Mark Gimenez - The Color of Law

“Apparently not.”

“And when Ms. Jones gave her written statement, did she personally write the statement, in her own hand?”

“No, sir. We had a stenographer take it, then type it up. Ms. Jones read it, I read it to her, and she signed it.”

“I notice that in her statement she does not admit to killing Clark McCall. Did you ask her?”

“Yes, sir, I did. She denied it.”

Ray Burns next called FBI Agent Wendell Lee, the crime lab analyst, to testify as to the results of his analysis of the evidence taken from the crime scene. Agent Lee was methodical, like an accountant giving a quarterly report. Burns took him through the FBI procedures for accepting evidence, logging it in, and maintaining an unbroken chain of evidence to prevent mix-ups. Then he got to the specifics.

“Agent Lee, the blood collected from the carpet removed from the crime scene was Clark McCall’s blood?”

“Yes, sir. DNA tests were conclusive.”

“The clump of hair, who did that belong to?”

“Clark McCall. Also confirmed by DNA tests.”

“And what part of his body did that hair originate from?”

“His scalp.” Agent Lee put his hand on his scalp above his right eye. “From this region. It was yanked out by the roots.”

“What about the clothing?”

“We examined a blue polo shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Nothing was found on the clothing.”

“And the bedsheets?”

“No semen was found on the sheets. We did remove a condom from the body with ejaculate present.”

“Did you find anything else on the sheets?”

“Yes, sir, pubic hairs that matched Clark McCall’s and synthetic blonde hair fibers.”

“And did you match these fibers?”

“Yes, sir, we matched them to the blonde wig seized from the defendant’s residence.”

Ray Burns removed the blonde wig from a plastic evidence bag and held it up like a dead skunk.

“This wig, labeled government’s exhibit fifteen?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What about the fingerprints?”

“Fingerprints were lifted from the drinking glasses, bathroom countertop, the pistol, and the vehicle. All prints matched either Clark McCall or Shawanda Jones. The prints on the murder weapon matched only Shawanda Jones.”

“Were there any unidentified prints?”

“No, sir.”

“All right. Now to the murder weapon. The. 22-caliber bullet retrieved from the bedroom floor-you ran ballistics tests on it?”

“Yes, sir. It was fired by the. 22-caliber pistol found at the crime scene.”

“So the bullet that killed Clark McCall was fired from Shawanda Jones’s gun?”

“Yes, sir.”

“No further questions.”

Scott walked to the podium. “Agent Lee, the defendant’s clothes were seized during the search of her residence, correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Was Clark McCall’s blood found on any of the defendant’s clothes?”

“No, sir.”

“Wouldn’t you expect to have found his blood on her clothing if she had shot him at point-blank range?”

“Not if she was naked when she shot him.”

After that disaster, Scott did not cross-examine Dr. Victor Urbina, the Dallas County medical examiner, who testified next as to the cause of death-“gunshot wound to the head”-and the time of death-“approximately ten-thirty P.M., Saturday, June fifth”-and the entry and exit wounds and angle of the bullet’s path through the brain. He figured that cross-examination would only extend the time the evidence was in front of the jury, which couldn’t be favorable to his client.

That day’s picnic lunch featured egg salad sandwiches prepared by Pajamae Jones, wrapped in foil and kept cool in a cooler, along with Vanilla Coke, her favorite. After Scott summarized the morning’s testimony for Shawanda, Pajamae said, “Mama, I stuck my tongue out at Mr. Burns.”

“Pajamae, that ain’t nice.”

“Neither is he. You should hear the things he’s saying about you, Mama. Your ears must be burning!”

“Shawanda,” Scott asked, “are you feeling better? Up to testifying?”

“When?”

“Tomorrow.”

After lunch, FBI Agent Henry Hu, a forensics expert, took the stand. After agreeing with the testimony of Dr. Urbina as to the angle of the bullet’s path through Clark McCall’s brain, Agent Hu, in a long, painstaking, and detailed direct examination, proceeded to offer his expert opinion as to how he believed the murder occurred, according to the forensics evidence and with the help of a graphic exhibit on which was depicted a human figure, halfway between lying down and kneeling up, and standing over him another human figure, holding a gun to the victim’s head. Measurements were noted around the perimeter of the figures, with lines drawn to show various heights and angles and a dark line showing the path of the bullet from the gun, through the skull, and to its impact point in the floor. Dr. Hu pointed to the exhibit with a metal pointer as he testified.

“The victim was in a semi-kneeling position when he was shot. We believe that because, as you can see here, the bullet’s path through the skull must align with the point at which the bullet impacted the floor. The victim was seventy-one inches tall. If he were standing when shot, the twenty-eight-degree downward angle of the bullet’s path through the skull would require that the perpetrator hold the gun overhead and then shoot at a downward angle, a physically difficult act”-Agent Hu demonstrated the difficulty for the jury-“or that the perpetrator be unusually tall.

“So, if the victim were kneeling, the point of entry-his forehead-stands only fifty inches above the floor, still a little high. But if he’s in a semi-kneeling position, as if he were getting up off the floor, with the point of entry approximately forty inches above the floor, which is the approximate height at which a normal-sized person would hold a gun in front of him, like this, give or take several inches”-Agent Hu again demonstrated for the jury-“then the bullet’s path through the skull and the point of impact in the floor align precisely.”

The jurors nodded in agreement with his analysis.

“We also know that the victim’s hair was ripped out by the roots, which requires great force. This leads us to conclude that the murder occurred as follows: the victim was on the floor of the bedroom. The perpetrator grabbed the victim by the hair on the right side of his scalp and yanked him up to approximately forty inches off the floor. The perpetrator placed the barrel of the gun to the victim’s forehead over his left eye and shot the victim. The force of the gun’s discharge knocked the victim to the floor-which is consistent with the location in which the body was found-and extracted his hair from his scalp.”

Clark McCall was a rapist, but he had died a horrible death. By the time Dr. Hu completed his testimony, the jurors were somber. Their sympathies may have been with the little black girl sitting in the front row, but they had to face facts; and the facts pointed to her mother as the murderer of Clark McCall. Ray Burns could barely suppress a grin when he stood and announced, “Your Honor, the prosecution rests.”

Scott noticed that Ray turned and caught Senator McCall’s eye; the senator nodded at Ray, obviously pleased with the prosecution of his son’s killer. No doubt, he had told Ray Burns he would never forget this, particularly if Ray’s name should ever come before the United States Senate for confirmation to a high government office.

Dan Ford caught Scott’s eye; his ex-senior partner’s expression asked a silent question: You gave up your career for a murderer?

Judge Buford adjourned for the day. Shawanda Jones’s defense would begin at nine in the morning. Now all Scott had to do was come up with a defense.