Final Verdict

by William Bernhardt

  “Most of you acknowledged during the questioning that you had at least some passing familiarity with the defendant, Conrad Sweeney. He has been a high-profile citizen in St. Petersburg for at least the last two decades. He’s a successful businessman—or so it appeared. He’s a great philanthropist—though of late, the true nature of those endeavors has been called into question. We will discuss that more during the trial. At this time, I will simply remind you that you said you would be able to set aside any preconceived ideas and make your evaluation based upon the evidence presented at trial. That will become important, because as you will see, nothing about this defendant is what it appeared to be.”

  At the pretrial, Jazlyn sought permission to show the jury a photo of the murder victim—predictably, one taken from the coroner’s office that showed a bloody decapitated head bashed virtually beyond recognition. Dan objected and the judge agreed that it would be more inflammatory than probative. Jazlyn was still putting a photo on the screen, but it was a standard passport photo, not a decapitated head.

  “Christopher Andrus was an art dealer, among other things. His friends called him Kit. Some people called him a hustler, and to be fair, he was involved in many different projects, some of them more than a bit on the shady side. That may be why he worked so long and so well with the defendant, Conrad Sweeney. We know that Andrus brokered the sale of many rare and valuable works of art to the defendant. We are still undergoing the difficult process of cataloguing the pieces found in the defendant’s home and office. But the point is, the evidence will show that the defendant and the victim knew each other and worked closely together on many occasions.”

  She took a deep breath, as if to express regret, before she plunged ahead. “The evidence will also show that there was a major falling out between the parties, which eventually led to Andrus’ death. We will have expert testimony explaining that Sweeney was in serious financial trouble. He was in near bankruptcy and, in all likelihood, prison, based upon financial malfeasance and perhaps his links to organized crime.”

  Dan instinctively started to rise, but Sweeney grabbed his wrist and gave him a tiny shake of the head. Dan did not appreciate a client advising him about whether to object. But at the same time, he understood. Objections during opening were relatively rare and juries didn’t like the interruption. An objection to this mention of organized crime might be sustained, but it would underscore the words in the minds of the jurors. Better to wait until closing and then double-down on the fact that the prosecution never substantiated its claims.

  Painful to admit it. But Sweeney was right.

  “Multiple witnesses will testify that Sweeney was seen meeting with Andrus shortly before his death, and that meeting was hostile and angry. Sweeney threatened him. Security footage shows Sweeney and Andrus both entering Sweeney’s penthouse not long after. And Andrus never came out.”

  Jazlyn clasped her hands and lowered her head, as if she were forced to address an unsavory subject. That was how she won the jury over. By making them so repulsed by the crime that they were ready to convict anyone.

  “We will have police testimony describing the victim’s remains exactly as they were found. I regret to inform you that the body was dismembered. The head was severed from the torso. The hands were severed from the arms and legs. The head and hands were found in a freezer unit in a secret room only the defendant could enter. The lock to this hidden room required the defendant’s fingerprint. No one could get in without his help. And that’s where the body was found.”

  Jazlyn drew in her breath, then continued. “The torso and legs and other body parts have never been found. Neither has the murder weapon. Neither have the tools that must have been used to tear the body apart. But it doesn’t matter—because we know what happened. We know Andrus entered the defendant’s office and never left. And we know where the body parts were found—in the freezer of the man who had a motive to kill him, who had been seen violently arguing with him only a few hours before.”

  Jazlyn inched closer and gave them her most earnest expression. “I know you will honor the oath you have sworn and take this responsibility seriously. Your job is not a pleasant one, but it is an important one. You are the people who hold this fragile thing we call law and order together. Crime must be punished—especially crime of this magnitude. Otherwise, our society descends into chaos. We will provide incontrovertible evidence that will allow you to find this vile man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We will do our part. We only ask that you do yours. Thank you.”

  While Jazlyn returned to her seat, Dan heard Sweeney murmur. “Good opening.”

  “She’s a pro,” Dan whispered back.

  “And smart. I can see why you dated her.”

  On the other side of Sweeney, Maria’s head whipped around. “What?”

  Sweeney arched an eyebrow. “Didn’t mention that to her?”

  Dan felt his steam rising. “We...didn’t really date.”

  “Not what I heard.”

  “We went out to dinner once.” He looked at Maria. “I’m sure I mentioned it.”

  “No,” Maria whispered.

  “Well, it was nothing.”

  Maria turned her head front and center. “We’ll talk about this later.”

  Dan glared at Sweeney. Who just smiled back.

  The judge was looking at Dan, obviously expecting him to launch his opening.

  Thank you, Sweeney, for giving me another reason to hate you. As if I didn’t have enough already.

  Dan rose and faced the jury. “Let me welcome all of you who have agreed to perform your civic duty. Like the prosecutor, I thank you. I cannot promise this will be over quickly, but I can promise that I will not waste your time. I will not call witnesses who have little or nothing to contribute, or redundant witnesses. I will not make emotional appeals or try to get you so worked up about the crime that you forget to look at the evidence. Instead, I will ask you to focus on the evidence, such as it is, and make your decision based upon it. Because at the end of the trial, the judge will instruct you that to convict, you must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a super-high standard. A standard which the prosecution cannot meet in this case.”

