The Reform Artists: A Legal Suspense, Spy Thriller (The Reform Artists Series Book 1)

by Jon Reisfeld

  When West had completed her review, Judge Farnsworth continued. “Ms. West, do you object to these items being marked for identification?

  “No, judge.”

  “OK,” Judge Farnsworth said to Swindell, “you may proceed.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor,” Swindell said. “If it please the court, I would like to mark these four police reports as defense exhibits A through D, for identification purposes only.

  “So ordered,” Judge Farnsworth said.

  “Now, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell continued, “regardin’ that first 911 incident from November – I believe you said it happened on Tuesday, November fourth; is that correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “At approximately what time that Tuesday, do you recall placin’ your call to 911?”

  “I don’t remember,” Mrs. Silkwood said. “I know it was evening, but I’m not sure.”

  “May I approach the witness, Your Honor?” Swindell asked.

  “What for?”

  “Well,” Swindell said, “unless Ms. West objects, I thought I’d let Mrs. Silkwood take a look at the correspondin’ report to see if it helps refresh her memory.”

  “No objection, Your Honor,” West said.

  “All right then,” Judge Farnsworth said, “you may proceed.”

  Mrs. Silkwood took a moment to review the report before handing it back to Swindell. “Is your memory refreshed, Mrs. Silkwood?” Swindell asked.

  “Yes.”

  “Then, could you tell the court the approximate time you placed your call?”

  “Yes, I placed it at 8:43 p.m.”

  “Thank you,” Swindell said. “And about how much time after that did the police arrive on the scene?”

  “About fifteen minutes later,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

  “So, that would put them at your house at approximately 9:00 p.m. would it not?”

  “Yes.”

  “Now, Mrs. Silkwood, it bein’ November fourth and all, did you have a fire goin’ in the fireplace that evenin’?”

  “Yes, I believe we did,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

  “And you said the police inspected some of the glass fragments that night, didn’t they?”

  “Yes. They used something like a large tweezer and held each piece of broken glass up to the fire.”

  “Why did they do that?” Swindell asked.

  “Oh, I think they said something about looking for fingerprints.”

  “Do you recall,” Swindell asked, “if they found any?”

  “No,” she said. “Not on the pieces they were able to extract.”

  “Did they find anythin’ at all of interest in the largest bottom piece that they pulled out?” Swindell asked.

  “I don’t know what you mean,” she said.

  “I mean anythin’ notable about the condition of the glass fragments they were able to retrieve.”

  “No. I don’t recall,” she said.

  “Mrs. Silkwood, didn’t they find a few drops of Scotch still present in a bottom piece of the glass?

  “Oh, yes. That’s right. And officer Tilley, I think that was his name, said that showed Martin had left only a short time before I placed my call.”

  “Objection, hearsay,” West said. “Move to strike.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said. “Strike everything after “glass.”

  “They found no fingerprints at all?” Swindell asked again.

  “That’s right.”

  “And they found some liquor still wet in the glass?”

  “Yes.”

  “Now,” Swindell continued, “turnin’ to the second incident which happened on Sunday, November sixteenth. Do you recall precisely what time you called the police?”

  “No, I don’t,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

  “Once again, Your Honor, may I approach the witness and let her review the second incident report?”

  “Yes, you may,” the judge said.

  Mrs. Silkwood took a few moments to review the report before handing it back to Swindell.

  “Did that help refresh your memory?” he asked.

  “Yes,” she said.

  “Could you give me the approximate time, then?”

  “Yes. I called them at about three-thirty in the afternoon.”

  “Your Honor,” Swindell said, after returning to his desk with more papers in hand, “What I have here, are copies of Mr. Silkwood’s trip expense reports for four business trips that he took on the same dates as each alleged 911 call, and they are marked Defense Exhibits ‘E’ through ‘H.’ I would like to have them so marked for identification purposes.”

  “Objection! Inadmissible.” West said, springing up from her table. “Plaintiff’s counsel has not been apprised of the existence of these exhibits in advance of this hearing.”

  “Mr. Swindell?” Judge Farnsworth said. “Do you have anything to say in response?”

  “Yes, Judge,” Swindell said. “This evidence is bein’ introduced for purposes of witness impeachment and, in such instances, as opposin’ counsel knows, the prior disclosure rule does not apply.”

  “OK,” Judge Farnsworth said. “Overruled.”

  “Your honor,” West interjected, “I also object to the introduction of these documents based on the lack of a proper foundation.”

  Farnsworth turned to Swindell. “Do you care to respond, counsel?”

  “I believe we only need proper foundation to introduce these documents into evidence, but not for the purpose of havin’ them marked for identification purposes.”

  “Ms. West,” Judge Farnsworth asked, “do you have any further arguments you wish to make?”

  “No, Your Honor.”

  “Thank you both,” Judge Farnsworth said. “The objection is overruled. Mr. Swindell, you may mark defense exhibits E through H for identification purposes.

  Swindell handed copies of the expense reports and their attached expense receipts around and then returned to the defense table.

  “May I approach the witness?” he asked.

  “Yes, you may.”

