says Templeton.
I could object on grounds that the question exceeds the expertise of the witness, but there is no real point, and it’s entirely possible, given the doctor’s background with ballistic wounds, that Gilcrest would overrule the objection in any event.
“With regard to the partially deformed bullet it appears to be either forty-four or forty-five caliber. With regard to the fragments, there is no way to tell other than by grain weight, which would place the bullet resulting in those fragments within the same range, forty-four or forty-five caliber.”
“But the grain weights of the two bullets differ significantly, Doctor. How could they be the same caliber?” says Templeton. From the smile on his face it is obvious that he already knows the answer.
“The two bullets were made of different materials,” says Rubin. “The first bullet was a lead alloy, a common manufacture, capable of being purchased in retail stores that stock ammunition. The second bullet was made of different materials—”
“Your Honor, I’m going to object.”
“On what grounds?” says Gilcrest.
“The question of bullet composition is well beyond the expertise of the witness, Your Honor.”
“I would remind the court that the witness has attended to patients with hundreds of bullet wounds,” says Templeton. He would press the outer edge of the envelope until it ripped.
“And if he has a degree in metallurgy from an accredited university, I’d be happy to let you go on,” I tell him.
Gilcrest looks down at the witness from his perch on the bench. “Doctor, you don’t have a degree in metallurgy, do you?”
“No, Your Honor.”
“Objection sustained,” says the judge.
Templeton doesn’t lose a beat. “Well, let me ask you this, then: During all of your years treating patients with bullet wounds and during your time as a medical examiner, have you ever had occasion to observe bullets or bullet fragments similar in appearance and apparent composition to the bullet and bullet fragments removed from the victim in this case, Madelyn Chapman?”
“Objection, Your Honor, to the use of the term apparent composition,” I say.
“Overruled,” says Gilcrest. “The witness can answer the question.”
“Twice,” says the witness.
“You’ve seen these before?”
“Two times,” says Rubin.
“And where was that?”
“During my service with the Marines.”
“Can you describe the situation in which you observed bullets or bullet wounds with characteristics similar to those found in the victim, Madelyn Chapman?”
It is now becoming clear why Rubin’s background is so essential to Templeton’s case.
“One was a training accident in which a Marine was killed.”
“The other involved a foreign combatant who was delivered to our field hospital for examination and identification after he had been killed in battle.”
“Where did these incidents occur?”
“Both took place during active duty in the Middle East.”
Templeton doesn’t push any further than this for specifics as to location. He leaves it open for me to possibly step on a land mine during cross. I make a note.
“Can you describe for the jury the similarities between the bullets or bullet fragments you removed from the victim, Madelyn Chapman, and the bullets or bullet fragments you removed from the victims in these other two incidents that you observed?”
“Objection, Your Honor. As to relevance.” If nothing else, I will force Templeton to give us a road map of where he is trying to go with this.
“Your Honor, if we could approach the bench …” Templeton wants a sidebar.
“Very well.” Gilcrest motions us forward. He flips a button on the bench and the courtroom fills with white noise. A special sidebar microphone connects with the court reporter so that she won’t have to move. Neither the jury, the witness, nor members of the audience can hear a thing in the are
a around the bench.
We assemble at the side near the stairs leading down to the judge’s chambers, with Gilcrest standing on the bottom step, leaning over to converse with Templeton. We are virtually out of sight.
“Your Honor, I will tie it all together,” says Templeton. “The witness has extensive experience with bullet wounds, particularly in the military. The weapon used in this case is a military-issue handgun. We have another witness later who will testify that at least one of the bullets used to kill Madelyn Chapman was a military-issue round, and highly sophisticated. This witness and the following witness will testify to the fact that these were special rounds, a composite alloy designed for their lethal effect and to avoid penetration through the target in certain situations. They were largely available only to police agencies and the military.”
“That doesn’t mean my client fired them, Your Honor.”
“That’s for the jury to decide,” says Templeton.
“None of this was in the witness’s pathology report, Your Honor. Mr. Templeton has hidden the ball on us one more time,” I tell Gilcrest.
“Not so,” says Templeton. “The defense had every opportunity to examine the bullet fragments and to bring in their own experts.”
“Not when the fragments are called just that in the medical examiner’s report,” I say. It is clear what they have done: led us to believe that the bullet fragments in question were simply parts of the second bullet. The report offers no number or size of individual fragments, just their aggregate weight.
“What is clear,” says Templeton, “is that Mr. Ruiz was in the military. We know that, Your Honor. That’s where he got the gun. And, according to our witnesses, probably where he got the ammunition used in the murder.”
“‘Probably’ is not evidence,” I tell Gilcrest.
“The bullets were frangible rounds,” says Templeton. “A special manufacture for certain military weapons. In this case the forty-five automatic. That’s what my witness will testify to.”
Double Tap Page 27