I’m up.
“Objection. Inspector Johnson isn’t a mind reader.”
“Sustained.” She points her gavel at Skipper.
“Please, Mr. Gates.”
He’s undaunted.
“Do you have any reason to believe the defendant was angry at Mr.Holmes?”
“Yes.” Skipper leads Roosevelt through a description of Joel’s angerat Bob about the partnership decision.
“Why would he have been upset at Mr. Holmes?” Skipper asks.
“Mr. Holmes was his mentor. Mr. Holmes had been assigned the task oftelling the defendant he wasn’t going to make partner. Apparently, hedid not do so.”
“That led to the agitated voicemail message to Mr. Holmes?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
“I’ll rephrase. Do you believe the defendant’s voicemail message toMr. Holmes related to the fact that Mr. Holmes failed to inform thedefendant that he wasn’t going to make partner?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Overruled.”
“Yes,” Roosevelt says.
“I believe the defendant’s voicemail message related to the fact thatMr. Holmes failed to tell him he wasn’t going to make partner.”
Joel leans over and whispers, “Can’t you object to this? You think I’dkill somebody because I didn’t make partner?”
I signal him to be quiet. I whisper, “The jury’s watching us.”
Next, Skipper takes Roosevelt through the evidence that suggested thatJoel may have been having an affair with Diana.
“Inspector,” Skipper says, “are you aware of any reason why thedefendant may have been angry with Ms. Kennedy?”
“Yes. The defendant told us Ms. Kennedy did not complete a set ofescrow instructions for the Russo deal. He stated that he was upsetbecause he had to complete the task himself.”
Skipper gives him a puzzled look.
“Isn’t it odd that the defendant would kill Mr. Holmes because hedidn’t make partner, and Ms. Kennedy because she failed to complete alegal document?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
“Inspector, are you aware of any other reasons why the defendant mayhave been upset with Mr. Holmes and Ms. Kennedy?”
“We believe the defendant was having a romantic relationship with Ms.Kennedy, which she terminated in order to rekindle an earlier romancewith Mr. Holmes.”
“Move to strike. Foundation.”
“Overruled.”
Joel looks straight ahead. I look back to the gallery. Rabbi Friedmanis rocking back and forth in his chair. Naomi is staring directly intothe back of Joel’s head. Ruth Fink rubs her forehead.
Skipper is pleased. After a week of forensics, guns, fingerprints,autopsy reports, computer keyboards and tape recordings, we’ve finallygot some really juicy stuff for the jury.
“Inspector, I want to be sure I’m clear on this. Are you saying thatMs. Kennedy, for lack of a better term, dumped the defendant in orderto resume a romantic relationship with Mr. Holmes?”
“Objection. Foundation.”
“Overruled.”
“Yes.”
“Is it your belief that he killed Mr. Holmes in a jealous rage afterMs.
Kennedy dumped him?”
“Objection. Speculative. State of mind. Foundation.” The kitchensink.
“Sustained.” Judge Chen gives Skipper a sharp look.
“Let’s stick to the facts, Mr. Gates.”
He barely blinks. He’s getting to all the sordid goodies now.
“Inspector, let’s take this one step at a time. What evidence do youhave that Mr.
Holmes and Ms. Kennedy were romantically involved?”
“Mrs. Holmes’s private investigator confirmed that he had discoveredthat Mr.
Holmes and Ms. Kennedy were having a romantic relationship.” Hetestifies that Beth stated she had found out about the affair in earlyDecember and told Bob she would file divorce papers if he didn’t breakit off. He terminated his relationship with Diana at that time.
“Yet on December thirtieth, Mrs. Holmes served divorce papers on herhusband.”
“Yes. The private investigator observed Mr. Holmes having arendezvous at the Fairmont with a woman other than Mrs. Holmes.”
“Was the private investigator able to identify the woman?”
“He wasn’t absolutely sure. He said the woman may have been DianaKennedy. That led to the filing of the divorce papers by Mrs.Holmes.”
Skipper glances at the clock at the back of the courtroom.
“You also determined that the defendant was having a romanticrelationship with Ms. Kennedy, did you not?” I glance at Ruth Fink.
“Objection. Foundation.”
“Overruled.”
“Yes. We interviewed several partners at the Simpson and Gates firmwho attended the firm retreat at Silverado last fall.” He confirmsHutch’s accounts of the hot-tub incidents. He reiterates Patton’sstory about finding Diana in Joel’s room at three in the morning.
Naomi looks at the floor. This is going to be the bloodiestcrossexamination I’ve ever done.
Skipper asks, “Inspector, if the defendant and Ms. Kennedy wereromantically involved, why would the defendant kill her?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
“Inspector, do you have a theory as to why the defendant would havekilled Ms.
Kennedy?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
Judge Chen glances at her bench book.
