Pete was now shaking visibly. He described the murder itself, his disposal of the body and the document, and his subsequent deception to the authorities. Finally he told of the terrible psychological toll his crimes had exacted on his spirit: how he felt morally inferior, unworthy, having lived a lie for 25 years.
David asked a final question. “Obviously Charles Scoggins committed a number of horrendously evil deeds. I want you to think about this question carefully, because I can see how in your fragile state of mind, after learning the terrible details about your brother’s death and then discovering Scoggins’s betrayal, you might have thought murder was justifiable. Pete, if you had believed there was no danger of Scoggins trying to murder you, would you have killed him?”
Pete answered, “No. I really doubt it.”
The Truth Machine light remained green.
David’s direct examination lasted three hours. At the end of it, there was hardly a soul in the courtroom who believed Pete would be convicted of capital murder—except Pete and the Wests. They knew that Shaw’s cross-examination would be brutal.
Shaw turned ferocious on his 19th question: “Mr. Armstrong, you have stated the money meant almost nothing to you. What about the glory?”
David interrupted. “Objection. Please ask Mr. Shaw to clarify to all of us what on earth he’s talking about.”
“Mr. Shaw, would you kindly rephrase the question?”
“Sorry, sir. What I meant to ask Mr. Armstrong is, do you care what people think about you? Does your place in history mean anything to you?”
Pete hesitated and looked at David West. “The defendant will please answer the question,” Lezar ordered.
“I th-th-think almost everybody c-cares what people think about them. I know I d-do.”
“So when you incorporated illegally obtained Renaissance algorithms into the ACIP software, you did it for altruistic reasons, but you also imagined how history would regard you. You considered the possibility that you might be remembered as the savior of the human race, didn’t you?”
“I admit I’ve th-thought about things l-like that.”
“When you committed perjury by swearing to government attorneys that the ACIP conformed to all conditions of the Truth Machine Bill, you were doing it to save lives, but also to earn your place in history. Is that not true?”
“Y-Yes.”
“When Scoggins blackmailed you into signing the document that gave him an equal share of the ACIP, why didn’t you put up more of a fight? Why did you sign it so readily?”
“I w-was only giving up money. I didn’t c-care about that. I just w-wanted the ACIP approved.”
“You wanted the ACIP approved, but not for the money?”
“No.”
“For the sake of the human race?”
“Yes.”
“And for the glory too?”
“Y-Yes.”
“On the afternoon you reprogrammed the ACIP in ATI’s downstairs laboratory so that Scoggins could no longer fool it, did you already know that later that evening you intended to force him to answer your questions at gunpoint?”
“Yes.” Pete began to rock violently, which calmed him a bit.
“Did you consider the possibility you might have to kill him?”
“Yes, but I hoped I w-wouldn’t have t-to.”
Shaw had been waiting for just this opening. “Mr. Armstrong, you didn’t have to.”
Pete understood. Shaking, tears in his eyes, he whispered, “I know.”
The room was so silent that nothing could be heard except for Pete’s labored breathing.
Shaw pressed on immediately. “In fact, you could’ve simply called the authorities and admitted everything to them. You could’ve turned Scoggins in.”
“I w-wish I h-had.”
“Why didn’t you?”
“I d-d-don’t know.”
“It would’ve meant turning yourself in, too; for perjury, fraud, and possibly kidnapping, although I doubt that last charge would’ve stuck. You probably would’ve received probation or a year in jail at the most. It would cost a lot of money, but we know you don’t care about that. The only thing that stopped you was your vanity. You couldn’t stand for the world to know Pete Armstrong was a criminal.”
David shouted, “I object! This is reprehensible. Mr.Shaw is badgering my client and I see no point to his rhetoric at all.”
Shaw turned to Judge Lezar. “You’ll see the point soon, sir.”
“Do you have an actual question for the witness,” Lezar asked, “or are you just going to keep lecturing him?”
