Steve Martini - Double Tap

“May I look at my notes?”

Templeton turns and directs his gaze toward me.

“Mr. Madriani, any objection?” says the judge.

“No objection, Your Honor.”

Rubin opens the file sitting in his lap. “With regard to the partially deformed bullet, we found the weight to be two hundred and twenty-seven point two grains. With regard to the fragments from the other bullet, the total grain weight was one hundred and ninety-seven point six grains. It is possible that I was unable to locate every fragment of this second bullet. The fragments did not respond to X-ray.”

Nor was this in the witness’s written report.

“Do you have any idea what the calibers of these two particular bullets were? What size barrel or firearm they may have been fired from?” says Templeton.

I could object on grounds that the question exceeds the expertise of the witness, but there is no real point, and it’s entirely possible, given the doctor’s background with ballistic wounds, that Gilcrest would overrule the objection in any event.

“With regard to the partially deformed bullet it appears to be either forty-four or forty-five caliber. With regard to the fragments, there is no way to tell other than by grain weight, which would place the bullet resulting in those fragments within the same range, forty-four or forty-five caliber.”

“But the grain weights of the two bullets differ significantly, Doctor. How could they be the same caliber?” says Templeton. From the smile on his face it is obvious that he already knows the answer.

“The two bullets were made of different materials,” says Rubin. “The first bullet was a lead alloy, a common manufacture, capable of being purchased in retail stores that stock ammunition. The second bullet was made of different materials-”

“Your Honor, I’m going to object.”

“On what grounds?” says Gilcrest.

“The question of bullet composition is well beyond the expertise of the witness, Your Honor.”

“I would remind the court that the witness has attended to patients with hundreds of bullet wounds,” says Templeton. He would press the outer edge of the envelope until it ripped.

“And if he has a degree in metallurgy from an accredited university, I’d be happy to let you go on,” I tell him.

Gilcrest looks down at the witness from his perch on the bench. “Doctor, you don’t have a degree in metallurgy, do you?”

“No, Your Honor.”

“Objection sustained,” says the judge.

Templeton doesn’t lose a beat. “Well, let me ask you this, then: During all of your years treating patients with bullet wounds and during your time as a medical examiner, have you ever had occasion to observe bullets or bullet fragments similar in appearance and apparent composition to the bullet and bullet fragments removed from the victim in this case, Madelyn Chapman?”

“Objection, Your Honor, to the use of the term apparent composition ,” I say.

“Overruled,” says Gilcrest. “The witness can answer the question.”

“Twice,” says the witness.

“You’ve seen these before?”

“Two times,” says Rubin.

“And where was that?”

“During my service with the Marines.”

“Can you describe the situation in which you observed bullets or bullet wounds with characteristics similar to those found in the victim, Madelyn Chapman?”

It is now becoming clear why Rubin’s background is so essential to Templeton’s case.

“One was a training accident in which a Marine was killed.”

“The other involved a foreign combatant who was delivered to our field hospital for examination and identification after he had been killed in battle.”

“Where did these incidents occur?”

“Both took place during active duty in the Middle East.”

Templeton doesn’t push any further than this for specifics as to location. He leaves it open for me to possibly step on a land mine during cross. I make a note.

“Can you describe for the jury the similarities between the bullets or bullet fragments you removed from the victim, Madelyn Chapman, and the bullets or bullet fragments you removed from the victims in these other two incidents that you observed?”

“Objection, Your Honor. As to relevance.” If nothing else, I will force Templeton to give us a road map of where he is trying to go with this.

“Your Honor, if we could approach the bench. .” Templeton wants a sidebar.

“Very well.” Gilcrest motions us forward. He flips a button on the bench and the courtroom fills with white noise. A special sidebar microphone connects with the court reporter so that she won’t have to move. Neither the jury, the witness, nor members of the audience can hear a thing in the area around the bench.

We assemble at the side near the stairs leading down to the judge’s chambers, with Gilcrest standing on the bottom step, leaning over to converse with Templeton. We are virtually out of sight.

“Your Honor, I will tie it all together,” says Templeton. “The witness has extensive experience with bullet wounds, particularly in the military. The weapon used in this case is a military-issue handgun. We have another witness later who will testify that at least one of the bullets used to kill Madelyn Chapman was a military-issue round, and highly sophisticated. This witness and the following witness will testify to the fact that these were special rounds, a composite alloy designed for their lethal effect and to avoid penetration through the target in certain situations. They were largely available only to police agencies and the military.”

“That doesn’t mean my client fired them, Your Honor.”

“That’s for the jury to decide,” says Templeton.

“None of this was in the witness’s pathology report, Your Honor. Mr. Templeton has hidden the ball on us one more time,” I tell Gilcrest.

“Not so,” says Templeton. “The defense had every opportunity to examine the bullet fragments and to bring in their own experts.”

“Not when the fragments are called just that in the medical examiner’s report,” I say. It is clear what they have done: led us to believe that the bullet fragments in question were simply parts of the second bullet. The report offers no number or size of individual fragments, just their aggregate weight.

“What is clear,” says Templeton, “is that Mr. Ruiz was in the military. We know that, Your Honor. That’s where he got the gun. And, according to our witnesses, probably where he got the ammunition used in the murder.”

“‘Probably’ is not evidence,” I tell Gilcrest.

“The bullets were frangible rounds,” says Templeton. “A special manufacture for certain military weapons. In this case the forty-five automatic. That’s what my witness will testify to.”

It’s like playing lawyer’s dozen. It takes a full round of objections and argument at the bench, but I finally smoke Templeton out.

The judge has heard enough. He puts his hands up. “I’m going to allow the witness to answer the question,” he says.

I whisper to Harry as we head back to the table. “You know anything about this?”

“There was nothing in the pathology report,” says Harry. Now it is clear why Templeton’s expert in ballistics who is outside in the hall, waiting to be called, has reduced nothing to writing by way of a report. He is getting ready to slip a second sword into us.

Back on his step-stool stump, Templeton has his medical witness put a lance in our side by noting the similarity of the bullets used to kill Chapman to others he has seen during his time in the military. It is what he calls a composite bullet, frangible ammunition composed of polymers and a special bonding agent designed to fragment on contact with harder substances such as bone. According to the witness, this is why the second round disintegrated just after it penetrated Chapman’s skull and why the entry hole is somewhat larger than the entry wound from the first lead bullet.