As he returned from a desperately difficult lunch hour with his radiant and optimistic teenage daughter, Dewitt phoned a cab service and had her delivered back to school. He found Saffeleti in his walnut-toned office, pouting as he read up on People vs. Wainwright.
He looked up from the volume. “You know all these stories about Mahoney and her wild pussy? I’m beginning to doubt them. I have a strange feeling they were started by angry victims of her courtroom victories. And who cares? She’s one sharp bitch, James. How she ever pulled out something this obscure…”
“She tore Clare and me apart.”
“And she made Emmanuel look inexperienced. Dog hairs, James. The damn case hangs on some dog hairs and a swallowed key. Jesus Christ, I must be out of my mind!”
“If we could only prove Quinn’s relationship to Miller, then, with the motive in mind, what he did makes much more sense: kill a couple people, making it look like the work of a serial killer, so that when you finally kill who you’re after, he disappears into the bunch.”
“Why did he go after Lumbrowski first?” Saffeleti asked. “Have you thought about that?”
“Of course I have.”
“And?”
“Level of responsibility. That’s the way I see it. Lumbrowski was there at the shooting: he had a role in it. But I actually shot the kid. We know Quinn’s an intricate planner. That must be the way he had it planned: He saved me for last.” Dewitt paused. “So what now?”
“What I gotta do now is do to her what she did to us. Technically, you’re my assistant, James. You get any bright ideas, you let me hear them. One thing to keep in mind here… Danieli doesn’t want to be the judge who lets this guy skate. You get that feeling? I do. It’s a good sign. He’s going to be fair; he’s just going to be fair in our favor. Something else working for us… Mahoney’s been winning cases left and right. Danieli himself called her a Crusader Rabbit. He’s Italian; I’m Italian. Believe me, that helps.” He checked his Rolex. “Let’s go.”
Mahoney knew the power of strong witnesses. Quinn’s defense began with a woman psychiatrist, a delicate matron in her mid-fifties who spoke with a dignified British accent and wore a flower on her lapel. Miss Marple. To hear her speak of Quinn, one would think she was describing Bambi. Saffeleti lost hold of his cross, like an actor forgetting his lines, and finally stopped mid-sentence and sat down in defeat.
When she said, “Defense calls Dr. Frederick Hart, Your Honor,” Mahoney was looking directly at James Dewitt, and smiling confidently.
As an expert witness, Dr. Frederick Hart had the prerequisite silver temples, the strong jaw, the crystal blue eyes, the white teeth, and wore a wool tweed jacket with leather-patch elbows! After he was sworn in, he took the witness stand and put on a pair of tortoise shell reading glasses. Mahoney spent five minutes reviewing the man’s credentials. One formed the opinion that this legend in the field had invented forensic sciences. He had written two textbooks presently in use, had narrated a number of police training films—which was where Dewitt remembered his voice from—had served with both the FBI’s Quantico and Chicago DOJ’s crime labs, and was a visiting professor at UCLA. As director of a private crime lab, modestly named after himself, his people had processed evidence in over seven thousand separate cases. Dewitt wondered aloud to Saffeleti; “You think she’ll walk him across water just to drive home her point?”
DIRECT EXAMINATION
OF DR. HART
BY MS. MAHONEY
MAHONEY: We’ve heard testimony today concerning the forensic evidence found at the crime scene in question, Dr. Hart. Have you had a chance to review this same evidence?
DR. HART: I have.
Q. For the purpose of?
A. I was retained on behalf of the defense to reexamine and evaluate all the evidence pertaining to this investigation.
Q. Evidence collected by the police?
A. Evidence collected by the police, as well as evidence collected by our own investigators.
Q. Is this a common practice?
A. It’s been done before. It’s our way to make sure nothing was overlooked, nothing missed. We wanted to double-check the trace evidence. It’s a very specialized field.
Q. And in lay terms, can you explain your findings to this Court, please?
As he addressed the courtroom, Hart suddenly had the voice of a television preacher.
