“Your Honor,” Saffeleti retorted, “whether or not the evidence is circumstantial is the very purpose of this Court. It’s not up to Ms. Mahoney to make that judgment.”
“I’m well aware of that, Bill. Jesus, you two!” He looked them over silently. “I’m aware there is much more press at this hearing than we usually encounter. I am also aware it is an election year. But in case you weren’t aware, my courtroom will not be used to garner votes, or to advance careers.” He looked at Mahoney, “Nickel-and-dime sideshows won’t help your cause, Counselor. If you stay on this same track, you better be damned sure of where you’re going. I’ve heard you’re an eager beaver, Ms. Mahoney. You and I have never had the privilege of sharing a courtroom. Perhaps other judges appreciate your antics, but I do not. You want to play Crusader Rabbit, do it in somebody else’s courtroom.
“And Bill,” he added, “let’s skip the bullshit, shall we? You wasted an hour weeding through a pile of circumstantial evidence. Don’t waste this court’s time. Stick to the relevant evidence, and let’s get on with it. I will not spend two days on this hearing. Either the accused goes on to a trial by jury, or he doesn’t. We will not have a dress rehearsal here. That’s all.”
***
Dewitt sat there on the stand, the focus of attention. The five minutes drifted into seven. When they reentered the courtroom, Mahoney’s neck was stained beet red, and Saffeleti flashed Dewitt an angry look.
“Detective Dewitt, I remind you that you are under oath…”
Mahoney’s voice disappeared behind the sound of blood pulsating through his ears. How had he missed it? She was sitting near the rear of the courtroom, smiling at him. She waved. She must have come in during the brief recess. If he had noticed, he might have done something, but there was Emmy, dressed in her Sunday clothes, the makeup giving her the look of an eighteen-year-old, radiant, adorable. His daughter supporting him. Another little wave. And then, out of the corner of his eye, he saw a motion and he jerked his head, for he knew it was Quinn turning to chance a look at her. Quinn zeroed in on her and then looked back at Dewitt with absolute glee in his glassy eyes and smiled thinly. He nodded at Dewitt.
DIRECT CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF JAMES DEWITT
BY MS. MAHONEY—(CON’T)
MAHONEY: Mr. Dewitt?
DEWITT: Please repeat the question.
Q. I asked you if you ever threatened Mr. Lumbrowski with violence.
A. I may have.
Q. May have?
A. I did.
Q. Let’s talk about the Lumbrowski crime scene itself, if we may. We’ve just heard you testify as to the similarities between this crime scene and other earlier crimes scenes you had investigated. Is that not so?
A. That’s true. The Lumbrowski crime scene was, in some ways, very similar.
Q. From the standpoint of a top-notch, an expert forensic investigator turned detective?
A. In my opinion.
Q. Please allow me to get this right. I’m not an expert like yourself. Lumbrowski’s body showed signs of violence, did it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And violence had been apparent on the other victims?
A. No.
Q. So that was not similar, it would seem.
A. No, but—
She waved a finger. “Just yes or no,” she repeated condescendingly. “And what about luggage? You stated earlier that the first two victims were found with luggage in their vehicles. Did Howard Lumbrowski’s Mustang have any luggage inside of it?”
A. No.
Q. No? I see. So that was not similar, either?
A. No.
Q. Not very similar are they? You mentioned bicycle tire tracks. Were bicycle tire tracks recorded at all the crime scenes, Detective?
A. No. But at those crime scenes the weather had—
MAHONEY: Your Honor?
Danieli reminded Dewitt to limit his answers to yes or no.
Q. In your expert opinion, in a simple yes or no, do you, does the state, have what you would normally call a good deal of hard evidence in this case?