  That was all he had to say, in a nutshell, but he knew the jury would be disappointed if he didn’t talk more. If he spoke for significantly less time than the prosecution, some jurors might think his defense didn’t amount to much.

  “You may be surprised to hear me say that I actually agree with some of what the distinguished district attorney has said.” Never hurts to be a reasonable person. “My client and Andrus did know each other. They worked together, and my client bought several paintings that Andrus brokered over the years. And they did meet shortly before Andrus disappeared. But that’s where the agreement ends, and that alone proves nothing about who committed the murder. Everything else is disputed. You will have to decide what you think happened. And your decision about the facts will inevitably lead to your conclusion about the guilt or innocence of my client.”

  He paused, giving them a moment to soak that in. “My client and Andrus did meet, but the evidence will show that there was no argument. What would they argue about? As the prosecutor has suggested, my client was in no position to buy expensive paintings. He did not kill Andrus and the idea that this pillar of our society would hack up a body is preposterous. C’mon, people—look at him. Does this look like a guy who would do that? Sure, appearances can be deceiving, but not that deceiving. This is an educated, cultured man who built a successful tech business, not a barbarian.”

  He pivoted slightly. “And that brings up another issue we should address up front. You can already tell from the prosecutor’s opening that she intends to trash my client, to accuse him of all kinds of crimes. Basically, she’s suggesting that since he’s committed other crimes, you should convict him of this crime. That is absolutely wrong. You can only convict him of this crime if it is proven that he committed this crime. You wil
l hear me object any time she tries to sling mud or discuss other possible crimes, and for a good reason. Ask yourself—if they are so sure my client committed other crimes, why haven’t they charged him?”

  He stepped closer to the defendant’s table, forcing them to look at Sweeney. “Here’s another thing I want you to remember about my client. He may not be perfect, but he is definitely not stupid. They can accuse him and malign him, but they will not say he’s stupid because they know better. Any time they suggest that he did something stupid—like leaving body parts in his ice cream freezer when he knew the cops were coming—you should see a big red flag waving. None of you would do something that stupid. Why would you imagine Conrad Sweeney would?”

  He took a moment as if gathering his thoughts, but of course, that was for show. He’d worked out this opening long before, practiced in front of a mirror, performed it for Maria and taken her notes. After all, it was designed to introduce her strategy, her theory of how they might win this case. But jurors liked to think these talks came from the heart more than the head, so he delivered the Oscar-worthy performance that allowed them to believe that.

  “I think most of you appreciate straight-shooters, people who say what they mean and mean what they say. Let me bottom-line this for you. This is a frame. My client did not commit this crime. He is not a perfect person, but neither is he a murderer. You want to criticize his business, his art collection, even his personal life, fine. But he is not a murderer. A body was discovered and the police have no clue what happened. They can’t even find the rest of the body. They can’t find the murder weapon. So they grabbed the obvious suspect—obvious because he was obviously being framed.”

  Dan knew he was getting dangerously close to argument, which supposedly was not permitted in openings, so he dialed it down. “For some time, law enforcement has been circulating rumors, planting stories, and indirectly accusing my client of many things. But what have they been able to prove? Nothing. Then this opportunity dropped into their hands—literally—and they milked it for all it’s worth. But make no mistake, people—my client did not commit this crime, and they cannot prove that he did—because he didn’t. I will ask you to perform your civic duty...and find Conrad Sweeney not guilty.”

  Chapter 27

  When the trial resumed bright and early the next day, Dan found himself struggling to shake off the early-morning cobwebs. He hadn’t slept well, Maria seemed angry, and Garrett hadn’t found any useful leads. The press badgered him constantly. Somehow his cell phone number leaked and reporters phoned more relentlessly than robocallers. Social media was all over the case, and what he read on his phone during breakfast was particularly vile.

  Is Pike getting a piece of the porn action? #justiceforstpete

  What’s Sweeney’s favorite flavor of ice cream? You. #sweeneyisguilty

  Would you testify? Look what happened to the last guy they put on the stand. #lawandordersp

  * * *

  Dan drove to the courthouse and sat at the defense table beside Maria.

  “Is this seat taken?” he asked, smiling.

  “Sure you wouldn’t rather sit next to Jazlyn?”

  Yup, definitely a chill in the air... “I’m sure.”

  “You’re saving her for dinner?”

  “Maria.” He tugged at her elbows, trying to get her to face him. “Jazlyn and I only had dinner once. Nothing happened. And that was before you and I were together. In fact, it was before you and I met.”

  “Then why didn’t you tell me about it?”

  “I thought I did. I guess it never came up. At any rate, it was no big secret.”

  “Jazlyn never mentioned it to me either.”

  “I doubt the DA yaks much about her dinner with the city’s best-known criminal defense lawyer.”

  Maria frowned a few moments, then caught his eye. “And this will never happen again.”

  “Of course not. Jazlyn and I are just friends. Will you forgive me?”