The tension had been building and spectators began to talk to each other for the only time during Pete’s testimony.
Shaw waited for the room to quiet down. “Yes sir, I do. Mr. Armstrong, prior to the murder, did you ever consider turning yourself and Mr. Scoggins in to the authorities?”
“Y-Yes.”
“Why didn’t you?”
David stood up. “I object. Asked and answered.”
Lezar agreed. “Objection sustained. The witness has already testified he doesn’t know.”
“Mr. Armstrong, you have stated you considered turning yourself in, but you did not do so. Are you familiar with the eight legal conditions of self-defense?”
David stood up again. “I object, Judge. He’s not an expert witness.”
“Sir, President West has already laid the foundation for this line of questioning when he asked the defendant whether he believed Scoggins would try to kill him if he let him go. I’m entitled to ask Mr. Armstrong about self-defense.”
“Objection overruled. Mr. Armstrong, please answer the question.”
Pete answered, “Yes.”
“So you know condition number three, which is that you must have reasonably believed at the time of the assault that you had no certain means of escape?”
David stood up. “I object. Mr. Shaw’s leading the witness. The statute reads ‘the assailant must have reasonably believed there was no certain means of escape.’ It doesn’t refer specifically to escape by the defendant. It might mean the escape of others.”
“I’ll withdraw the question. Mr. Armstrong, did you reasonably believe that?”
David stood again. “I object. Pete has already attested he wasn’t thinking clearly at the time he killed Scoggins. He’s not qualified to answer what was reasonable. He is not a psychiatrist.”
Again, Shaw backed down. “I’ll rephrase. Mr. Armstrong, do you believe you acted in self-defense when you killed Charles Scoggins?”
“I object! What relevance could Pete’s legal opinion possibly have to this case? He’s the defendant, not an attorney or a legal expert.”
“Mr. Armstrong may not be a lawyer, but he knows more facts about the law than most lawyers do. Nobody else is in a better position to know whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense than Mr. Armstrong himself.”
“Objection’s overruled. Please answer Mr. Shaw’s question. In your opinion, did you kill Charles Scoggins in self-defense?”
Pete thought, O Captain! My Captain! Where are you now? But his Captain had fallen, cold and dead.
He answered the question the only way he could. “N-No, Judge. In m-m-my opinion, it w-was not self-defense.”
* * *
As is customary in capital crime trials, the prosecutor gave the first summation.
“It’s our obligation to follow the letter of the law. If we don’t, we send a message to the rest of the world that enforcement of law varies according to the individual. Mr. Armstrong’s great wealth doesn’t exempt him from the law; neither do his many good and charitable acts or his scientific contributions to humankind. No person is completely without evil and no person is bereft of good. But every individual must be held accountable for his or her actions. Otherwise there’s no safety for any of us.
“The law is clear. If Mr. Armstrong is found to have murdered Mr. Scoggins without mitigation of self-defense, you must find him guilty of c
apital murder and sentence him to death. Perhaps the World Tribunal will reduce the sentence later. They are men and women of wisdom and they have at their disposal the finest artificial intelligence and logic machines to help formulate their decision. It’s not my job, nor is it yours, to render judgment about their role or to advise them on decisions they’re well-qualified to make.
“Until I was 20 years old, the United States judicial system allowed defendants in criminal cases to invoke what was called the insanity defense. This provision basically held that if you committed a crime because you were mentally ill, you could be forced to seek treatment, but you could not be held legally responsible for your criminal actions. Any student of history can well imagine what havoc 20th-century lawyers wreaked upon justice with that particular weapon.”
Shaw suspended his summation until the laughter in the courtroom subsided.
“Today most of us can’t imagine why such a provision existed. What difference could it possibly make to the victim or potential victim of a crime whether or not the perpetrator was sane? But during the 20th century, such a stipulation may have been justifiable because society didn’t always have effective treatment, or even the tools to identify mental illness with certainty. Today we have the Steinberg tests and treatment is immediately available on demand to anyone who wants it. It’s a good thing we don’t have an insanity defense, because if we did, people with mental illnesses or trauma would be less likely to seek treatment before they committed crimes. We know that for a fact. And that would pose a grave danger to us all.