“Overruled.”
Roosevelt takes off his glasses.
“We believe Ms. Kennedy was the woman in the hotel room with Mr.Holmes. We believe she told the defendant that she had resumed herrelationship with Mr. Holmes. And we believe she told the defendantthat she no longer wanted to see him.”
“Objection. Move to strike. There’s no foundation for any of this.”
“Overruled.”
“So, Inspector, you believe that the defendant was so upset about theend of his relationship with Ms. Kennedy that he killed Ms. Kennedyand Mr. Holmes in a jealous rage?”
“Yes.”
Joel starts to stand up. I grab his arm and pull him back into hisseat.
“Stay calm,” I whisper.
Skipper spends the rest of the afternoon lobbing softball questions toRoosevelt, who keeps pounding out winners. He describes his interviewswith Rick Cinelli and Homer Kim. I object frequently and, for the mostpart, inconsequentially. Skipper stretches out Roosevelt’s testimonyuntil four-thirty.
Judge Chen looks at her watch and says, “I think we should break hereuntil Monday.”
It’s a bonanza for Skipper. The jury has all weekend to mull overRoosevelt’s testimony.
Judge Chen looks at me.
“I trust you’re prepared to begin crossexamination on Monday?”
“Absolutely, Your Honor.” She pounds her gavel.
CHAPTER 41
THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF A LIFETIME
“After Inspector Johnson’s devastating testimony on Friday, MichaelDaley better be at the top of his game today.”
—news center 4 LEGAL ANALYST morgan henderson. monday, march 30.
We spend the weekend preparing for my crossexamination of Roosevelt.Mort keeps pounding on the idea that we have to give the jury a reasonto think somebody else did it. Our best bet is Vince Russo. As Mortleaves on Sunday night, he summarizes our defense succinctly.
“When all else fails,” he says, “blame it on the dead guy.”
Monday morning arrives too soon. I’m watching Morgan Henderson givehis daily sermon on Channel 4 at six-forty-five.
“You know,” he says, “it might be a good idea to let Mort Goldberghandle Johnson’s cross. Goldberg’s an old warhorse.
He has more capacity for all-out war than Daley does.”
Thanks, Morgan.
The former talk-show host who now fancies himself a serious newsmanfurrows his brow under his blond, blow-dried hair.
“Who do you think’s winning, Morgan?”
“The prosecution has scored a lot of points, but they haven’t delivereda knockout blow.”
“Any predictions?” the anchorman asks.
“It’s looking pretty good for the prosecution,” Henderson says.
“I wouldn’t want to be wearing Michael Daley’s shoes today.” Frankly,neither would I. The reporters swarm around me today when we get to theHall because they know I’ll have a major speaking role. I remind themI’m not permitted to talk about the case. That doesn’t stop them. Iutter the usual platitudes about my faith in the justice system. Ican’t ignore them. On the other hand, I don’t want to say anythingthat may get me in trouble. The judge watches the news, too.
The routine in court is familiar to us all. Joel takes his seatbetween Rosie and me. Mort sits at the end of the table. Harriet Hillasks us to rise. The judge takes her seat. The jury is brought in.Roosevelt is called back to the stand. The judge reminds him he’sunder oath. Then she turns to me and says, “It’s your turn forcrossexamination, Mr. Daley.”
I walk to the lectern.
“Good morning, Inspector.” I turn to the judge.
“May I approach the witness?” I want to appear respectful. She nods.I walk toward Roosevelt. As of this moment, the battle is now fullyengaged.
“Inspector,” I say, “I’d like to go over a few of the items youdiscussed on Friday in a little more detail.”
Our eyes lock.
“Of course, Mr. Daley.”
I pick up the revolver from the evidence cart. I go over to the jurybox and slowly hold it in front of them. Then I walk back toRoosevelt.
“Inspector,” I say, “you have identified this revolver as the weaponthat fired the bullets that killed Mr. Holmes and Ms. Kennedy, didyou not?”
“Yes.”
I hand it to him.
“And you’ve testified that Joel Friedman’s fingerprints were found onthe revolver, right?” I’m trying to elicit one-word answers.
“Yes.”
“When you arrived, Officer Chinn told you Mr. Friedman had informedhim that he had picked up the revolver and disarmed it when he foundthe bodies, right?”
He pauses.
“That’s true.”
“So it’s possible Mr. Friedman may have gotten his fingerprints onthe revolver when he picked it up and disarmed it, isn’t it?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Overruled.”
Roosevelt looks at Skipper and shakes his head.
“Yes. It’s possible,” he says.
One small victory for the good guys. I hold out my hand and he givesme the revolver.
“Inspector, you’ve studied the lab reports on this gun, haven’t you?”
“Yes.”
I hand it back to him.
