Counsel (Counsel #1)
Page 15
"What?" I lean back to better see her face.
"I performed a home test a week ago, and I have an appointment to see an obstetrician tomorrow."
"That's why you refused wine with dinner; actually, you haven’t been drinking alcohol for some time. I'm so damned stupid…and so happy. Congratulations, Sis." I pull her into my arms to kiss the top of her head. "Have you told Mom and Dad?"
"I'll tell them when I get confirmation."
"Text me as soon as you know. I'll take the family out to celebrate on Saturday; you choose the restaurant," I promise, unable to wipe the smile from my face. "Mom’s going to be over the moon. We have to get the renovations done as soon as possible, what can I do to help?"
"It’s all under control, thanks. Matt was going to call you to let you know we plan on starting work in the next few weeks."
"Good! I can't wait to be an uncle. Are you feeling all right?"
"Slow down, Adam. I can't imagine what you’ll be like when you're an expectant father."
We spend the rest of the time before she leaves talking about family and their upcoming renovations. That night, I fall asleep easily, the thought of my sister and her family living next door providing a feeling of contentment I haven’t felt in quite some time.
.
.
In court the next morning, Tom prepares to question the first defense witness.
"Professor, would you please state your full name and occupation?" he asks.
"I’m Kevin Lambert, a lecturer in law at New England."
"How long have you been teaching law, Professor?"
"It’s been close to eighteen years."
"Thank you, Professor. Would you please explain the meaning of the term ad idem?"
"Ad idem is a term used in contract law. It’s best described as a meeting of the minds and essentially means when two parties share the same understanding of an agreement made. If either one has a misunderstanding or his or her understanding differs from the other, then the contract is deemed invalid."
"So there would have to be a meeting of the minds or mutual understanding for a contract to be deemed valid?"
"Most definitely."
"Would it be considered a mutual understanding if one of those parties is under a misapprehension or has been knowingly or unknowingly misled, Professor?"
"It would most certainly not be."
"In your view, should ignorance either of the law or circumstance be a mitigating factor in determining guilt?"
"Consensus is that the law cannot accept ignorance as a defense. I understand the rationale, but it is my belief, in jurisprudence, that it should be considered and as such, taken into account when determining guilt or sentencing."
"Are you saying, in your expert opinion, that a party who had been misled should have that fact taken into account in determining his or her guilt?"
"Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered," I interject.
"Sustained," Judge Bolton decides. Satisfied that he's made his point, Tom announces ‘no questions’, and I’m invited to cross.
"Professor, would you tell the court what the term capacity means in the eyes of the law?"
"It's the determination of whether a person had a legal right, power or competency to perform an act and the ability to understand the consequences of their actions."
"Would a qualified lawyer be deemed competent to negotiate a contract?"
"Yes, if…"
"Yes or no, Professor. Would a qualified lawyer be deemed competent to negotiate a contract?"
"Yes, he or she would."
"And would that same lawyer, if he or she were deemed to be of sound mind and under no duress, be seen as having the mental faculty and professional knowledge to understand what investigations should be undertaken before entering into a binding contract?"
"Yes; if the person is judged not to have diminished mental capacity."
"Would you explain the term jurisprudence, please?"
"It means the theory or philosophy of the law."
"It is your stated opinion, that in jurisprudence, ignorance should be taken into account when assessing guilt or culpability, is that correct?"
"It is."
"So, what you are saying is that, in theory, you believe that ignorance should be taken into account?"
"Yes, I am."
"What about in practice?"
"I'm not sure I understand your question?"
"Professor, your view is based on a philosophical argument or view of the law, is that right?"
"It is."
"How would your theory relate in a practical sense? In this courtroom and others across the country, the world even, attorneys and judges deal with the practice of the law, not philosophical debate. So I'm asking, how do you see your theoretical approach to ignorance being enacted?"
"Well…" He starts, but I interrupt.
"Is it your view that the negligent or the deceitful should be allowed to trade on ignorance, be it real or contrived? Is that what you truly believe… what you are advocating Professor? That the Commonwealth, this court, should excuse a person who is a trained lawyer on the basis of his or her plea of ignorance or having been misled? Should this court simply ignore the fact that he or she had been schooled in contract law?"
"Objection, you honor, badgering!"
"Your Honor, I am merely asking the witness to expound on a theoretical response he's given the court."
"Overruled, but Counselor, you are walking a fine line," Judge Bolton warns me.
"No further questions, Your Honor," I declare.
Tom, probably realizing that he’ll only further muddy the waters by having his witness expound on his theory, declines to redirect. He calls their second witness, Connor Jones, a certified public accountant, whose firm has acted for Justin for many years. The man looks decidedly uneasy when taking the stand. Tom’s questions reveal that Justin conducted preliminary investigations into Fidelity before passing the contract onto Jones, Jones, and Herbert for review. Jones also confirms that his company manages all Fidelity's accounting and financial matters on Justin's behalf.