“I don’t think of Randall Petersen Armstrong as an evil man. But Mr. Armstrong knew he had a problem, yet chose not to seek treatment when he made himself immune to his own Truth Machine. This crime was an irresponsible act, destined to lead to disaster. The moment he did it, he made himself a danger to society. When he killed, he was as guilty as an insane man who refuses treatment and then murders another person, or a reckless woman who takes a narcotic and crashes her gyrocopter into a crowded street. Frankly I think it’s possible he was insane at the moment he killed Charles Scoggins. If not, he was recklessly negligent at the very least. But either way, I know he would not have murdered Mr. Scoggins if he knew he’d get caught. If he hadn’t reprogrammed the ACIP so he could fool it, he’d have known he could never get away with murder for more than a few weeks.
“Unfortunately Mr. Armstrong continues to pose a grave danger to society. He’s already shown willingness to circumvent the law to achieve what he regards as noble ends. He has an incredible mind and can do miraculous things with software. As its primary inventor, he also has intimate knowledge of the Truth Machine. What’s to prevent Mr. Armstrong, at some point in the future, from attempting to override his competitors’ Truth Machines?
“We have heard testimony from nine witnesses at this trial. That’s an unusually high number, unprecedented in recent decades, but I think it’s justified since the crimes took place over 25 years ago. Most of those witnesses told us what a good man Mr. Armstrong is, what an exemplary life he’s led, what high motives he’s always had. But only two of those witnesses testified as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense when he murdered Charles Scoggins. The first was Dr. Alphonso Carter, who said he believed Mr. Armstrong was acting in self-defense. But Dr. Carter’s opinion was based on misinformation. I’d like to take a moment to read back from his testimony.”
Shaw looked at his wristband screen and read back from the transcript.
CARTER: Mr. Armstrong believed Scoggins would kill him if he let him go.
SHAW: But even so, Mr. Armstrong did have a sure means of escape. Could he not have simply kept Mr. Scoggins there and called the authorities?
CARTER: Yes. But as I said, he was upset and mildly delusional. I seriously doubt the option ever occurred to him.
Shaw continued, “Now let me read to you from the defendant’s own testimony.”
SHAW: In fact, you could have simply called the authorities and admitted everything to them. You could’ve turned Scoggins in.
ARMSTRONG: I wish I had.
SHAW: Why didn’t you?
ARMSTRONG: I don’t know.
SHAW: Mr. Armstrong, prior to the murder, did you ever consider turning yourself and Mr. Scoggins in to the authorities?
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
Shaw paused a few seconds to let the apparent inconsistency between the two testimonies sink in.
“Dr. Carter’s opinion was based on incomplete information. He believed the option of calling the authorities had never occurred to the defendant, but Mr. Armstrong admitted today that he actually had considered it.
“Only one other person testified as to whether he believed the defendant had acted in self-defense when he murdered Charles Scoggins. That person was the defendant himself, Randall Petersen Armstrong, who testified that he did not believe he’d acted in self-defense. Admittedly Mr. Armstrong isn’t qualified as a legal expert. But the defendant is the only person who can testify with first-hand knowledge as to his motivation at the moment he killed Mr. Scoggins.
“The preponderance of evidence, including the defendant’s own testimony, suggests that self-defense was not why Mr. Armstrong killed Charles Scoggins. Some of his reasons may have been understandable, even noble. But they didn’t legally justify the killing. Regardless of any personal sympathy you might feel for Mr. Armstrong, you must find him guilty of murder.”
His political career had ended nearly 14 years earlier. Yet David West, who had campaigned once for Texas Attorney General and twice each for the offices of U.S. Senator and President of the United States, was about to deliver what he considered the most important speech of his life.