A. That depends on how you define a “good deal.”
Q. You have more hard evidence, or more circumstantial?
A. A forensic investigator’s—this detective’s—definition of circumstantial evidence differs with that of the Court.
Q. Using the Court’s definition, please. We are in court.
A. More circumstantial. But that’s the same with any case.
Q. You examined the Lumbrowski crime scene?
A. I studied it, yes. I did not conduct the investigation at that crime scene.
Q. You studied it. Did you take any precautions, or because it was someone else’s crime scene were you careless?
A. I was not careless. I wore latex gloves and I was careful to avoid contact with the victim or the vehicle. I was only at the car a matter of minutes.
She grinned and nodded and Dewitt suddenly realized she had used his professional ego to trap him. Had he been thinking clearly, he might have used his presence at the Lumbrowski crime scene to explain away any possible evidence found connecting him to the vehicle. He felt tempted to alter his testimony now, but that might even dig the hole deeper, he realized.
He watched Mahoney smile shrewdly and wondered what kind of person enjoys tricking people for a living.
Q. You worked with a Ms. O’Daly from the Salinas lab on this case, did you not?
A. Ms. O’Daly was the FI on the case—the forensic investigator.
Q. And how many homicides had she worked on prior to the Osbourne fatality?
A. None.
Q. Have you personally, Mr. Dewitt, ever known, ever even heard of a homicide investigation where the forensic investigator had no experience as an FI on a homicide, and the detective had no experience as a homicide detective?
A. No.
Q. A little louder, for the sake of the microphones, please.
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. And these are our expert witnesses, Your Honor? These are the people we trust to give opinion? Do we rely on such opinion in this case, Your Honor? Is it worth the state’s time and money to bring Mr. Quinn to trial? That is the sole purpose of this preliminary hearing, is it not, to determine if Mr. Quinn should be put through the humiliation and expense of a trial? To determine if it is worth the state’s time and money? This based on the opinion of inexperienced investigators, one of whom, Mr. Dewitt here, has admitted to having a personal dislike of the victim?
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Mahoney, for your dissertation on why we are all gathered here. I wasn’t sure why we were here, but I guess now I understand. Let’s get on with it, shall we?
MAHONEY: No more questions.
***
Saffeleti dealt quickly with an affidavit from Dr. Emmanuel. Mahoney chose not to challenge it, although she did manage to get into the record her concern over his lack of experience as a medical examiner. The DA then called Clare O’Daly to the stand. Clare spent twenty minutes in corroborative testimony—a waterfall of words tumbling through microphones and tape machines and the stenographer’s busy fingers. The chain of custody, the photography, dog hairs, Plexiglas, latent fingerprints, the bicycle-tire track, the paint chip. Dewitt listened absentmindedly, her words triggering images, his mind vividly recalling the events of the past weeks.
Mahoney, removing her suit jacket, her breasts heaving as she paced in a down-to-business stride, began her cross-examination in a strong voice.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF MS. O’DALY
BY MS. MAHONEY
MAHONEY: How long have you worked at the Salinas Criminalistics Lab, Ms. O’Daly?
O’DALY: A little over a year?
Q. “A little over”? Is that how lab technicians speak? I would think you might be more precise than that.
A. Thirteen months, two weeks, to be more precise.
Q. As a forensic investigator, you’ve been involved in how many homicide cases? Precisel
y.
A. Three.
Q. I didn’t hear you, Ms. O’Daly.
A. Three!
Q. Only three? These three?
A. Three as a forensics investigator. Dozens as a lab technician. Several dozen, I would guess.
Q. You guess. Another one of those specific scientific terms. Let me ask you this, Ms. O’Daly, did you do a lot of guessing on this case?
A. No.
Q. But you did conduct nearly all the forensic field work and much of the lab work, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s a big job.
A. That’s what I’m trained to do. That’s what they pay me for.
Q. As with Mr. Dewitt, an affidavit of your qualifications has been submitted to this Court. You have all these qualifications listed and a lot of them deal with chemical analysis of controlled substances. Would you agree with that?
A. That’s a great deal of lab work these days, yes.
Q. Very little experience with blood, fibers, and hairs listed on this affidavit. Had you, in fact, done any evidence collection on a homicide before the Osbourne case?