"Mr. Jones, how often is profit from Fidelity's business dispensed to its owners?" Tom asks.
"Half-yearly," he replies.
"Does the money go directly to my client, or is it channeled through your company?"
"The funds are deposited into an account we set up on Senator Wade’s instructions."
"Does your company undertake the management and financial reporting of this account?"
"We do for all Senator Wade’s business interests. We also prepare quarterly reports for the senator, prepare and lodge annual accounts with the IRS and pay any taxes when required."
"How often did my client draw down on funds received from Fidelity?"
"Senator Wade didn’t ask for any of those funds to be transferred to his personal accounts. They, along with revenue from his other business interests were reinvested."
"Does he manage his own investments?"
"The senator is very astute financially and holds strong views on how his funds should be invested, but we are responsible for managing his investments and all accounting related matters. He meets with the J.J. and H team quarterly to review results.
"Has my client ever asked you to do anything illegal, Mr. Jones?"
"No, Sir. The senator has always been meticulous in his business dealings."
Although not blatant in his questioning, Tom has managed to indirectly implicate the accountants in the oversight in due diligence. He’s also successfully distanced his client from the day-to-day management and the actual use of the funds from an illegal business. In the process, he’s also gained an endorsement of Justin’s meticulous and ethical approach to business. He thanks Jones and informs the court that he has no further questions.
If Connor Jones had been uneasy when
first taking the stand, he's looking downright uncomfortable as he waits for my first question. I wonder just how much his trepidation is linked to his fear of negatively impacting his company's relationship with a valuable and longstanding family of clients because Jones, Jones, and Herbert don't only manage Justin’s affairs, they've been accountants to the Wade family for decades.
We had, prior to trial, gained permission to subpoena the last eighteen months of Justin’s bank statements. Jones was truthful when testifying that Justin hadn’t drawn down income from his Fidelity related bank account. Those funds have now been frozen and are subject to forfeiture.
Sigma, the subsidiary of Fidelity Properties and its operations, including all its nightclubs, have been forcibly closed down. Fidelity Properties have been ordered to forfeit the revenue and any interest received from Sigma. Investigations into Fidelity and other legitimate Cordi businesses have also been opened to ensure that they hadn’t been used to launder the proceeds from the sale of drugs and other crimes.
"Mr. Jones, do you recall meeting with the defendant to discuss his purchase of equity into Fidelity Properties?" I ask.
"I do," he replies.
"How many meetings were there?"
"The senator and I met twice."
"Would you explain how those meetings came about?"
"Senator Wade called me to set up a meeting to discuss a new business venture. We arranged to meet at our offices later that evening."
"Do you remember the date?"
"It was in either late January or early February of two thousand thirteen, I think."
"Can you be more exact, Mr. Jones?"
"I'm unsure of the exact date," he says, his voice strained.
"Do you keep a diary?"
"I don't, but my secretary keeps one for me."
"So your secretary would know the date of that meeting?"
"She would normally, but Senator Wade called my direct line. I scheduled the meeting myself for a time outside of normal office hours. I don't think I told Shirley… sorry, that's my secretary. I don't think I told her about the meeting."
"So you can't be certain of the date?"
"No, I can't."
"Do you know whether it was before or after February first?"
"I'm not sure."
"I suggest that the meeting took place after that date; that the meeting, in fact, occurred after the defendant signed the contract for Fidelity. You and he went through a farcical meeting. It was a bit like shutting the stable doors after the horse had bolted, wasn’t it, Mr. Jones?"
"Objection, conclusion and badgering," Tom interjects.
"Sustained." Judge Bolton rules. Tom’s right; it had been pure conjecture on my part, but I’d wondered since hearing about the timing of that meeting whether Justin had instigated it to detract from his deliberate failure to conduct due diligence. I can’t help feeling that he’d probably counted on the fact that the dates would, over time, become vague, therefore allowing him to get away with his ruse.
"Would you tell the court what transpired during that first meeting?"
"Senator Wade outlined the details of the Fidelity contract, and we discussed the costs of buying into the company."
"Were you aware of Fidelity Properties before the defendant brought the company to your attention?"
"No. It’s privately owned, so it would not have been on our radar as a potential investment opportunity."
"Did the defendant provide you with any details on the company?"
"The senator informed me that he’d conducted some basic research. He said Fidelity is in the business of commercial property development and that the company was, at the time, valued at just under half a billion dollars."
"Did you not consider four hundred and twenty thousand dollars for a thirty percent share in a half billion dollar company low?"
"I did."
"Did you raise this fact with the defendant?"
"I did, and he said that Mr. Cordi felt he had a lot to offer the company."
"Did you ask what that was?"
"Well, no, it would have been rude. The senator’s a very smart and very well connected man. I simply assumed that Mr. Cordi valued his keen mind and connections."
