Clinking glasses ten minutes later, Harrelson said, “Maybe you’re not so dumb after all, Frankie, talking all that trash about taking my money. But smart enough not to show up early enough in the day to have to back them words up. So what can I do for my brother from another mother?”
“I need to check out a guy by the name of Thomas Reston Thomas the Third. I think he was a recent guest here at Congressional. I’m looking to find out who hosted him.”
“Thomas Reston Thomas the Third? Give me a break! That boy’s momma weren’t no friend of his. Can’t say as I know the guy. Don’t think I would forget a moniker like that. You don’t know who hosted him?”
“Actually, I think I do know who hosted him. What I want is to confirm what I think.”
“You gonna tell me who you think the member is? Or do I have to guess? Around five hundred members here, Bubba.”
“The member’s name is Blaine Hollister. Do you know him?”
“Yeah, I do. Wouldn’t bother me none if I didn’t.”
“Why’s that?”
“I’ve given him a few lessons. Played a couple of rounds with him. He’s not nearly as hot stuff out there as he thinks he is. For all his supposed money, it’s amazing how he forgets to cover his losses. What’s the connection between Hollister and Thomas?”
“That’s what I’m trying to find out, Bobby. Can you pin down whether Hollister’s ever hosted Thomas?”
“Kind of talk is that? You sound like some of the members around this place. Did you forget we spent some time in school together? I know how the computers around this place work. And I have access to them, too. But folks around here are pretty big on privacy. Wouldn’t go over very well if I was caught digging up what you want to know.”
“No worries then, Bobby. I don’t want to put you at risk.”
“Don’t you go insulting me, boy. If it’s there, I’ll get it for you. Just letting you know I can’t do it until later tonight. Call me tomorrow morning and we’ll see what we see. Meanwhile, I want to know when you’re coming out here some morning for a proper round. And putting some of your money where that mouth is.”
“Soon, I promise. I’d really like to do that. When I get clear of what I’m working on, I’m gonna take some time for yours truly.”
“Bring Maddie and Charlie too. It’s never too soon for them to start hitting a few balls.”
“For sure. Talk to you tomorrow. And thanks.”
“For what? Don’t know what you’re talking about, boy.”
CHAPTER 90
Monday, August 3, 7:00 p.m.
KLEIN USED THE PASSWORD given to her by Brooks’s clerk to review the transcripts of the day’s proceedings on her laptop. If she was to get any sleep, she’d have only a few hours to review her own laptop notes to craft an opening statement that would play to the jurors. Who would ultimately decide Norman’s fate. But for Brooks’s surprise ruling allowing her to argue justifiable homicide, she didn’t think Norman would have a chance with this jury. At least now she felt they had a fighting chance. It didn’t hurt to have Hollister and Thomas locked down as well.
* * *
AT PRECISELY THE SAME time, across town, District Attorney Reilly stared at his jury notes. He knew that his notes pretty much looked the same as Klein’s. What he couldn’t fathom was whatever possessed Brooks to make his surprise ruling on justifiable homicide. Or denying the motions to quash the Hollister and Thomas subpoenas. Until then, he had felt he was in the driver’s seat. Now he wasn’t so sure.
CHAPTER 91
Tuesday, August 4, 8:30 a.m.
JUDGE BROOKS WASTED NO time getting started. Addressing the jury, he said, “Thank you for being here on time this morning. We’re going to begin today by hearing the opening statements of each side, in the customary sequence: first Mr. Reilly on behalf of the people and then Ms. Klein on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Norman. I’ve given each side up to sixty minutes.
“I want to emphasize that these opening statements are just that. Statements. Just talk. They are not evidence, but merely an indication of what evidence each side intends to present to you following the conclusion of the opening statements. You are, however, allowed to make notes of what each side says it will present, and to see, at the end of the day, whether you think each side lives up to what it says.
“Mr. Reilly, are you ready?”
“I am, Your Honor.”
Reilly reintroduced himself to the jury and proceeded to put his best spin on the people’s case. In the true spirit of telling the jury what you’re going to tell them, then telling them, and then telling them what you just told them, Reilly finished up his presentation by saying to the jury, “To summarize, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what the prosecution will demonstrate to you with hard evidence during their case is the following:
“One. Senator Wells was shot to death at her townhouse on the evening of February fifth, 2013.
“Two. After being shot to death—and it bears repeating, after being shot to death—Senator Wells’s dead body was raped by her assailant, the defendant, Mr. Norman.
“Three—”
“Objection, Your Honor. Dead bodies cannot be raped. As opposed to sexually assaulted. Mr. Reilly is using the word ‘rape’ to inflame the jury.”
“Sustained. As I’ve previously instructed counsel, Ms. Klein, no speaking objections, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will sometimes provide you with my reasoning for how I rule on an objection. More often than not, I won’t. You will need to trust me that I managed to learn a thing or two in law school. And in my days since. I want to free you from having to walk in my shoes.
“For the same reason, I’ve instructed counsel to avoid speaking objections in order not to burden you with the need to evaluate the merits of an objection. That’s my responsibility. Suffice it to say that if I sustain an objection, without more, you are obliged to ignore the remark or other action as to which I sustain the objection.