“In its early days the Texas Republic was a dangerous place. The government wasn’t always able to protect citizens from gangs of criminals who terrorized the fledgling frontier towns. These criminals were immoral, ruthless, and often better armed than the law. As a last resort, vigilantes sometimes hunted down and executed the more despicable characters. If those vigilantes were ever prosecuted, the defense often tried to prove the victim had simply ‘needed killing.’ It’s a quaintly Texan expression, don’t you think? If the jury was convinced that the victim had indeed ‘needed killing,’ the vigilantes were set free. This wasn’t an efficient form of justice, but we Texans make do with what we have.”
There was some laughter. David had gotten everyone’s attention, which was all he was trying to do. He needed to win the jury’s hearts since he considered his prospects of winning their minds to be hopeless.
“I’m not comparing the world in 2024 to Texas in 1840. But imagine for a moment what the world would be like today if Charles Scoggins had killed Pete Armstrong—instead of the other way around. If Scoggins had possessed the sole override of the ACIP, I hate to think of what he would have done with that power. He might have made Adolf Hitler seem like Jimmy Carter. Charles Scoggins needed killing.
“Yes, Pete used his override to cover up crimes. But he never used it to gain unfair advantage over a competitor, or to seek power, or to enrich himself. Before the ACIP was approved, Pete’s wealth sprang entirely from his own talent and hard work. For the past 20 years, he’s donated nearly all of his ATI dividends to charity. He has used his fortune and scientific genius to create a better, fairer, and more peaceful world.
“Today we read about murders in the newspaper or see broadcasts on our screens, usually reported from the other side of the world. But I don’t know anybody personally acquainted with a single individual who’s been murdered in the last 15 years. There hasn’t been a murder in Texas in 18 months. Murder is rare today. Not so in 2024.
“When I was a kid, death was all around us. Almost everyone knew somebody who’d been slain by another. While I was in grade school in California and Texas, three of my friends were murdered. All three died from gunshot wounds. I lost two more friends when I was at Harvard. And I can barely remember all the murder victims whose families I represented as Texas
Attorney General. By 2024, murder was less common in the United States, but worldwide it was as pervasive as ever.
“Charles Scoggins delayed Pete’s Truth Machine by a minimum of two years. We have heard testimony, unrebutted by Mr. Shaw, that Scoggins’s actions resulted in the deaths of some five million persons. This is in fact a conservative estimate. We inhabit an immeasurably safer and better world today. People work together more comfortably, openly; we understand and trust each other more.
“In 2024, before the ACIP reshaped human nature itself, things were different. Even if you were an open and optimistic soul, you could never completely trust another person. You always had to ask yourself, ‘What’s he really thinking?’ ‘What does she really want?’ ‘Is it safe to rely on this person?’ Today fear and suspicion between people are unusual. Improvements in interpersonal communications resulting from the Truth Machine have led to a lower divorce rate, better parenting, better education, and exponential increases in economic prosperity and scientific progress. It’s impossible to list all its benefits.
“That’s why Pete Armstrong had no choice but to kill Charles Scoggins. If Pete had called the authorities to prevent Scoggins from murdering him, the ACIP would have been further delayed, possibly costing millions of lives. Morally the situation was no different than if Scoggins had been pointing a laser pistol directly at the heads of every person on earth. How many friends of people in this room would be dead today if Pete hadn’t killed Charles Scoggins?”
David stared directly at the jury. “For all you know, Pete might have saved some of you.”
He waited about 10 seconds for the point to sink in before proceeding to his only truly relevant argument.
“Pete testified that in his opinion, he didn’t kill Scoggins in self-defense. To me that proves nothing except that Pete Armstrong holds himself to a higher standard than the law does. When Pete killed Charles Scoggins, he was defending his own life and the lives of countless others. Scoggins posed a mortal danger to every person on this planet.
The Truth Machine Page 33