  “Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell said, handing her the expense reports, do you recognize these documents?

  “I recognize the kind of document they are, but I’ve never seen these before.”

  “What kind of document are they?” Swindell asked.

  “Well, they appear to be copies of travel expense report forms that Martin files with his company. But I have no way of knowing if they’re real. They could be forgeries!”

  “Setting aside, for a moment, the question of their authenticity. How do you know they’re expense reports from your husband’s firm?”

  “Objection, Your Honor!” West said. “Mrs. Silkwood is not qualified to authenticate documents from her husband’s firm.

  “Sustained.”

  “That’s quite all right,” Swindell said. He walked over to his table and withdrew a document from a folder in his brief case. “Judge, I have here a notarized, sworn affidavit signed by one Mr. David Feldman, who is senior managin’ partner at Findley, Feldman and Santori CPAs, Mr. Silkwood’s employer. Mr. Feldman, in his capacity as the firm’s custodian of documents, has verified the authenticity of these four expense reports.”

  Swindell then gave a copy of the affidavit to West and to the judge.

  “I would now like to have the affidavit marked as Defense Exhibit “I” and then have it and the four expense reports introduced into evidence,” Swindell said.

  “Any objection, counselor?” Farnsworth asked West.

  “No, judge.”

  “OK, then,” Farnsworth said. “Defense exhibits “E” through “I” are accepted into evidence.”

  Swindell was then permitted to approach the witness once more. “Mrs. Silkwood,” he said, “I have in my hand what has been marked as Defense Exhibit E, which you have identified as one of your husband’s travel expense reports. Would you please look at this and tell the court the period of time it covers?”

  “Yes, it covers
November four through seven.”

  “Now,” Swindell said, “do you see two ticket stubs attached to this expense report?”

  “Yes, I do,” she said.

  “And this one here,” Swindell said, “dated November fourth, could you read the flight information contained on it?”

  “Yes,” she said, “It refers to a USAir flight 912 leaving from Dulles on November fourth and going to St. Louis, MO.”

  “And what was the flight’s scheduled departure time?” Swindell asked.

  Katie Silkwood froze.

  “Please read it,” Swindell said.

  “It-it says, 8:48 p.m.”

  “And whose name is written on the ticket?”

  “Martin Silkwood,” she said.

  “Now, Mrs. Silkwood, do you know approximately how long it takes to drive from your home, in Olney, to catch a flight out of Dulles airport?”

  “Objection,” West said. “He’s calling on the witness to speculate.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said.

  “In the past, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell said, “has your husband taken flights out of Dulles airport?”

  “Yes.”

  “And on any of those occasions, did he leave from your present home address, in Olney, MD?”

  “Yes.”

  “On average, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell asked “how long beforehand did he leave your home in order to make those flights?”

  “I’m not sure.”

  “Are you sayin’ you don’t remember?” Swindell asked.

  “Objection,” West said, “He’s badgering the witness.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said.

  “OK,” Swindell continued, “by your best recollection, ma’am, would your husband need to leave your home an hour before departure time—or earlier?”

  “Objection, again, Your Honor,” West said. “He’s still asking the witness to speculate.”

  “Sustained.”

  “All right,” Swindell said, taking out a handkerchief from his pocket and dabbing his perspiring face. “Mrs. Silkwood, have you ever taken a flight out of Dulles airport?”

  “Yes.”

  “And did you leave for the airport from your present address?

  “Yes.”

  “About how long before that flight’s departure time did you leave your home?”

  “I-I don’t remember,” she said.

  Swindell frowned. “Was it less than two hours?”

  “I’m not sure.”

  “Objection,” your honor, West said. “The witness has said she doesn’t know.”

  “Overruled,” Farnsworth said. “And according to my notes, she said she didn’t remember and then that she wasn’t sure.”

  “Mrs. Silkwood, considerin’ the distance between your home, in Olney, MD and Dulles international airport and considerin’ how far in advance of departure times travelers must arrive these days, just to get through security, and finally, rememberin’ you’re still under oath, would you be more comfortable sayin’ you left two hours or three hours before your scheduled departure time?”

  “Hard to say,” Katie Silkwood said.

  “Then, would you be more comfortable if we simply split the difference and said you left two and a half hours earlier?”

  Katie Silkwood looked around for a moment as Swindell waited. “I guess I would be comfortable with that. Yes.”

  “OK” Swindell said, “Now, let’s say your husband is a faster driver than you and that he leaves only two-and-a-quarter hours before a flight’s departure time. That would still mean, would it not, that he would have had to leave your house by 6:30 p.m. on November fourth, to make his 8:48 flight. Correct?”

  “Well, I guess,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

  “Please answer the question with either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ response,” Swindell said.

  “Yes.”

  “Now, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell continued, “how reasonable is it to assume that your husband could have thrown a glass of Scotch into a roarin’ fire at 6:30 p.m. and that any traces of liquid alcohol would still have been visible to police two-and-a-half hours later?”

  “Objection, Your Honor,” West said, rising to her feet. “My client is not a physicist or otherwise qualified to answer such a question. Mr. Swindell is once more asking her to speculate!”