“Would you mind showing us exactly where Mr. Friedman’s fingerprintswere found on this revolver?”
He asks to see the lab report. Rosie hands it to me, and I turn itover to him.
She’s marked Sandra Wilson’s diagram of the location of thefingerprints on the revolver. I direct him to the correct page. Heputs his glasses on the top of his head. I turn to Rosie, who turns onthe overhead projector. The diagram appears on a screen I’ve placed inthe front of the courtroom.
“Inspector,” I say, pointing toward the screen, “is this the diagramthat you’re looking at?”
“Yes.”
“Would you please show us where Mr. Friedman’s fingerprints were foundon the revolver?”
He holds up the revolver and fumbles with it. He goes through the sameexercise that Kathleen Jacobsen, the evidence technician, went throughlast week. He explains that fingerprints from Joel’s thumb, middlefinger, ring finger and pinky were found on the handle. He says thefingerprint from Joel’s index finger was on the cylinder. He shows thejury how Joel was holding the gun.
“Inspector,” I say, “could you please show us how Mr. Friedman wouldhave fired the revolver with his hand in that position?”
“He couldn’t, Mr. Daley. His finger wasn’t on the trigger.”
“Thank you, Inspector.”
“But, Mr. Daley…”
“You’ve answered my question. Inspector.” I nod to the jury.
“Just so we’re clear about it, isn’t it a fact that you didn’t find Mr.Friedman’s fingerprints on the trigger?”
“We found smudged, unidentifiable fingerprints on the trigger, Mr.Daley.”
“I understand. But you couldn’t identify Mr. Friedman’s fingerprintson the trigger, could you?”
“That’s true.”
“So, it’s fair to say that you have no evidence to demonstrate thatMr.
Friedman pulled the trigger. Isn’t that true?”
“We have no identifiable fingerprints of Mr. Friedman on the trigger.That’s all.”
I’m not going to wage a war of semantics. Juries hate it.
“Isn’t it a fact, Inspector, that the locations of Mr. Friedman’sfingerprints were consistent with the act of unloading the revolver?”
“Objection. Foundation.”
“Overruled. Inspector Johnson is capable of giving an opinion onwhether the fingerprints are consistent with the act of unloading thegun.”
“Mr. Daley,” Roosevelt says, “I believe that Mr. Friedman left asmudged fingerprint on the trigger of this revolver when he fired it.On the other hand, his fingerprints were in a position that might havebeen consistent with the act of unloading it.”
Good answer.
“Thank you, Inspector. You’re also aware that when a gun is fired, itemits a cloud of gas and particles of gunpowder fly into the air.”
“Yes, Mr. Daley, that’s correct.”
I ask him whether any such traces were found on Joel’s hands orclothing.
The room is silent. He confirms Kathleen Jacobsen’s testimony thatthey didn’t test Joel’s hands or clothing.
“By the time he became a suspect, he had showered several times and hisclothes had been laundered or cleaned. As a result, we would not havefound traces of gunpowder or other chemical substances.”
“So you decided not to do the tests because you thought you wouldn’tfind anything.”
“Objection. Asked and answered.”
“Sustained.”
I’ve made my point. For good measure, I add, “And you can’t show thatMr.
Friedman ever touched the trigger of the revolver.”
“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“That’s true,” he says quietly.
We hammer at each other for the rest of the morning and into theafternoon. I challenge the handling of the evidence and the phonemessages. We argue about the fingerprints on the keyboard. At threeo’clock I glance at Rosie, who tugs on her left ear.
“Inspector,” I say, “did you ever seriously consider any othersuspects?”
“Yes. We ruled them out very quickly. Not enough evidence.”
“For example, Inspector, did you ever consider Vince Russo as apotential suspect?”
“For a brief time, yes. But we ruled him out.”
“But you knew, of course, that Mr. Russo had been at the Simpson andGates offices that night, and that he was very upset about the dealthat he was supposed to close the next day.”
“Yes.”
“He was so upset that he drove to the Golden Gate Bridge and has notbeen seen since.”
“We’re aware of the circumstances, Mr. Daley.”
“He may even have jumped off the bridge.”
“We don’t know that, Mr. Daley.”
“Yet you didn’t consider him a serious suspect?”
“Objection. Argumentative.”
“Sustained.”
I’m blowing smoke.
“Is it possible he fled because he killed two people?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
“You would at least acknowledge Mr. Russo had a substantial motive tocommit this terrible crime, wouldn’t you, Inspector?”
“No.”
“Come on. Inspector. Mr. Russo was very unhappy about this deal. Bykilling Mr.
Holmes and Ms. Kennedy, he had an opportunity to disrupt the deal andflee the country.”
“Mr. Daley, we have no evidence to that effect.”
“You haven’t found his body, have you, Inspector?”