“Mr. Reilly, would you like to continue your opening statement, or have you concluded it?”
“Thank you, Your Honor. After being shot to death, Senator Wells’s dead body was … sexually assaulted. By Mr. Norman.
“Three. Mr. Norman has repeatedly confessed to murdering and … sexually assaulting Senator Wells.”
“Objection, Your Honor,” Klein rose to her feet and interrupted Reilly. “Mr. Norman did not confess to any acts of sexual assault.”
“Sustained. The jury will disregard Mr. Reilly’s attribution to Mr. Norman of any sexual activities. You may continue, Mr. Reilly, but please stick to the facts you intend to prove.”
Reilly put on his best impression of remorse. Sticks and stones. Worth the rebuke to remind the jury about the deviant sexual behavior. And that such behavior would hardly be “justified.” “Four. While there is no basis to think anyone other than Mr. Norman is involved, there is every basis to believe that Mr. Norman did commit these outrageous crimes. Precisely as he confessed he did.”
“Objection again, Your Honor,” Klein spoke up.
“Sustained. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: opening statements are permitted simply to list or outline evidence that will be presented during trial. Counsel is not permitted to argue to the jury what evidence they put on during the trial until closing arguments at the conclusion of the trial. That’s why closing arguments are called closing arguments. You must therefore disregard at this time Mr. Reilly’s last point about what conclusions you should draw from the evidence he has promised to present to you during the people’s case.
“I apologize, Your Honor. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there are really just three simple points for you to keep in mind as we try this case: crimes were committed, Mr. Norman repeatedly confessed to committing these crimes, and there is no indication that anyone else did so. Or had any reason to do so. Thank you.”
Brooks reflected to himself on Reilly’s presentation. Not bad. Reilly knew he was crossing the line on arguing the s
ignificance of Norman’s confessions, but I would have done the same if I were prosecuting the case. I admonished the jury that they are not permitted to consider the remarks. But as Reilly knows, and the reason he was willing to subject himself to my wrath, it’s hard to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube once it’s on the brush. On the other hand, I sure wouldn’t have pushed the point on the jury that the rape, or the postmortem sexual assault, followed the murder because that increases the likelihood of a finding of NGI. Should we reach the need to consider that.
“Ms. Klein. Do you wish to make an opening statement at this time? As you know, you have the right to save any opening statement you wish to make until you put on your own defense case-in-chief.”
“I’m prepared to open now, Your Honor.”
“Well, then, the floor is all yours.”
“Thank you, Your Honor.” At the conclusion of her opening statement, Klein summarized her remarks. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for reasons that Judge Brooks will explain to you before you retire at the end of the trial to deliberate Mr. Norman’s fate, I respectfully submit you will have no choice but to find Mr. Norman not guilty. Here’s why:
“First of all, that Senator Wells was murdered and molested does not mean that Mr. Norman committed these crimes.
“Objection, Your Honor. Ms. Klein asked that we use the correct terminology. The charge here is one of … postmortem sexual assault and not some vague molestation.”
“Overruled.”
“Second, that the prosecution supposedly has no evidence linking anyone besides Mr. Norman to the murder and sexual assault does not mean that someone else is not guilty of these crimes.
“Third, the only link whatsoever between Senator Wells and Mr. Norman is Mr. Norman’s alleged confession. Apart from these so-called confessions, there’s not one other shred of evidence to implicate Mr. Norman in these crimes: no weapon, no fingerprints, no DNA evidence, and no semen. Nothing tangible whatsoever. Just Mr. Norman’s alleged confessions. As you will see, Mr. Norman did not remotely confess to murdering or molesting Senator Wells. Mr. Norman’s remarks were general remarks that had nothing whatsoever to do with Senator Wells.
“Fourth, the evidence will show that Mr. Norman was not mentally competent at the time of his alleged confessions. It would be inappropriate to convict Mr. Norman on the basis of those alleged confessions. If indeed you consider them to be confessions. Angry people express anger. All the time. That does not make them murderers
“Finally, fifth, to the extent you nevertheless find that Mr. Norman is guilty of any acts against Senator Wells, we will present evidence that such acts were and are what the law refers to as justifiable.
“While Judge Brooks will instruct you in detail about the defense of justifiable homicide before you retire to deliberate the outcome of this case, I do want to indicate what the justification is that the defense will present to you.
“As you all know, our country is in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal and political crisis. Certainly, we’ve had depressions and recessions in the past. Nothing new about that. However, this is the first time we have arguably suffered such financial meltdowns at the hands of our elected and appointed political representatives. Political representatives such as Senator Wells take a solemn oath to protect the interests of each and every one of us, including Mr. Norman and his family and employees, at the time of their oath.
“As we will demonstrate to you, for reasons of selfish and concealed personal gain and greed, these political representatives have completely abandoned their public trust and allowed those on Wall Street to cause what has happened in this country of ours. In misbehaving as they have, you will see that our political representatives—Senator Wells included—contributed greatly to the emotional and related physical deterioration of Mr. Norman and his family, including the death of Mr. Norman’s only child. If—and that’s a huge if—Mr. Norman did anything whatsoever to Senator Wells, he was—with justification—merely attempting to act out and to defend himself and his family.
