“Well, I’m not sure how extensive it was.”
“How did you come by the information? Extensive or not.”
“It’s what I do as an investigative journalist. I investigate. I dig up information.”
“Please tell us what you did to dig up this background information on Mr. Norman.”
“One of the things I did was to Google Mr. Norman. I also spoke with several persons who knew Mr. Norman. Who had worked with him. They corroborated what I found on Google and provided me with additional information.”
“You’re confident, then, that your story accurately chronicled the rise and fall of Mr. Norman? What you characterized as Mr. Norman’s tragic loss of family, home, and business. Including the death of his young son, Ryan. And how distraught Norman was.” Reilly’s really stewing. The story was probably exaggerated for literary effect, but any objection on his part would now be overruled by Brooks and would just be seen by the jury as defensive and obstructionist. What a shame. Haha.
“That’s correct. I did the homework. Both my editors and I were satisfied the information I was reporting was accurate and reliable.”
“And you also quote Mr. Norman on precisely what he said at the time of his arrest. Right?”
Santana paused. “Yes.”
“Were you present at the time of Mr. Norman’s arrest?”
“No.”
“Then how did you know what words Mr. Norman uttered at the time of his arrest? The words you quote in your story, Exhibit One. You didn’t look that up on Google, too, did you?”
“Objection. Ms. Klein is arguing with her own witness.”
“Ms. Klein, I think Mr. Reilly has a valid point. Ms. Santana is your witness.”
“I request permission to treat the witness as hostile, Your Honor.”
“Counsel, approach.” Brooks continued after they did. “What are you talking about, Ms. Klein? Why do you want permission to treat your own witness as hostile?”
“We’ve already heard the testimony of Mr. Randall. It’s clear he did not recall what Mr. Norman said. Yet Ms. Santana reported his words with exactness. I believe that Ms. Santana filled in the blanks to make her story. I’m entitled to have the jury see this. In detail. Because the people are trying to hang Mr. Norman on his alleged confession. A confession I believe was crafted by Ms. Santana. Even though she was not present. And not in fact made by Mr. Norman.”
“Ms. Klein, please spare me all the rhetoric. I do, however, think your point is well taken. Mr. Reilly?”
“This is inappropriate. Officer Randall testified credibly as to what Mr. Norman said. There is no basis for Ms. Klein to be permitted to go on a fishing expedition here in the hopes of discrediting Officer Randall and confusing the jury.”
“I’m afraid I don’t agree, Mr. Reilly. Officer Randall’s testimony was anything but credible. I think Ms. Klein is entitled to question Ms. Santana as a hostile witness. However, don’t press your luck, Ms. Klein. Knock off the Google sarcasm or I’ll assume you have nothing better to do and I’ll cut you off. Step back.
“Motion to treat Ms. Santana as a hostile witness is granted. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what this means is that Ms. Klein is permitted to treat Ms. Santana as if she had been called as a witness by Mr. Reilly. And to allow her examination of Ms. Santana to proceed as if it were a cross-examination of an opposing witness, which permits more aggressive questioning of Ms. Santana than would normally be allowed for a witness actually called by Ms. Klein. You may continue, Ms. Klein.”
“Let’s try this again, Ms. Santana, shall we? How did you come by the words in your story that Mr. Norman supposedly uttered at the time of his arrest, given that you weren’t there to hear him say those words? Or any words.”
While Santana’s answer was superficially firm, her demeanor was now beginning to crack. To give her away. “Because I interviewed those who were present and who did hear what Mr. Norman said.”
“Really? Who did you interview that heard Mr. Norman’s words?”
“Several people.”
Gotcha! “Be careful, Ms. Santana. Remember you are under oath and a man’s life may be at stake. If you misspeak, you may be found guilty of perjury.”
“Objection. Argumentative. She’s badgering the witness.”
“Sustained. Get on with it, Ms. Klein.”
No matter. She’s now sweating a perjury charge. But it’s too late for her to reverse engines. “You say you interviewed several live witnesses who heard Mr. Norman?”