  “Sustained.” Judge Farnsworth said.

  Swindell frowned. “Mrs. Silkwood, were you surprised that the police found liquid alcohol in that glass fragment?”

  West cut him off. “Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant!”

  “Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said. He stared at Swindell and gestured to him dismissively with the back of his hand. “Counselor, I suggest you move on.”

  Swindell looked defeated. He stood perfectly still for a moment, arms slumped at his sides. Then, he raised the hand holding his legal pad and glanced at it. Just as he appeared ready to move on to the next question, the slightest hint of a smile played on his lips. He turned away from the witness to face the bench and looked up.

  “Your Honor,” he said, “may I ask the court’s indulgence?”

  Judge Farnsworth frowned. “About what?”

  “Would the court take judicial notice that it is highly unlikely that alcohol could remain in liquid form in a glass fragment that had spent more than two-and-a-half hours in an active fireplace?”

  The courtroom became deathly still as all eyes turned to Judge Farnsworth. He knit his eyebrows, in deep thought, as heavy furrows briefly appeared on his forehead. He glanced at West before continuing. “Yes,” he said at last. “The court takes judicial notice.”

  Across the room, a pencil flipped out of Beverly West’s twitching hand and landed on the floor.

  “Now, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell continued, “regardin’ the second incident, on Sunday, November sixteenth. You said you called 911 at about three-thirty in the afternoon, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

  “And you told them your husband had thrown your son’s bicycle down in anger on the driveway, damagin’ it, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “Isn’t it true, Mrs. Silkwood, that you threw the bicycle down in anger?”

  “Absolutely not!”

  “Objection!” West said.

  “Overruled.”

  “Weren’t you the one rakin’ the leaves that day?”

  “No, it was Martin, who did it—”

  “Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell said, “this second trip expense report which I have in my hand, marked defense exhibit F, shows that your husband was in Albany, NY the weekend of the sixteenth performin’ an audit for a sheet metal manufacturin’ concern. His ticket stub says he wasn’t due back in at Dulles until 4:45 p.m. that Sunday.”

  “That’s not true!”

  “Well, I’d like to make this airline ticket attached to exhibit F available for the court’s and the plaintiff’s counsel’s review,” Swindell said, handing around the documents.

  “You’ve been lyin’, haven’t you, Mrs. Silkwood?” Swindell asked.

  “Objection!” West shouted, leaping to her feet. “Argumentative and highly improper.”

  “Overruled,” Judge Farnsworth said.

  “But judge?”

  “Overruled, Ms. West,” Judge Farnsworth said, sternly. “Go ahead, Mrs. Silkwood, answer the question.”

  “Your honor,” West interrupted, “under the circumstances, I must advise my client not to answer the question and to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”

  “Is that what you wish to do, Mrs. Silkwood?” the judge asked.

  Katie Silkwood squirmed uncomfortably in her seat. “Yes, your honor,” she said. “On the advice of my attorney, I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.”

  Judge Farnsworth frowned and turned to Swindell. “All right, Mr. Swindell. You may proceed.”

  Swindell walked to the defense table, retrieved the two remaining travel r
eports and held them up in his right hand for all to see.

  “Your Honor,” he said, “the defense can take up the next hour of the court’s valuable time reviewin’ these final two sets of trip expense documents, if you wish. But I think we already have established clear and convincin’ evidence that my client is innocent of the charges alleged in the temporary restrainin’ order petition, and I therefore move for a summary dismissal of this case.”

  Judge Farnsworth looked at Mrs. Silkwood, and at the speechless Beverly West, as a slight hint of betrayal formed in his eyes. His cheeks reddened as he raised the gavel in his right hand.

  “Based on the evidence presented today, I find the petitioner incredible, as a matter of law. Therefore, this court finds for the respondent,” he said, bringing the gavel down with uncommon force. “Case dismissed!”

  At that, Swindell smiled and almost skipped a step in Martin’s direction. Then, a look of recognition flashed across his face. He quickly spun on his heels to address Judge Farnsworth once more.

  “Your Honor,” he said, “in light of the extreme degree of misrepresentation and abuse of process involved in filin’ the original ex-parte petition and revealed through today’s testimony, I move that the court agree to expunge from the public record any trace of the domestic violence and spousal abuse charges brought against my client, Mr. Martin Silkwood.

  “So ordered.”

  Judge Farnsworth banged his gavel several times and asked everyone to be seated. “Mrs. Silkwood and Ms. West,” he said. “In my thirty-odd years on the bench, I have never been as concerned about the state of our judicial system as I am at this moment.

  “I now realize just how easy it apparently is for women to take advantage of this court’s good intentions by bringing false charges of spousal abuse against their husbands in ex-parte proceedings.

  “Mr. Silkwood,” he said, turning toward Martin, “I want to apologize for any duplicitous role this court may have unwittingly played in advancing this case. I apologize to you, sir, for the various ways we may have aided in abusing your rights, tarnishing your reputation and causing you and others unnecessary pain and suffering in what I can only describe as our overzealous efforts to protect the ‘fairer sex.’