[Marc Kadella 02.0] Desperate Justice

by Dennis Carstens

  “Oh, God, thanks,” Maddy said as he handed her the coffee while striding past her into the room. “I’m going to have a headache tomorrow for sure,” she continued as she followed him in. “I can’t remember the last time I drank that much.”

  “Hello, Nathan,” Tony said to the man on the bed who stared up at him with a horrified look. “Relax, no one’s going to hurt you.”

  Tony took one of the pillows from the bed, leaned over Nathan and said, “I’m going to remove the gag. If you start yelling or screaming, I’ll put this pillow over your face. Behave and everything will be fine. Understand?”

  Shifting his eyes back and forth between Tony, who was kneeling on the bed, and Madeline, who was leaning against the room’s dresser sipping her coffee and watching, Nathan calmly nodded. As soon as Tony removed the tie from his mouth, Nathan quietly said, “Who are you and what do you want?”

  “Who we are is not important. We’re not cops but we’re not wise guys either. What we want is information about Leo Balkus. Everything you know.”

  “Who? I don’t know anyone by that name,” Nathan replied shifting his eyes back and forth, clearly lying.

  Tony had retrieved a chair and sat down next to the bed. He looked at the man on the bed and said, “Nathan, I have proof from a source inside your bank that you’ve been skimming from Leo. Do you want me to send that to him?” Tony said retrieving an envelope full of papers from his inside coat pocket.

  “Where did you get that?” Nathan asked.

  “I have a source inside your bank,” Tony lied, relieved to notice Leo’s banker did not deny skimming from him. Tony was running a bluff on him because he had no idea whether Nathan was stealing from Leo or not. Given Nathan’s history, it wasn’t much of a stretch to believe he was. And not denying it was an obvious admission. Nathan lay on the bed looking at the ceiling while Maddy sipped her coffee and Tony awaited his response.

  After thinking his options over, he finally sighed giving in. “Okay. Take these cuffs off of me and I’ll talk to you but I don’t know much.”

  Tony removed the handcuffs and listened patiently while Nathan told them what he knew about Leo’s business. Terrified at the thought of facing Leo’s wrath over skimming a little extra from Leo’s laundered money, Nathan realized his best hope was to cooperate.

  “Where is he from?” Tony asked when Nathan had finished.

  “I have no idea,” Nathan answered. “I’ve heard rumors he’s from Russia or maybe the Russian mob, but I don’t dig too much.”

  “Why don’t the feds bust him?” Maddy asked.

  “You know,” Nathan said clearly perking up to Madeline’s question, “now that you mention it, I saw him with a guy I know is an FBI agent. About a month ago, I showed up at his restaurant for our normal meeting and I had to wait for him. I was sitting at the bar and I could see him talking to someone in a booth in the bar area. The guy left and he walked right past me. He didn’t recognize me, but I sure remembered him. When I got in trouble a few years back, the FBI looked into it and I went downtown with my lawyer to talk to them. I remembered seeing this guy in their office. I remember him because he had a scar on his face. A two-inch scar shaped like a fish hook right next to his right eye. The guy I saw talking to Leo was the same guy.”

  When Nathan mentioned the two-inch fish hook scar, both Tony and Maddy straightened up and listened more intently.

  “Are you sure?” Tony asked.

  “Yeah, I remember him clearly because he looked like a tough guy. Good looking but with an odd scar on his face. I thought it was odd to see an FBI guy chatting with Leo like that.”

  “Like what?” Madeline asked.

  “They knew each other, friendly like, you know.”

  Tony and Maddy looked at each other then Tony looked back at Nathan and abruptly said, “Okay, Nathan. That’s it for now. We’ll be in touch, but you keep this to yourself. Word gets out and I drop this information about your little skimming operation on Leo. Understand? Now, beat it. Get your stuff together and get out of here.”

  “That’s it?” Nathan asked.

  “No, that’s not it. We’ll be in touch.”

  As soon as the door closed behind Nathan after he hurried from the room, the two P.I.’s looked at each other and in unison said, “Bob Caldwell.”

  “Caldwell is the straightest Fibbie ever,” Tony said. “No way does Leo have his hooks in him.”

  “No,” Maddy said after thinking it over for a minute. “I’ll bet you it’s the other way around. The FBI is looking out for Leo and they own him.”

  “And they’re letting him pull the shit he is? That’s hard to believe.”

  “Depends on what Leo’s doing for them. We’re going to find out though,” Maddy said, “Caldwell has wanted to get in my pants for two years. I’ll have him singing like a canary,” she confidently added.

  SIXTY-SEVEN

  Jury selection was finished by mid-afternoon on Friday but it was a little too late to start opening statements, especially on a Friday afternoon. Marc again brought a motion to have the jury sequestered. Marc’s sequester motion had been thoroughly argued out before and Judge Rios again denied the request. Sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is not cheap and is a significant hardship on the jurors. Judges are understandably reluctant to do it without substantial reasons for doing so. Rios did spend quite a bit of time making sure each juror understood they were not to discuss the case with anyone, including each other, and avoid any and all news reports concerning the trial. How much good that ever did was anyone’s guess.

