Kelly wants a third party, even the court clerk, to read Mullins’s entire testimony at the start of the trial. This will be deadly dull, and I’m opposed to it. I want both sides to be able to introduce whatever portions they or we like and have the lawyers determine who will read each part into the record.
Judge Moran agrees with me, and he then brings up the final matter, which is whether our jury can learn that there was a previous trial in which Keith was convicted.
Kelly is obviously fine with our jury knowing everything, and while I have the power to veto it, I don’t. I think every single member of the jury already knows about the first trial anyway, so I’d rather confront it head-on.
Judge Moran is leery of telling them about the first trial, but in the face of both lawyers having the same position, he allows it. That effectively settles the last matter before the court. The judge calls in the jury, and we’re off and running.
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,” is Kelly’s totally conventional beginning to his opening argument. Not that he isn’t fast on his feet and able to improvise in the moment; he certainly is. For instance, if he were giving his statement after lunch, I’m sure he would adjust the opening to, “Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.”
He continues. “I will make this opening statement to you, and then Mr. Carpenter will make his, and then you will hear witnesses and see and hear evidence.
“I’m a stickler for details, and I tend to overanalyze and agonize over things, so I can spend a long time preparing for a case and even for my opening statement. It drives my colleagues and my wife crazy.” He grins. “Especially my wife.”
The jury laughs in response. They’re extra alert now, by the end of the trial, it will be all we can do to keep them from falling over asleep.
Kelly continues, “But I spent much less time than usual on this statement and even on trial preparation. That’s not because I don’t consider this case important. On the contrary, it’s at least as important as any trial I’ve ever been a part of.
“The reason this took less time and effort is because I’ve done it before. This same defendant, Keith Wachtel, was on trial for the same crime, the abduction of little Dylan Hickman, less than three years ago. I was the lawyer for the county in that case, so I did my preparation then.
“And while Mr. Carpenter and I will disagree on most everything in this trial, there is one thing we will definitely agree on: the previous jury came back with a verdict of guilty.
“So why are we back here? Why are you called upon to do exactly what twelve of your fellow citizens were called upon to do back then? Because the defense believes that one of the witnesses against Mr. Wachtel was less than truthful, and the court believes that question to be worthy of your consideration. And that is because we do not take away a person’s liberty lightly; we bend over to give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s one of the many aspects of our system that contribute to its greatness.
“I also believe this issue to be worthy of consideration, and after consideration, I have concluded that it is also worthy of rejection. But my opinion does not matter … yours does. So you will hear all of the facts. Mr. Carpenter and I will both see to that, and then you can make up your own minds.
“But there is one other fact that you need to understand going in. The testimony in question was not the only evidence implicating Mr. Wachtel in this horrible crime, not by a long shot.
“And we will present all that additional evidence, just like we did for the jury less than three years ago. And I strongly believe that you will find it compelling, just as they did.
“You know, in all the legal maneuverings, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture, the human dimension to all of this. A baby boy, Dylan Hickman, was abducted, kidnapped. One day, he lived in a wonderful home, experiencing all the love that a precious, innocent baby deserves. And then he was gone, and to this day his fate is unknown.
“That is why you are here today. It will be your job to decide whether or not Keith Wachtel is responsible for this horrible crime. It is a true service you are providing, just as your predecessors provided the same service before you.
“I am confident that you will reach the same conclusion they did.”
ou and I have something in common,” is how I begin. “I was not part of that trial almost three years ago, just as you were not. Mr. Wachtel had a different lawyer, a wonderful man named Stanley Butler, who has since passed away. The circumstances of his passing are actually relevant in this case, and they will be included in what you will hear and consider.
“There is one thing that Mr. Kelly didn’t mention that I want to make sure you understand. I don’t know how many of you are football or baseball fans, but I want to start by describing something that happens in those sports.
“A play happens on the field, and the referee or umpire makes a call in the moment. You could say that he is delivering a verdict on what happened, based on his eyewitness view of the evidence.
“Under certain conditions, that call is then subjected to replay, where officials look at video of the play to determine whether the call that was made was the correct one.”
Three of the men and two of the women are nodding as I’m describing this. We’ve apparently got some sports fans on the jury, for whatever that’s worth.
I continue. “The way it works is that the call on the field becomes the status quo, and for it to be overturned and reversed, there must be clear and convincing evidence on the video that it was wrong. If the video is inconclusive, then the call on the field stands. Had the opposite call been made on the field, then that would stand as well, because the video is deemed not clear and convincing. So the call on the field is given deference; you could say it is the law of that play unless proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
“That’s not the way it works here. If you think of the jury’s decision three years ago, it is treated almost exactly opposite to the way the referee’s or umpire’s decision is treated. By that, I mean that the decision of that jury is to be given no deference; you are starting from scratch. Their decision is not the status quo; there is no status quo. You must decide this case as if it has never been decided before.