A. There is a great deal of evidence in any case and it is the job of the criminalistic laboratory and prosecutor to determine which evidence is of value and which is not. With this in mind, I think there are certain inconsistencies in the state’s evidence.
Q. Such as?
A. First off, vegetable fibers, especially cotton, are found in such abundance at any crime scene that typically we discard them immediately.
Q. You say “typically.” Can you be more specific?
A. Ninety-nine percent of the time. And dog hairs? Let me address the issue of dog hairs. Let’s forget Mr. Quinn’s dog altogether. Is the Court aware that all of the dog hairs found on Mr. Lumbrowski’s clothing do not match?
Mahoney showed copies of papers to Saffeleti and then handed them to Hart, asking that he identify them, which he did.
Q. These are DNA typing charts—so-called DNA fingerprinting—comparing dog hairs found at the Lumbrowski crime scene. They clearly do not match. These are from different dogs.
Dewitt leaned to Saffeleti and whispered, “There’s your opening. They did run the tests, which means, if we’re right, some of the hairs did match Quinn’s dog. It’s testimony by omission. He’s only showing you the cards he wants you to see.”
The natty District Attorney nodded. On his pad, he wrote in bold letters, “FULL DISCLOSURE OF TESTS.”
Mahoney produced another DNA chart and placed it on the easel alongside the others. A series of columns of small black boxes stacked, each box representing a specific gene.
Q. And this?
A. Ah, yes! You see, here we do have a match.
Q. And can you tell the Court, please, where this second chart is from? It is dog hair, I take it?
Q. Oh, yes, it is dog hair. But this dog hair was collected in a sheriff’s search of the private residence of Detective James Dewitt.
The room went abuzz. Dewitt sat forward. Some reporters bolted for the door.
Q. You’re saying that dog hairs found on the decedent are from Detective Dewitt’s dog?
A. Yes. That’s true.
Q. So if we are using dog hairs to try and imply guilt, then it is possible Detective Dewitt is guilty of the crime my client has been charged with?
SAFFELETI: Objection!
MAHONEY: I withdraw the question. Was there other evidence that your investigators found that was not in any of the state’s reports but which you deem of significance to this case?
DR. HART: Yes, there was evidence of a struggle having taken place. Medical examiner reports confirm a contusion on Lumbrowski’s skull. Trace evidence of blood and hairs in the front-seat area of the Mustang suggest Lumbrowski’s head may have struck the framework of the convertible. Additionally, we found a third party’s blood on the front lip of the driver’s seat.
Q. Third party?
A. This blood sample was of a type that did not belong to either the accused or the decedent. It’s all in my report.
Q. What type was this third party’s blood?
A. Type A positive.
Q. Lumbrowski?
A. O positive.
Q. Mr. Quinn?
A. AB negative.
Q. What is this I’m handing you?
A. It appears to be a photocopy of an application form for a position with the Carmel Police Department?
Q. And whose name is at the top?
A. James Dewitt.
Q. And what blood type is listed?
A. A positive.
Q. Thank you.
The gallery rumbled with conversation. Two more reporters stood and left the courtroom in a hurry.
Mahoney wav
ed the piece of paper for all to see. She placed copies in front of Saffeleti and the judge.
“Improper impeachment, Your Honor!” Saffeleti hollered.
“Impeachment, Your Honor?” she said innocently. “I’m attempting to set the facts of this case straight. As they have been presented by the state, they are anything but straight; they have been manipulated. I think that is quite obvious. In fact, I intend to prove they have been manipulated and why they were manipulated.”
“Your Honor!” Saffeleti screamed, jumping up out of his chair. “I must protest against any of what Ms. Mahoney has just said going into the record. She is manipulating the Court, Your Honor. I beseech you to strike that last statement.”
“Overruled,” Danieli said. “The statement stands.”
Mahoney practiced one of her ball of the foot pivots and said, “No further questions at this time.” Hart looked at her with a pleading, confused expression.
Saffeleti saw this, leaned to Dewitt, and whispered, “Something’s up.”