“Yes.”
“Several? Webster’s defines several as more than two, Ms. Santana. Name me three witnesses you interviewed at the time who heard what Mr. Norman said.”
“Well. One of the persons I interviewed was Officer Randall.”
“Okay, Ms. Santana. That’s one. Give me the names of two others you interviewed.”
“Uh, I don’t presently recall two more.”
“Okay. How about one more? Can you give me one more?”
Santana hesitated. “As I sit here right now, I can’t remember any others.”
“I see. Let’s consider then your interview with Mr. Randall. You remember your interview with Mr. Randall?”
“I do.”
“How is it you remember your interview with Mr. Randall, but you don’t remember any of your other interviews, not even who else you interviewed?”
“I remember my interview of Officer Randall in particular for two reasons. First, he was just called as a witness in this case and that refreshed my recollection. Second, his recall to me of what Mr. Norman said at the time was more precise than the other two or so witnesses I interviewed.”
She should have stopped with her first explanation. She would have scored with that one, but she pushed too far with her second response. I think I’ve got her, but I’m going to have to take a bit of a gamble. “Ms. Santana, you made notes of your interview with Mr. Randall, right?” Klein held her breath.
“I probably did. I don’t honestly recall.”
Got her. “Well, let me see if I understand. You wrote a story a day later in which you quoted word for word what Mr. Randall told you Mr. Norman said. Didn’t you? Are you telling me you just memorized, word for word, what Mr. Randall told you?”
“Hmm, now that you mention it, you’re right. I did write those words down.”
“And if I ask you to bring your notes in for the jury to see, you would do that, right?”
“Sure, I guess so. If I can still find them.”
“Well, don’t you preserve your notes to authenticate your stories?”
“Sometimes I do. But not always.”
“And the same for the others you interviewed? You’d bring us those notes too?”
“If I have any, I will.”
“Do I have to subpoena you for those notes or will you voluntarily bring them in?”
“No, I’ll bring them in voluntarily. If I still have them.”
“Your Honor, might we take our morning recess right now and let the witness call her office to have them messenger over any notes that may still exist?”
“We’ll be in recess for fifteen minutes.”
CHAPTER 107
Thursday, August 6, 10:30–11:45 a.m.
FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER, EVERYONE was back in place. Brooks directed Klein to resume her examination of Santana.
“Any luck finding your notes, Ms. Santana?”
“Yes and no. My assistant found notes I made of my discussion with Officer Randall. Those notes are on the way here right now. They should be here shortly. She could not find any other notes.”
I have no interest in the notes. I just got what I’m after. There were no other interviews. Or she would have had notes of those too. She lied. I know it. Brooks knows it. And the jury knows it. Or soon will. “Let me see if I understand, Ms. Santana. You say you interviewed two or three witnesses who heard Mr. Norman say firsthand what you reported he said. Correct?”
“Yes.”
“But you don’t remember who the other witnesses are. Right?”
“That’s right.”
“And you have notes of your interview with Mr. Randall. But you have no notes of your other one or two interviews. Have I got that right also?”
“Yes.”
“Let me ask you this, then, Ms. Santana. You remember Mr. Randall and you have notes of your interview with Mr. Randall. But you don’t remember the names of any other witnesses. And you don’t have any notes of interviews of any other witnesses. Is it possible that your memory is just a bit fuzzy, that Mr. Randall is the only witness you interviewed?”
“Ms. Klein, with the advantage of hindsight, that’s certainly possible, but I don’t actually think that’s the correct explanation.”
“What do you think the correct explanation is?”
“As best as I can recall, the recollections of the other witnesses I interviewed were not as specific as Officer Randall’s recollection. So I only made notes of my interview with him, and I remembered his name because I had just heard him testify here in trial.”
Yeah, right. Just keep those lies coming. Probably enough to wiggle out of a perjury charge. But likely not enough to satisfy the jury. “Okay, Ms. Santana, let’s turn then to the only interview you know occurred for sure. The one with Mr. Randall. The person who, by your refreshed recollection, is the only one who had any specific recollection of what Mr. Norman supposedly said. Okay?”