  A small smile emerged. “I’ll take it under advisement.”

  * * *

  Jazlyn opened her case with witnesses who were boring but essential. First, the medical examiner, to establish that a death occurred. Then Jake Kakazu, to describe how Andrus’ head was found.

  Dan had cross-examined Dr. Zanzibar on many previous occasions. He was competent, prepared, and always wore his white coat, even though it seemed unlikely that he’d be performing an autopsy on the witness stand. Maybe it was his security blanket. Or maybe he thought it lent him an air of authority. Which was probably correct.

  Jazlyn established that Zanzibar had received the body parts found in Sweeney’s office and performed an autopsy—or as much of an autopsy as was possible, since he didn’t have a complete corpse. Some of the normal procedures, like the toxicological panel, were either unavailing or impossible given how little of the body he had to scrutinize.

  “Could you please describe your conclusion for the jury, doctor?”

  “Of course. Cause of death is more difficult to conclude here than in most cases. But there are several conclusions I can reach with certainty. Andrus was struck from behind. I observed a depressed skull fracture that in all likelihood was caused by blunt force trauma.”

  “Did you observe anything unusual?”

  “That depends on what you mean by ‘unusual.’ What I observed would be unusual for someone walking and talking, but not someone who died as a result of blunt force trauma. His contact lenses had fused to the corneas of his eyes. I observed lots of petechiae—that’s the red splattered result of burst blood vessels.”

  “What could cause that?”

  “Strangulation could, but given the skull fracture, it’s more likely that his brain started swelling after the injury. Skulls are closed containers. The brain can swell but the skull can’t. Kind of like inflating a balloon inside a lockbox. It can’t push through the skull, so instead, it swells into the brain stem, which would cause the burst blood vessels. And of course, it’s possible the victim was hit in other places. The same weapon that caused the skull injury might’ve damaged the brachial plexus nerves, which would immobilize the victim’s arms, making it impossible to fight back.”

  “Can you tell what weapon was used?”

  “Judging from the depression, it appears to be a heavy object, probably swung at high velocity. Several teeth were dislodged. Two right-side molars were cracked at the root. His jaw and orbital bone were fractured on the same side.”

  “Would he have remained...conscious? After the blow or blows?” Not really relevant—except for generating jury sympathy and repulsion.

  “He was probably conscious until he died, and that did not occur instantaneously with the first blow. He would have felt pain, then nausea. Probably cloudy thinking and blurred vision. How functional he remained, I can’t say. This is a brain injury, and everyone reacts differently.”

  “Was the brain injury what killed him?”

  “In all likelihood, what killed him was either shock or loss of blood. Exsanguination. But given that I can’t examine the rest of the body, it’s hard to reach definitive conclusions. It’s possible something was happening to the rest of the body that I don’t know about. But based upon my professional expertise and more than twenty years as the county medical examiner, I believe it was blunt force trauma to the head, probably repeated, that eventually led to death.”

  “Dr. Zanzibar, have you seen the photographs taken in the defendant’s office, where the victim’s head was discovered?”

  “I have.”

  “Did you see anything that could have caused the blunt force trauma you described?”

  “Objection,” Dan said. At last. A valid opportunity to interrupt the flow. “Calls for speculation.”

  “Not really,” Jazlyn replied. “I’m asking for an expert opinion about what could and could not cause the injury he described.”

  The judge nodded. “An expert witness can offer reasonable speculations so long as it is relev
ant and within the realm of his expertise. The witness may answer.”

  Dr. Zanzibar cleared his throat. “There is a heavy metallic paperweight on the defendant’s desk. Flat on the bottom and rounded at the top. That would be more than sufficient, if it came swiftly enough.”

  “Thank you. No more questions. Pass the witness.”

  Dan knew he would gain little from crossing, but he didn’t want Sweeney whining that he wasn’t committed to the case. “Dr. Zanzibar, you’ve suggested a paperweight could be the murder weapon. But you can’t say for certainty that it was the murder weapon, can you?”

  “It complies with the profile—”

  “Doctor, you’re not answering my question. Can you say with certainty that the paperweight was the murder weapon? Or are there other possibilities?”

  Zanzibar shrugged. “There are always possibilities.”

  “And the paperweight is a convenient one, but you have no way of knowing whether it is the actual murder weapon or not, correct?”

  “I can say that it absolutely could have been—”

  “But you cannot say that it absolutely was. I get the picture. Tell me, doctor—you said you detected an indentation in the skull. Could that have been made by a different weapon?”

  “It is...possible...”

  “Could it have been made by a hammer?”

  That caught the doctor by surprise—and most of the jurors. They’d probably read in the papers or online about the attacks on Carvel and Dinah. Though they were forbidden to read about this case, they weren’t in a total news blackout. If he could establish the hammer as a possibility, that suggested Andrus’ killer was the person who attacked Dinah—and was still on the loose.

  Zanzibar frowned. “That is...possible, I suppose.”

  “Would the use of a hammer comply with your profile?”

  “It might.”

  “Thank you for your honesty. Have you actually seen or held the physical object you just proposed as the instrument of death?”