“Just like any defendant that appears before any jury, Keith Wachtel is innocent until proven guilty. Because he has never been proven guilty, despite what Mr. Kelly said. The ruling of that previous jury no longer exists; it’s as if it never happened.
“The other major difference between this and my sports analogy is that to overturn that sports call, there must be clear and convincing evidence that it was wrong. If it is not clear, if it is vague, then that call stands.
“Not so with the verdict almost three years ago. The only way you can agree with that jury is by finding clear and convincing evidence that they were right. If the evidence is vague, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must disagree with them. The burden is on Mr. Kelly and the prosecution to prove their case conclusively, beyond that reasonable doubt, or they lose.
“Mr. Kelly refers to our view of the testimony in question as our considering it to be ‘less than truthful.’ Those are his words. Let me give you my words. The witness lied. It was not a mistake, it was not a misidentification, and it was not a shading of the truth. It was a flat-out lie.
“You live in the real world. You’ve been lied to; you may have even told some yourselves. I’ve told a few beauties. You know what a lie sounds like; and you’ll know these lies when you hear them.
“Mr. Kelly said that there was other conclusive evidence and that you will see it. I look forward to that, because I believe you will consider it and decide that by itself it does not come close to establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“No, it is the testimony in question that will carry the day one way or the other. Mr. Kelly tells you it is solid-gold honest, and we tell you it is a blatant lie. It cannot be both.
“And the truth is, Ms. Mullins didn’t just lie. She cons
pired with the real criminal to let him go free and to convict Mr. Wachtel in his stead.
“But you’ll hear both sides, and you’ll decide one way or the other. That’s the way the system works, and I am always, and especially at this moment, thankful for that.”
When I sit back down at the defense table, Keith leans over and says, “Thanks, Andy, you were great. I think the jury was really into what you were saying.”
“The stuff that matters is coming up, Keith.”
“Andy, what did you mean when you said that the jury would hear the circumstances of Stanley’s death and that they are relevant? What does that have to do with anything?”
I realize that I never mentioned that I suspect Butler might have died because of something Teresa Mullins told him.
“I think he may have been murdered,” I say.
“Because of me?”
“Because of this case. Because of something he knew. Not because of you.”
“That’s awful,” Keith says, clearly shocked. “He was a great guy. A lawyer shouldn’t die for doing his job.”
I’ll go along with that.
hat brought you to the scene, Detective Steitzer?”
Kelly’s first witness is Detective Matt Steitzer, who was the first one on the scene of the abduction in Eastside Park.
“A 9-1-1 call was made, and my partner and I were the closest, so we were the first to respond.”
“By the way, I called you Detective Steitzer, but you were not a detective back then, were you?”
“No, I was a patrolman.”
“So you’ve since been promoted?” Kelly is demonstrating how Steitzer must be a good cop because of his ascension up the ladder.
Steitzer smiles with as much modesty as he can manage. “Twice.”
“Congratulations; that’s quite an accomplishment in such a short time,” Kelly says.
I stand up. “Objection, Your Honor. Unless Mr. Kelly is going to bring in a cake and sing ‘Hail to the Chief,’ none of this is relevant.”
“Sustained. Move on, Mr. Kelly.”
“Yes, Your Honor. What did you find when you arrived?”
“There was a woman who identified herself as Teresa Mullins. She had made the 9-1-1 call. She was bleeding from a laceration on her forehead, and she told me that someone had taken the baby she was caring for.”
“What was her state of mind?”
I object again. “Your Honor, unless Detective Steitzer was also promoted to vice president in charge of mind reading, he is not qualified to describe someone’s state of mind.”
Judge Moran sustains again; I am on what could be called a meaningless roll.
Kelly rephrases. “How would you describe her behavior?”
“She was rather hysterical. She was crying and was hard to understand. Like she was in shock.”
“Did she say what her relationship was to the missing child?”
“Eventually. She described herself as the nanny.”
“Did she mention a dog?”
“Yes, though not at first. She said that they were also walking a dog and that the abductor had taken the dog also.”
“How long were you in charge of the crime scene?”
“Until Captain Stanton arrived. Then he assumed command, and we took our orders from him.”
“Detective, did Ms. Mullins tell you whether she knew who perpetrated the crime?”
Steitzer nods. “She said that she was confident she could make a positive identification based on his voice and eyes and based on previous contact with the person. She said he was wearing a scarf that concealed most of his face. She also said she got most of his license plate number.”
“Did she give you his name?”
He nods again. “Yes. Keith Wachtel.”
“Thank you. No further questions.”
I get up to cross-examine. This is just the preliminary round; this witness has not hurt us. He’s just accurately describing what he saw and heard. Still, it’s nice to remind the jury that the defense has a point of view.
“Detective, in the place in the park where this happened, how far is the road from the area where you found Ms. Mullins and the empty stroller?”
“Probably fifty feet.”