William Saffeleti began his cross-examination of Dr. Frederick Hart in a surprisingly strong voice.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF DR. HART
BY MR. SAFFELETI
SAFFELETI: Dr. Hart, you have testified here today, that through DNA typing you were able to determine that animal hairs—dog hairs—found on Mr. Lumbrowski’s clothing were not from the same dog as hairs that were found at the Osbourne and McDuff crime scenes, is that correct?”
DR. HART: Yes.
Q. Some of the animal hairs found on Mr. Lumbrowski, or all of the hairs?
A. Some.
Q. You are aware, are you not, that the Salinas lab found animals hairs on Mr. Lumbrowski that according to tests available to them did, in fact, match hairs found at the three other crime scenes?
A. I am.
Q. Did you, Doctor, or your people, find that the animal hairs taken from the defendant’s dog in fact matched those from the crimes scenes?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And yet you chose not to run genetic tests on these hairs. True or not true?
A. True.
Q. I see. So you were selective in your choice of evidence to test.
A. Yes.
Q. And yet, just a short time ago you condemned the Salinas lab for being selective with evidence. What compelled you to be so selective in your choice of evidence, Dr. Hart?
A. On advice of counsel.
Q. On the advice of counsel? You’re referring to Ms. Mahoney, are you not?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was Ms. Mahoney’s decision? Does Ms. Mahoney run your lab, Dr. Hart, or do you?
A. I do. But—
Q. Just answer the question, please. If I want editorial, I’ll solicit it. Are these results—tests that directly link Mr. Quinn’s dog to the crime scenes—present in this courtroom?
A. No.
MAHONEY: Your Honor, no such evidence has been admitted or even presented, and therefore testimony as to the existence of such evidence is hearsay. I request Mr. Saffeleti’s question and the witness’s response be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
SAFFELETI: Your Honor, Miss O’Daly presented evidence similar. Dr. Hart’s findings must be present in court. They are not!
THE COURT: Best-evidence rules apply. The objection is sustained.
Saffeleti looked disapprovingly at Mahoney.
SAFFELETI: Were any animal hairs, any evidence whatsoever, found at the Osbourne or McDuff crime scenes that implicate Detective Dewitt in these crimes?
MAHONEY: Your Honor, objection. Irrelevant. This hearing does not directly concern either the Osbourne or McDuff murders, and Detective Dewitt is not the one charged with crimes against the state.
SAFFELETI: I’m glad to hear that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. I’m interested in the response. The witness will answer the question.
DR. HART: No.
SAFFELETI: And having already determined that Mr. Lumbrowski and Detective Dewitt worked together on the same case for over a month, isn’t it possible—just possible—that those dog hairs you recovered and linked to Detective Dewitt’s dog had been there for months?
A. It’s possible.
Q. Would you say quite possible? In your expert opinion.
A. Quite possible.
Q. Dr. Hart, you said earlier that in any investigation there is a great deal of fiber evidence you disregard. Is that true?
A. That’s approximately what I said, yes.
Q. Now I understand that certain vegetable fibers are quite commonly found at any crime scene, but if you had to generalize, Dr. Hart, who is most commonly responsible for contaminating a crime scene, other than the perpetrator of the crime? I’m referring now to your own textbook, Doctor.
Saffeleti walked to the prosecutor’s table, picked up the book and waved it in the air.
A. The investigating officer.
Q. Ah, the investigator. And let’s see, initially who was the investigating officer?
A. Detective James Dewitt.
Q. Thank you, Doctor. No further questions.
MAHONEY: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Mahoney.
RE-DIRECT OF
DR. HART
BY MS. MAHONEY
MAHONEY: Would you identify this evidence for the sake of the Court, please?
DR. HART: Three evidence bags, two marked as from the Lumbrowski crime scene, one from the search of Detective Dewitt’s residence.
SAFFELETI: Objection! The alleged search of Detective Dewitt’s residence has no bearing on this case, Your Honor. That any such evidence should find its way into this courtroom—
MAHONEY: It has a direct bearing on this case. The search was authorized by the Attorney’s General’s office because of evidence discovered at the Lumbrowski crime scene.