A. No.
Q. Lab work?
A. Some.
Q. And you are the state’s expert on this case?
A. Detective Dewitt supervised me the whole way. He had thousands of hours in the field.
Q. But as a forensic investigator, not a detective. Isn’t that so? No, it seems to me your credentials fall well short of the kind of foundation this Court looks for in its expert witnesses.
THE COURT: Mr. Saffeleti, you may respond.
SAFFELETI: Your Honor, I’m sure this Court has dealt with many preliminary hearings in which the Court accepts the testimony of a state criminalist. Most of the time, the criminalist’s report will suffice. Would Ms. Mahoney like to conduct a blood analysis? I certainly defer to the expertise of Ms. O’Daly. Her reports are submitted as evidence. Does Ms. Mahoney question a specific in one of those reports? Or is she simply trying to impeach this witness, as well?
THE COURT: The Court is going to admit state’s exhibits, Ms. Mahoney. Perhaps that will clear things up for you and allow you to get on with it.
Q. You determined an evidentiary connection between pieces of tape used to seal the windows of the cars of the first two victims… as we heard Mr. Dewitt testify earlier?
A. Detective Dewitt. Yes, I was the one.
Q. You must have discussed this behavioral aspect of the application of that tape with Mr. Dewitt. Is that so? Behavioral implying a specific pattern of behavior.
A. Yes, that’s true.
Q. So Mr. Dewitt was aware of the specific order in which the tape had been applied, was he not?
A. Detective Dewitt was.
Q. Let me ask you this, Ms. O’Daly, and I remind you that you are under oath: If I was to hand you a roll of tape right now, and pointed to a car window, could you or could you not do a convincing job of applying that tape in the same manner as the tape found on the window of Howard Lumbrowski’s car?
A. I could.
Q. So we can assume that someone with prior knowledge of the way in which the tape had been applied could, in fact, duplicate this application of the tape of Lumbrowski’s car. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, Ms. O’Daly.
Mahoney paced in front of the judge’s bench.
Q. Mr. Dewitt was removed from the Lumbrowski case?
A. He was.
Q. And did he give you a reason he had been removed?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what was that reason?
A. He said his captain was worried about the implications.
Q. The implications? Why would his captain have said that?
A. You’d have to ask him.
Q. Detective Dewitt didn’t mention Howard Lumbrowski by name?
A. He did.
Q. What reference was there to Howard Lumbrowski?
A. They apparently expressed some reservation over the fact that Detective Dewitt and Mr. Lumbrowski had a falling out over the trial of the accused’s son.
MAHONEY: Your Honor, I ask that that response be stricken. Any such relation between Mr. Quinn and Steven Miller has yet to be proven in this court.
THE COURT: Am I to understand there is a blood relation between Mr. Quinn and Steven Miller?
***
Saffeleti patted Dewitt on the knee and whispered, “Mahoney dug herself in deep on this one. She should have stayed away from this. O’Daly gets the gold star of the day.”
“But we can’t prove the relation exists. At least not yet,” Dewitt reminded.
“If I know Danieli, we won’t have to.”
Mahoney answered the judge, “No such relationship has been proven. It’s irrelevant, Your Honor.”
“Irrelevant? Mr. Quinn, are you, were you, related to Steven Miller?”
“Don’t answer that!” Mahoney instructed her client. “Your Honor, my client has not been sworn in.”
THE COURT: I asked the defendant a question. Motive behind a crime is central to the issue of probable cause, stated or not. I would like an answer.
Mahoney counseled Quinn privately.
QUINN: I wish to invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There’s no need for that. As it has been pointed out, you’re not under oath, sir. It’s a simple-enough question. I expected a simple answer. In lieu of that response, Ms. O’Daly’s statement stands. It will not be stricken from the record. Continue.