A lot more subdued than at the beginning of her testimony, Santana softly answered in the affirmative. Wardrobe, we need wardrobe here! I think her makeup’s starting to run.
“You said you were here the other day. And heard Mr. Randall’s testimony. And that was how you remembered his name when you didn’t remember the names of any of the other witnesses you interviewed following Mr. Norman’s original arrest. Correct?” I love how I can make closing arguments to the jury by just adding a questioning word like “Correct?” at the end of my argument.
“Yes.”
“Well then, you heard, did you not, Mr. Randall testify that he had made no notes of what he supposedly heard Mr. Norman say. And that he just vaguely remembered and vaguely indicated to you the general nature of Mr. Norman’s remarks. And that you filled in the blanks for him. Right?” Another closing argument.
“Objection, the question misstates Officer Randall’s testimony.”
Actually, it doesn’t, but Reilly’s got to try something here. If only to break my rhythm. I’m hammering Santana. Completely destroying her credibility. The objection’s not really going to help the prosecution. The point is there’s no reliable evidence of what Norman supposedly said.
“Objection overruled. It’s close enough, Mr. Reilly. Please answer the question, Ms. Santana.”
“My recollection is different. I recall that Officer Randall was much more precise in what he remembered of Mr. Norman’s words.”
“True or false, Ms. Santana, and remember you’re under oath: Mr. Norman’s words as reported in your story were not based solely on Mr. Randall’s statement to you but were filled in or helped by you. To smooth it out, we might say.”
“I don’t think—”
Brooks didn’t call me out on my perjury threat this time. “True or false, Ms. Santana? Your Honor, please ask Ms. Santana to answer my question as I posed it to her.”
“I think you’ve made your point, Ms. Klein. But you can’t force Ms. Santana’s answers into your desired format. Please finish your answer, Ms. Santana.”
“I was trying to say that I don’t believe Ms. Klein’s question is a fair representation of what transpired.”
Brooks was growing weary of Santana’s obvious evasiveness. “Ms. Santana, allow me to inquire. Did you or did you not embellish in any way what Mr. Randall said to you?”
“Well, I might have filled in his language a little. However, I don’t believe I changed in any way the substance of what Officer Randall said to me.”
“I see.” Brooks continued. “Then is it fair to say that the words reported in your story, Exhibit One before you, are not an exact quote of what Mr. Norman said on the occasion of his arrest? And in light of your answer to my first question, Ms. Santana, I do believe you can answer this question yes or no.”
“No.”
“No? No what, Ms. Santana?” Brooks wasn’t letting Santana off the hot seat.
“No, I guess the words I reported are not an exact quote of what Mr. Norman said.”
“Thank you, Ms. Santana. I think what you meant to answer, then, was ‘Yes,’ meaning yes, it is fair to say that your story is indeed not an exact quote of what Mr. Norman said. Do you have any other questions for the witness, Ms. Klein?”
“Your Honor, I wonder if I might have a moment to look at Ms. Santana’s notes of her interview with Mr. Randall. Which just arrived by messenger.”
“Certainly. How many copies of the notes do we have?”
Brooks’s administrative clerk responded, “I’ve made three copies, Judge.”
Klein skimmed through the notes. These notes are pretty inconclusive. Santana obviously knew how to write them out so as not to impede where she was going with her story. I might make something of the notes, but I think we’ve already achieved the best we can expect with the questions Brooks just asked her. “Your Honor, you summed it up quite well with your questions to the witness. I don’t need to belabor this any further. However, may I have a ruling on my request that Exhibit One be admitted into evidence?”
“Exhibit One will be admitted into evidence.”
“Any questions for this witness, Mr. Reilly?”
“Just one or two, Your Honor.”