"Did it not seem strange to you, knowing the defendant's high level of intelligence and the fact that he is a trained lawyer, that he would not question Mr. Cordi’s willingness to practically gift him a significant share of his business?
"It did, but…"
"Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered," Tom calls out.
"Sustained. Move on, Counselor."
"Mr. Jones, why did your company not conduct a thorough due diligence of Fidelity Properties? Why did you not uncover the existence of the nightclubs owned and operated by Sigma, a subsidiary of that company?"
Jones flushes bright red and runs a finger around his shirt collar. "I understood that the senator didn’t require us to conduct due diligence."
"Are you saying that you, a senior partner in a highly reputable accounting firm, went along with a suggestion that it was not necessary to conduct a proper investigation into a company before becoming an owner?"
"As I've said, Senator Wade indicated that it was not necessary."
"Mr. Jones, did you willingly go along with the defendant's suggestion?"
"As I said…"
"Yes or no, Mr. Jones, did you or did you not unquestioningly go along with the defendant's suggestion?"
"No, I did not."
"What did you say to counter the defendant’s suggestion?"
"I advised Senator Wade that it would be in his best interests to adhere to normal practices."
"And what was his response?"
"He said he'd take care of his own best interests."
"That's it? He said he'd take care of his own best interests?"
"Asked and answered, Your Honor," Tom interjects.
"Sustained." Judge Bolton replies. I move on, undeterred by the adverse decision. In my view, I’ve successfully managed to raise doubts about Justin’s motives. Now I just have to cement those doubts in the juror’s minds.
"Mr. Jones, did you not think it strange that the defendant, a trained lawyer, would suggest it unnecessary to conduct a thorough investigation into a company he was considering becoming a part owner of?"
"Well…"
"Yes or no, Mr. Jones?"
"I did."
"In your many years of experience with clients, especially learned ones such as the defendant, did you view his directive as unusual?"
"Yes. Clients generally prefer more rather than less investigation into potential business acquisitions."
"Your Honor, I have no further questions," I announce. Tom declines to redirect, Connor Jones is excused, and Judge Bolton calls for a short recess.
Chapter Nineteen
Jon calls just as we’re about to re-enter court.
"You should know that Mick O'Flaherty appears to have skipped town," he says after a brief greeting.
"Why would he run now?" I ask.
"We've uncovered information on the Riviera girl, which he may have gotten wind of."
"What is it and why the hell would he care?"
"It seems that O'Flaherty and Perez may be involved in Maria’s abduction. We're checking our leads now, but we believe they’ve both absconded."
"I can't talk about this now, we’re about to walk into court. Can we meet later tonight or tomorrow morning?" I ask.
"Sorry, I'll be out of town for a couple of days following up on these leads. I'll contact you as soon as I get back, okay?"
"Sure, Jon. Take care."
"Will do," he says and hangs up.
"What was that all about?" Jodi asks.
"Jon’s unearthed information that implicates O’Flaherty and Perez in Maria’s abduction. O’Flaherty, it seems, has fled."
"It’s Jon," she announces.
"Talk to him; I’ll go ahead," I say, already walking away."
Minutes before court is due to resume, a young man approaches the defense table to quietly confer with Tom. Their faces are partially obscured, making it difficult for me to see what's being said, but Tom looks distinctly agitated. When the man leaves, he turns to speak with Justin and his co-counsel. It appears that O'Flaherty’s, indeed, made a run for it.
Court is called to order, and O’Flaherty’s name is called several times. He doesn’t appear.
"Counsel?" Judge Bolton questions Tom impatiently.
"Your Honor, permission to approach?" he asks. We both make our way forward when Judge Bolton beckons.
"Your Honor, Michael O’Flaherty, a key witness, has failed to appear. I need to confer with my client."
"Do you have other witnesses to call, Mr. Martin?"
"None, Your Honor. Michael O'Flaherty was to be our last."
"Mr. Thorne?" Judge Bolton turns to me. I could object, and the court then has the choice to uphold or overturn my objection, but I have nothing to gain by doing so, and my job is not simply to prosecute. An integral part of my responsibility is to ensure that justice is served. For that to happen, Defense must be granted the best opportunity to prove their client's innocence.
Tom seems surprised when I don’t object, but then he’s never understood my motivation in becoming a prosecutor and probably never will.
"How much time do you need, Mr. Martin?" Judge Bolton asks.
"My client and I need sufficient time to discuss and consider our position, Your Honor."
"You're testing the court's patience, Counsel. You do realize that I could simply call for closing arguments, don’t you?" he replies testily.
"I do, Your Honor; but I ask that the court makes its decision in the best interests of my client," Tom diplomatically replies. Judge Bolton nods curtly and motions for us to step back.
"Court will reconvene at ten a.m. tomorrow morning," he announces.
"What do you think they’ll do now?" Jodi asks on our way back to the office.
"He may have another witness up his sleeve, or as a long shot, they could decide that Justin should take the stand."