MAHONEY: Ms. O’Daly, you attended a fundraising party at the Laughton residence in Pebble Beach, did you not?
O’DALY: You know I did, Ms. Mahoney. We were introduced at the party.
Q. Just answer the questions, please. If I want further editorial from you, I’ll request it. You did attend the party?
A. I did.
Q. Were you later made aware of a private meeting Mr. Dewitt had with a notable state politician?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And with whom had Mr. Dewitt met that night?
A. Jessie Osbourne, the mother of the first victim.
Q. Did Mr. Dewitt imply that as a result of that meeting, he might be asked back on the Lumbrowski investigation?
A. Yes, he thought there was a chance of that.
Q. In fact, he was asked back on to the case, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Is it true that the evidence presented here represents only a small portion of the evidence collected at the Lumbrowski crime scene, Ms. O’Daly?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Can you explain why that is to the Court, please?
A. Can I explain, or would I explain?
Q. Would you explain, please?
A. I cannot. That is not my specialty. I suspect to submit everything found at a crime scene might takes days, even weeks. To explain to laymen such as yourself might take even longer.
A few in the gallery chuckled. Danieli struggled with a grin.
Q. In your expert opinion as a lab technician, the remaining evidence is irrelevant to this case. Is that what you’re saying?
A. I repeat: I am not prosecuting this case, Ms. Mahoney. Relevancy of evidence is not my specialty. Collection of evidence is my specialty.
Q. But you present evidence to the prosecution.
A. That’s true.
Q. And did you present to Mr. Saffeleti all the evidence available to you?
A. I can’t answer that “yes” or “no.” As a forensic investigator, you sort through the evidence and present what you believe useful to the case. That’s what I did.
Q. You are familiar with the dog hair in this case?
A. I am.
Q. How specific is a dog’s hair… how individual?
A. There are a variety of identifying characteristics that qualify animal hairs to species and often to breeds within that species.
Q. But not to specific animals?
A. A specific combinatio
n of these identifying characteristics greatly increases the likelihood of individuality. An analogy might be Lumbrowski’s Mustang. There are x number of blue and white Mustangs on the road; a lesser number of blue and white convertibles; fewer still of that particular year. And how many blue and white convertibles of that particular year with a bumper sticker on the left-hand side that reads, “I Brake for Nothing”? You see? The more identifying characteristics, the more individual.
Q. Any bumper stickers on the dog hair, Ms. O’Daly?
SAFFELETI: Your Honor—
Q. I withdraw the question. Can you tell the Court where you obtained the animal hairs for comparison to those found at the crime scenes?
A. I did not obtain the animal hairs.
Q. Where did they come from?
A. To the best of my knowledge, they were collected by the Seaside Police Department when Quinn was arrested. They arrived with his clothing.
Q. How were they collected?
A. I believe they were cut from the dog.
Q. You believe?
A. I know they were.
Q. Your Honor, I question with what legal authority these hairs were collected. Is there a search warrant that specifies the man’s dog can be searched for evidence? Can the state produce such a warrant? I remind Your Honor of People vs. Wainwright. State Supreme Court overturned a lower-court conviction of an alleged precious-gems smuggling operation because the gems were allegedly brought into the country in the digestive tract of a thoroughbred mare. Customs officers operated on the horse without proper warrant. Is there a warrant in this case?
THE COURT: Mr. Saffeleti?
SAFFELETI: I know of no such warrant, Your Honor, but the animal was in the suspect’s possession at the time of arrest. I will have to review People vs. Wainwright for similarities.
THE COURT: And so will I. I will, therefore, hold off on the admissibility of this evidence until further review.
MAHONEY: Defense may wish recall this witness at a later time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down.
***
Saffeleti’s witness parade continued to the lunch recess, but a sinking feeling of despair plunged James Dewitt into a mild depression. Mahoney had intelligently selected two basic cross-examination themes—the inexperience of the state’s experts, and procedural elements involving the evidence itself.
Probable Cause Page 24