Reilly turned from the judge to the witness. “Ms. Santana, notwithstanding your testimony, do you believe that what you reported in your story is a fair representation of what Officer Randall observed to you that Mr. Norman said at the time of his arrest?”
“I certainly do.”
“Thank you, Ms. Santana. I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.”
Klein noted that Reilly was not comfortable trying to use her notes to rehabilitate Santana’s testimony.
“You may step down, Ms. Santana. We’ll take our lunch recess and reconvene at one thirty.”
Santana walked out of the courtroom. Attempting to muster as much dignity as she could under the circumstances.
CHAPTER 108
Thursday, August 6, 12:30 p.m.
RIGHT AFTER FINISHING HIS session with Foster, Lotello had put in a call to Jonathan Mortimer, Hollister’s lawyer. Probably remembering all too well that Brooks was somehow in Lotello’s corner, Mortimer took the call without playing any games and agreed with Lotello’s request to meet at Mortimer’s office the next day at 12:30. Lotello didn’t say what the agenda for the meeting would be. And Mortimer didn’t ask. Lotello figured Mortimer wanted to appear the least bit concerned. Lotello did state that the meeting was just for the two of them. That Hollister was not invited.
“Good afternoon, Detective. Mr. Mortimer’s expecting you.” The receptionist escorted him back to Mortimer’s office. “We brought in sandwiches and drinks.”
“Sounds great. Thanks so much.”
Mortimer was already there. “Hey, Frank. Nice to see you again.” Mortimer greeted Lotello like they were old chums. “Grab yourself a sandwich and something to drink. How’s the Norman trial going?”
Lotello filled his plate. “Hard to know what the jury’s thinking. I would like to share with you a few developments from my point of view. I think you’ll appreciate why I didn’t want Hollister to join us.”
“I’m all ears. But I want you to know I can’t keep any secrets from Blaine. He’s my client. I must reserve the right to share with him anything you tell me.”
Precisely what I’m counting on. “I fully understand. I just thought our meeting would be more efficient if we didn’t have Hollister here. Possibly becoming upset and defensive and attempting to run interference.”<
br />
“Yeah. He does sometimes get a little defensive.”
“Here’s the bottom line. At least as I see it.” Well, how I see it, taking some liberties. “Norman may have had tremendous motive to kill Wells. And DiMarco and Johnson as well. However, I’m not sure Norman did it. I now have an eyewitness who implicates Hollister in all of this. I think Hollister is either the killer or knows who is. If Hollister isn’t the killer, then why hasn’t he come forward with whatever it is he knows? Thus, I think Hollister may actually be the killer. And is letting Norman take the fall for him.”
“That’s quite a story, Frank. At least quite an imagination. Who’s your eyewitness?”
“I can’t reveal that right now. I need to keep him, or her, alive.”
“Frank, if you’ve got this all nailed down, as you say, why are you telling me this? Why haven’t you already arrested Hollister? And got the charges against Norman dropped?”
“Hollister’s under surveillance. He’s not going anywhere. I’m waiting because I want to corral everyone who’s involved in this whole sordid mess. I’m not quite there yet.”
“But again, why tell me all this? What is it you want from me?”
“Let me ask you a question, counselor. Are you acquainted with a fellow by the name of Thomas Reston Thomas the Third?”
“Not that I know of. I don’t think I’d forget a name like that. Who is he?”
“His bio says he’s the chief intelligence and security officer for CRP.”
“The Committee to Reelect the President?”
“The very same. I’ve spoken with Thomas. He’s a government spook right out of a spy novel. A certified head case.”
“What’s Thomas got to do with all of this? More to the point, what’s Thomas got to do with Hollister?”
“I thought you might have some ideas.”
“Hardly. I don’t know Thomas. I can’t imagine that Blaine does either. The Hollister I know is just not the spook type.”
“Well, you can’t blame me for asking. I’ve still got a little more homework to do before I bring Hollister in. Meanwhile, I thought you might want to discuss this with him and see if he’s got anything to share that might make things go easier on him.”
Brooks-Lotello Collection Page 61