“If I told you that I measured it and it was seventy feet, would you think that could be true?”
“Yes.”
“Well, I did. I measured it, and it was seventy feet.”
“If you say so.”
“It would make sense to assume that the abductor pulled up parallel to the targets, wouldn’t it? That way he would be the closest to them?”
“Yes.”
“So Ms. Mullins, were she to look toward the car, would be seeing the driver’s side, correct?”
I introduce into evidence a photograph of a Ford Fusion, the same make and model as the one that Keith owned. I point out to the court and witness that it is not Keith’s car, but rather one like it. The photograph is from the side, so that the viewer is looking at the driver’s side.
“The angle would basically be this, would it not?” I ask.
“Yes, I would think so.”
“Please read me the license plate number on this car,” I say.
“I can’t. It’s not in the photograph. But Ms. Mullins could have seen it as it was pulling away. She would have seen the back of the car.”
“Did you find it remarkable that a hysterical woman, in shock as you describe it, bleeding from the forehead … by the way, blood is affected by gravity, isn’t it? It goes toward the ground?”
“Yes.”
“And the eyes are just below the forehead, are they not? I’m talking specifically about Ms. Mullins’s eyes and her forehead.”
“Yes, but she could have wiped the blood away,” he says.
“Was she still bleeding when you arrived?”
“Yes.”
“Okay, back to my question. Did you find it remarkable that a hysterical woman, in shock, just pistol-whipped and wiping blood from her eyes, could read a license plate as a car is fleeing a crime scene from seventy feet away? Actually, it’s more than seventy, because when it’s pulling away, it’s no longer at the closest point.”
“I can’t say.”
“Why can’t you say whether or not you found it remarkable? Do you need Mr. Kelly’s permission? I can wait while you ask him.”
Kelly springs out of his chair with an objection, accusing me of disrespect for him and the court. Judge Moran sustains and warns me.
I turn back to Steitzer. “So you thought she was telling the truth?”
He nods. “Yes. I had no reason to doubt her.”
“Then maybe you should stick around for the rest of the trial, Detective. You’ll have plenty of reason to doubt her.”
Kelly leaps to his feet to object, and Judge Moran strikes my last comment from the record. He’s clearly pissed at me, but fortunately, he can’t strike the comment from the jury’s ears.
Rather than try to squeeze another witness in, Kelly and Judge Moran agree that we’ll adjourn for the day a little early. Which is fine with me, because I’ve got a meeting to go to.
he offices of the Parsons Group are on Seventh Avenue, near Fifty-sixth Street. The neighborhood makes me feel sad; it makes me think about the Carnegie and what will never be. I don’t mean Carnegie Hall; since I don’t sing or play an instrument, I’m pretty much okay with never playing there. I’m even okay with not going there; you can’t place a bet on classical music.
Alas, my pain is about the Carnegie Deli, which was located nearby. They’ve closed for good, and the fact that I will never again taste their pastrami weighs heavily on me.
I need to get better at dealing with loss.
The Parsons Group only has one corner of one floor of the building. I guess when you don’t build or create anything, and all you do is invest other people’s money, you don’t need a lot of space to do it in.
I checked, and they have eleven employees, with Chairma
n Ted Parsons at the top. It’s him that I’m here to see; Jill had called and cleared the way, and he agreed to give me a half hour. Zachary Alford had also only been willing to spare me a half hour; someday I hope to be worth forty-five minutes.
Parsons has a large glass desk with nothing on it, not a phone, not a piece of paper, nothing. Because it’s clear, I almost didn’t even realize it was there; at first I thought he was just sitting on a chair in the middle of the room.
It raises a series of interesting existential questions. If a desk is not used or seen, is it really a desk? Does it even exist? If you break it, does it make a sound?
Somehow I’ve got a feeling that I shouldn’t use the precious granted half hour pondering these imponderables, so after thanking him for making time to see me, I get right to the point with Parsons.
“Whose money did you invest in Finding Home?”
“Our money,” he says, pretending not to understand the question. “It’s proven to be an excellent investment.”
“Where’d you get the money? Who gave it to you in the first place?”
“As a private company, we are not required to disclose that. It’s one of the advantages of investing in private companies.”
I lean over and talk softly, as if pretending we’re close buddies. “Just between us…”
He smiles a fake smile. “I don’t think so. Is that what you wanted to know?”
“Among other things. Maybe we can try this a different way. I do this with my son. I’ll mention a name, and you tell me if I’m getting warmer or colder.”
“Mr. Carpenter…”
“Ready? Here’s the first one. Renny Kaiser.”
I can see the reaction in his face; it’s a look of surprise, with a dash of fear and worry mixed in. It’s all I was looking for; it doesn’t matter what he says. But just for the record, he says, “This meeting is over.”
“Amazing. That’s what my son always says when I play the game with him.”
“Have a good day,” is his response.
Collared Page 13