THE COURT: Overruled. Continue, Ms. Mahoney, at your own risk. If this is improper impeachment, not only will this testimony be stricken from the record but your performance as a fair and proper representative of the defendant will come under question.
MAHONEY: Understood, Your Honor. And what is contained in each of these three evidence bags, Dr. Hart?
A. From the Lumbrowski crime scene, a roll of masking tape and a length of hose. From Dewitt’s residence, a single length of hose.
Q. Upon visual inspection, as a forensic expert, is there any similarity between the two lengths of hose?
A. By color, diameter, this discoloring here that is on both hoses, they appear to be two different lengths of the same hose.
SAFFELETI: Objection. Speculation, Your Honor. Have tests been run?
THE COURT: Have they, Dr. Hart?
DR. HART: Not by my lab. No, sir.
MAHONEY: Your Honor, as an expert witness, this man may certainly give his opinion to this Court. That is all I asked of him. He merely said they appear to be the same hose.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MAHONEY: Defense would call Hector Ramirez.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
OF HECTOR RAMIREZ
BY MS. MAHONEY
MAHONEY: Your credentials were established earlier by the state, so we’ll forgo that.
RAMIREZ: Fine with me.
Q. Are you familiar with this roll of masking tape?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Have you examined it professionally? And if so, in what regard?
A. I have. Detective Rick Morn of the Seaside Police Department requested our fingerprint laboratory attempt to establish the identity of the individual belonging to a single thumb-print developed on the inside hub of the tape by technicians at the Salinas lab.
Q. And did your laboratory establish said identity?
A. We did.
Q. And how was this accomplished?
A. Our Automated Latent Print System. It is a computerized scanning system that digitizes a fingerprint’s characteristics, whorls and loops, and compares these characteristics to prints in th
e data base.
Q. And the data base consists of?
A. At this time the ALPS data base has prints on file of all convicted felons in the state of California over the past fifteen years, all public servants, doctors, nurses, day-care-center workers, lab technicians, judges, elected officials… you name it. It’s a considerable data base.
Q. So a policeman’s prints would be on file?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Mr. Ramirez, would you please tell the Court the identity of the individual whose thumb-print was found on this roll of masking tape used to seal Lumbrowski’s car?
A. First, I would have to ask how you obtained this roll of masking tape, Ms. Mahoney. That roll of tape was—
Q. Just answer the question, please.
Dewitt leaned across Saffeleti, stole the man’s pen from his hand, and wrote in bold letters, “CHAIN OF CUSTODY. SOMETHING WRONG!”
A. The print belongs to Detective James Dewitt.
“What?” Dewitt barked from his place alongside Saffeleti. “Sam?”
Q. Your Honor, we heard testimony from Detective Dewitt that he did not touch in any way, any evidence inside Lumbrowski’s Mustang, and that even if he did, he was wearing latex gloves at the time. Should I have the court recorder reread this for the Court?
THE COURT: Mr. Saffeleti?
SAFFELETI: The state recalls this testimony, but objects to Ms. Mahoney’s tactics. This reeks of offense, not defense. Is Detective Dewitt on trial here or Michael Quinn?
MAHONEY: As stated earlier, Your Honor, defense intends to show willful omission of evidence on the part of state’s witnesses and manipulation of evidence. Hose found in Mr. Dewitt’s back shed matches in appearance the hose on Lumbrowski’s car. Mr. Dewitt’s fingerprint is the only fingerprint on the roll of masking tape. Mr. Dewitt and Mr. Lumbrowski, by the detective’s own admission, had an antagonistic relationship. Evidence offers one and only one story? Then what would that story be? No further questions.
THE COURT: Do you have questions for this witness, Mr. Saffeleti?
SAFFELETI: I do, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF HECTOR RAMIREZ
BY MR. SAFFELETI
SAFFELETI: Have you, in your years as a detective and later as director of the DOJ’s fingerprint lab, ever known the investigating officer’s fingerprints to contaminate a crime scene?
Probable Cause Page 25