“Would you have acted as Mr. Norman is accused of acting? Maybe not, but as Judge Brooks will instruct you, the test is not how you might have acted, but whether Mr. Norman, with everything then confronting him, was justified under the law to have acted as he is accused of acting.
“To be sure, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Norman did not do what he is accused of doing. There is no competent evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no way the prosecution can possibly meet its burden of proof. However, if you conclude otherwise, you will then need to address whether, under the circumstances, Mr. Norman was justified to behave as he did.
“Mr. Norman and I both thank you for your attention and efforts in hearing and deciding this case.”
Brooks thought about the significance of Klein’s opening statement. The sequence of murder then sexual assault increases the likelihood of insanity. But it also reduces the effectiveness of a justification argument. At least as to the crime of sexual assault. It’s hard to see what threat a dead politician posed to anyone.
“Alright, we’ll take our morning recess. Fifteen minutes. When we return, the people will call their first witness. I expect the people’s case will last until sometime tomorrow morning, possibly tomorrow afternoon. The defense will then put on their case. Sometime Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, I expect we’ll hear closing arguments from each side. At that time, I’ll instruct you on the law you are to consider. You’ll then retire to deliberate and decide the case against Mr. Norman. We’ll resume in exactly fifteen minutes.”
CHAPTER 92
Tuesday, August 4, 10:30 a.m.
CLIFF NORMAN QUIETLY LOOKED over his shoulder and gazed out into the gallery, particularly in the direction of his wife, Paige. They did it to me. They took everything I had. My family, my home, my business, my financial security, my dignity, my self-respect. And maybe even my sanity. Who’s to say? I can’t get Ryan back, but I’ve found a way to deal with that. Making them pay. All of them. I’m going to get out of this. And back to Paige. So long as I continue to play this right, Klein’s going to help me pull this off. I have to be very careful, though. To play the part: quiet, low key—and maybe nuts. Maybe I was nuts. Once. I see Paige looking at me. Has she figured it out yet?
* * *
PAIGE NORMAN WATHCHED HER husband, Cliff. Does he really think I haven’t figured out exactly what he’s doing? That doesn’t mean that anyone else has. No one else knows him as well as I do. She honestly didn’t know if he was ever insane, or just playacting. But sitting here in court watching him as closely as she had been, she knew he wasn’t insane now. However, none of this matters any longer. He had to have been insane if he did what he’s accused of doing. We’ve both been through hell. Totally screwed over by the system. I know how to play my part too. I think we may just be able to beat this. Show them all.
CHAPTER 93
Tuesday, August 4, 10:45 a.m.
AP Online News
Rachel Santana
NORMAN PUTS GOVERNMENT ON TRIAL
NO SURPRISE ON THE heels of Judge Cyrus Brooks’s unprecedented ruling yesterday that Cliff Norman could present a defense of justifiable or excusable homicide, it was defendant Norman’s public defender attorney, Leah Klein, who quickly went on the attack this morning in her response opening statement following a rather bland opening statement by District Attorney Vincent Reilly.
Norman remains his stoic, quiet, vacant self, saying nothing and continuing to show no emotion.
Not Klein. Perhaps proving that the best defense is a good offense, Klein told jurors in her opening statement—without conceding Norman murdered or raped Senator Wells—that Norman would have been legally justified in striking down political officials for posing continuing economic, but not physical, threats to Norman’s family of man, the public at large, and not uniquely his own family, by failing to prevent Wall Street from causing the current widespread economic downturn gripping, and paralyzin
g, the country.
As District Attorney Reilly pointed out, it remains to be seen whether the jury will be willing to apply Brooks’s extension of the justifiable homicide doctrine not only to the murder of a public servant, but also to the after-the-fact rape of her dead body. Expect at least some to counter, however, that nothing less than an acquittal of Norman on the grounds of justified homicide will put an end to the alleged widespread government neglect and abuse that has been haunting the country.
The prosecution is expected to take the remainder of today and into tomorrow to present its case. It will then be Klein’s turn to back up her opening statement with Norman’s defense case.
CHAPTER 94
Tuesday, August 4, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF the jury,” announced Judge Brooks, “we’re now ready to hear the evidence in this case. As with the opening statement, the people will put on their case first. Then the defense will do likewise. You are to listen carefully to all of the questions and answers you hear. Except to the extent that I may occasionally instruct you otherwise. For example, I might not allow questions I consider to be inflammatory or unnecessary. I might not allow questions of a witness before I consider the witness’s factual or expert background sufficient to justify his or her testimony.
“Initial examination of a witness by the party who calls the witness is referred to as direct examination. On completion of direct, the opposing party is permitted, but not required, to cross-examine the witness. This process can go back and forth for as long as the attorneys wish. So long as I think it’s worth your time.
“Mr. Reilly, is the prosecution ready to call its first witness?”
“We are, Your Honor, thank you. The people call James Ayres to the stand.”
Ayres approached the witness chair. He was sworn in by the clerk and then instructed to recite and spell his name and be seated. Which he did.
Brooks-Lotello Collection Page 55