  It was now Monday morning just before 8:30 as Marc went into the courtroom feeling about as prepared as he could be. He had spent almost all of Saturday going over his trial book, checking for any details he might have overlooked. Around mid-morning, Barry Cline came into Marc’s office and spent a little time discussing it with him.

  As he was leaving Barry again asked, “You sure you don’t need any help?”

  “It’s not that much of a trial,” Marc shrugged. “About the best I can do is poke some holes in their case and pray for reasonable doubt. But if I don’t come up with a viable alternative, Prentiss is probably hosed. I’ll keep it in mind though; if there’s anything I need I’ll let you know.”

  “Okay, good luck.”

  “Thanks.”

  Around 4:00, satisfied that he had not missed anything, Marc called Margaret Tennant to let her know he was leaving. They had made plans to go out, but Margaret offered to make dinner, stay home and relax instead. An offer Marc gladly accepted. Being a judge herself Margaret was well aware of the long days, stress and pressure Marc would endure for the next couple of weeks. A relaxed evening or two before it started was just what he needed.

  Marc tried to hurry through the crowded gallery to avoid reporters. Unfortunately, he didn’t quite make it. A male reporter for the St. Paul paper stood up and blocked his way. Before the man could ask him anything, Marc made a loud point of reminding him there had been a gag order issued which prevented the lawyers from discussing the case.

  “I just thought, maybe…”

  “Give it a couple of days and the county attorney’s office will start leaking stuff to the media. I can’t afford the fine if I get caught,” Marc said almost shoving the man out of the way.

  “Are you going to give an opening statement today?” Judge Rios asked Marc a few minutes later. The lawyers and judge were in her chambers going over some last minute details before the morning session began.

  Opening statement for the defense is supposed to be restricted to telling the jury what the defense will be. For example, if the defendant was claiming self-defense, the defense counsel would explain to the jury what testimony they would hear to support that claim. Since Marc was unsure if he would have a defense, he was inclined to wait until the state was finished presenting its case.

  “I’m going to defer until after the state’s case your Honor.”

  “Mr. Gondeck, how
long?”

  “Two hours, your Honor.”

  “Okay, we’ll plan on breaking for lunch after you’re done. Then you can start this afternoon.” She shifted her eyes to Marc then back to Gondeck. “Have your first witnesses ready by 1:00. Let’s go.”

  Judge Rios looked out over her courtroom and before the jury was brought in took a few minutes to lecture the crowd. She made it clear to everyone that this is her court and she was in charge. She would tolerate no disruptions, outbursts or breach of decorum and if anyone violated this admonition they would find themselves in a jail cell. Satisfied her message had been understood, she ordered the deputy to bring in the jury.

  The twelve jurors and two alternates filed in and took their seats in the jury box. It was made up of seven men and five women and the two alternates were both women. After the jury had been sworn in, Judge Rios went over the preliminary instructions to the jury. These consisted mostly of explaining the concepts of the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the factors the jury may consider in determining the credibility of witnesses.

  Something Marc had made a point of stressing was to have the judge review the elements of each offense. Since this was a first-degree murder case, Judge Rios did not need to be persuaded.

  To find an accused guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove every element of that crime. One of the first-degree murder charges, the one Marc believed he had the best chance to beat, was the count for premeditated murder.

  The judge explained to the jurors that the elements to this crime are:

  1) The death of Catherine Prentiss must be proven;

  2) The defendant caused her death;

  3) The defendant acted with premeditation;

  4) The defendant did not act in the heat of passion; and

  5) The defendant’s act took place in Hennepin County.

  Judge Rios spent a couple of minutes explaining what premeditation meant. Essentially, the defendant planned it and prepared for, or determined to, commit the act before doing it.

  “If the prosecution fails to prove any one of these elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty,” she solemnly told the jury.

  The judge then went on to do the same thing with each of the crimes charged in the indictment. Just before ten o’clock, she turned to Steve Gondeck to make his opening statement.

  For the next two hours Steve Gondeck paced in front of the jury and explained the prosecution’s case. He led them through each witness that he would put before them and what they would testify to. Gondeck warned them about the graphic, gruesome nature of the photos and video they would see. He also let them know that a real trial was not like television or the movies. It would move slowly and at times could get dull and even boring. There was a process to it. Each piece had to be presented in a way so that, in the end, the jury would have all of the information it needed to render its verdict.

  “I am confident that when all of the evidence is presented to you, the state will have met its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” he concluded shortly before noon.

  While Gondeck was giving his opening statement, Marc listened intently and made copious notes about what Gondeck was saying. The prosecution was making many promises to the jury, without explicitly saying so, that his witnesses would tell them very significant facts. Marc knew what each one of them would testify about but if Gondeck promised them something and didn’t deliver it, Marc would be able use that to help create reasonable doubt. Gondeck was a good, capable and thorough prosecutor. The odds of him overlooking something were very slim but Marc’s job was to hold him to his burden and make him deliver on his promises.

  “We’ll break for lunch,” Rios said when Gondeck had finished. “Court will resume at 1:00. Be ready with your first witness, Mr. Gondeck.”

  SIXTY-EIGHT

  At precisely 1:00, Judge Rios came through the back door of the courtroom and took her seat on the bench. After telling everyone to return to their seats, she looked down at Gondeck and said, “You may call your first witness, Mr. Gondeck.”

  Gondeck stood and addressing the court, said, “The state calls Sgt. Timothy Clark of the Minneapolis Police Department.”

  Marc had been provided with a list of all of the witnesses the prosecution expected to call. Typically, along with all of the people they would, in fact, bring in to testify, the prosecutors would include a list of people they might call but had no real intention of doing so. This was done in an attempt to get the defense to waste time. It didn’t really work since the defense lawyer could figure out who would be called and who wouldn’t but each person had to be interviewed, which had kept Madeline Rivers busy.

  Although the defense is given a list of potential witnesses, the prosecution is under no obligation to inform them of the order in which they would be called. This forced the defense to be ready to handle every witness on the list from the first day of the trial. Marc had correctly assumed Gondeck would call the first responder cops first especially since one of them, Sgt. Clark, had taken the photo of Prentiss lying on his wife with the knife sticking out of her chest. Gondeck would want that picture before the jury as soon as possible.

  Clark was sworn in and Gondeck began his questioning. Direct examination of a witness is done by asking open-ended questions that allow the witness to tell the jury what he or she saw or did. Clark was a veteran police officer and had testified in court on many occasions and could handle himself quite well.

  Gondeck started off by tossing easy questions at Clark about his background, how long he had been on the police force and his job experiences; questions designed to build rapport and credibility with the jury. Clark’s entire testimony had been rehearsed before trial so that both he and Gondeck could easily flow through what Clark had seen and done in a smooth manner. Rehearsing, or preparing a witness, is not only acceptable, but mandatory for any competent trial lawyer. The last thing you want is to have a witness blurt out something you’re not ready for. What is not acceptable is telling a witness what to say. The lawyers are not allowed to coach a witness to say what the lawyer wants. The witness is supposed to tell the jury only what he or she did or saw.

  Clark testified about the call he and his partner had received from the police dispatcher and their quick run to the Prentiss house. He told the jury about what the two of them had done when they got there; the inspection around the outside of the house and then the entry through the kitchen. Finding nothing out of the ordinary on the main floor, they went upstairs where they had seen the light on.

  “What happened when you got upstairs?”

  “We found the light coming through one of the bedroom doors so we went to investigate.”

  “What, if anything, did you find?”

  “We found the deceased, Catherine Prentiss, lying on the floor obviously dead with a knife sticking out of her chest. The defendant was lying on top of her with his hand holding the knife. The defendant appeared to be breathing so I carefully stepped over to him and checked his pulse. I then sent Officer King, my partner, to call it in.”

  At that point Gondeck asked Judge Rios for permission to approach the witness, which was granted. He picked up a photo from his table, walked up to the witness box and said, “Sergeant, I’m showing you a photo marked for identification as state’s exhibit one. Do you recognize it?”

  It was the photo Clark had taken of Prentiss laying on Catherine. Gondeck went through the formality of having Clark verify it and then entered the photo into evidence. When that was done, Jennifer Moore projected the picture onto a screen that had been set up in the courtroom. As soon as that happened, a loud gasp went through the jury box and the courtroom. What they saw was the grotesque, extremely bloody scene of the death of Catherine Prentiss.

  Marc and Gordon Prentiss knew this was coming and neither of them so much as blinked when the gory site was put up for display. Prentiss had tried to convince Marc
to put on a show of being upset, but Marc believed the jury would see it as obviously contrived and only make matters worse. Marc also realized this was possibly the worst, most shocking moment of the trial. Better to get it over with as soon and as quickly as possible and not draw more attention to it than was necessary.

  The rest of the direct exam was taken up by a brief Q & A about what the Sergeant did while waiting for the Crime Scene Unit and investigators. He and his partner managed to revive Gordon Prentiss and get him onto the bed. Sergeant Clark had gone into Catherine’s bathroom and returned with a wet towel to use on Gordon’s head wound to control the bleeding. Head wounds, even minor ones, bleed a lot and need to be cared for as soon as possible.

  He went on to testify that Gordon seemed dazed and confused and appeared to have been drinking. Clark and his partner then sealed off the crime scene. When the CSU arrived, Clark took on the responsibility of making a record for forensic identification of everyone who came in the house. At that point, having completed his questioning, Gondeck turned him over to Marc for cross-examination.

  The cross exam of a witness is the opposite of the direct exam. What the lawyer is trying to do is testify himself by asking the witness short leading questions to elicit simple, yes or no answers and not let the witness embellish them. The cross exam is supposed to get testimony that will help the defense.

  “Sergeant Clark,” Marc began, “when Judge Prentiss regained consciousness, did he say anything about a third person being in the bedroom?”

  “Yes, he did. In fact, he repeated it several times.”

  “Did you tell this to the lead investigator, Detective Larry Grimes? Did Detective Grimes say anything to you about that?”

  “Yes, I told Detective Grimes and he said he would check it out.”

  “Did you ever try to find that person?”

  “No, that would not be my job, counselor,” Clark politely said.