Майкл Коннелли - The Law of Innocence

Berg stood up at the prosecution table.

“Thank you, Your Honor,” she began. “This morning, previous charges in this case were dropped after the Los Angeles County grand jury delivered an indictment of J. Michael Haller on a charge of first-degree murder under special circumstances outlined by the state legislature, to wit, murder for financial gain. It is the People’s position that this is a no-bail offense and we are seeking detention pending trial. There is a presumption—”

“I’m well aware of what the law presumes, Ms. Berg,” Warfield said. “I am sure Mr. Haller is as well.”

Warfield seemed annoyed by the state’s effort to incarcerate me and also by having her hands tied in the matter. She appeared to write something on a document up on the bench. She took a few moments to finish before looking down at me.

“Mr. Haller, I assume you want to be heard?” she asked.

I rose from my seat.

“Yes, Your Honor,” I said. “But first I’d like to know whether the state is seeking the death penalty under this new charge.”

“Good question,” Warfield said. “That would change things considerably, Ms. Berg. Has your office decided to seek the death penalty in your case against Mr. Haller?”

“No, Your Honor,” Berg said. “The People will waive the death penalty.”

“You have your answer, Mr. Haller,” the judge said. “Do you have anything else?”

“Yes, I do, Judge,” I said. “Legal precedent holds that once the death penalty has been taken off the table, this is no longer a capital case, notwithstanding that I face a sentence of life without parole. Ms. Berg must also convince the court that guilt is evident and the presumption thereof is great. In and of itself, the indictment is insufficient to prove that guilt is evident, and Ms. Aronson will further address this issue.”

Jennifer stood.

“Your Honor, Jennifer Aronson, representing Mr. Haller on this issue,” she said. “Mr. Haller will argue the six-eight-six motion himself when that comes up. As to the indictment before the court, it is the defense’s position that the prosecution has gone outside the bounds of fair play to deprive Mr. Haller of his freedom as he prepares to defend himself in this matter. This is no more than a ploy to handicap Mr. Haller’s ability to defend himself by putting him in a jail cell, where he cannot work full-time on his defense, is in constant danger from other prisoners, and risks his health as well.”

She looked down at her notes before continuing.

“The defense also challenges the allegation of special circumstances in this case,” she said. “Though we have not seen this new evidence that the prosecution claims will show Mr. Haller’s financial gain from the murder of Samuel Scales, it is preposterous to think, let alone prove, that his death would in any way result in gain to Mr. Haller.”

Warfield was again writing when Jennifer finished, and Berg took the opportunity to respond. She stood and addressed the judge while the pen was still moving in her hand.

“Your Honor, the indictment by the grand jury precludes a preliminary hearing on the charges, and the state would object to turning this hearing into a determination of probable cause. The legislature is quite clear on that.”

“Yes, I know the rules, Ms. Berg,” Warfield said. “But the legislature also gives a superior court judge in this state the power of discretion. I join Ms. Aronson in being troubled by this move by the prosecution. Are you prepared for the court to use its discretion and rule on bail in this matter without providing further support of probable cause?”

“A moment, Your Honor,” Berg said.

For the first time today, I looked over at the prosecution table. Berg was conferring with her second. It was clear that the judge, a former defense attorney, did not approve of the game Berg was playing to put me back in jail. It was put-up-or-shut-up time, no matter what she had been able to run by the grand jury. I saw the second open one of the files in front of him and take out a document. He handed it to Berg, who then straightened up to address the court.

“May it please the court, the People wish to call a witness in this matter,” she said.

“Who is the witness?” Warfield asked.

“Detective Kent Drucker. He will introduce a document that I am sure the court will see in support of probable cause regarding the special-circumstances allegation.”

“Call your witness.”

I had not seen Drucker earlier, but there he was in the front row of the gallery. He got up and went through the gate. He was sworn in and took the stand. Berg began by eliciting from him the details of the searches conducted of my home and warehouse, as well as the home of Lorna Taylor.

“Let’s talk specifically about the records you searched at the warehouse,” Berg then said. “What exactly were you looking at there?”

“These were nonprivileged files relating to the business of Michael Haller’s law practice,” Drucker said.

“In other words, the billing of clients?”

“Correct.”

“And was there a file relating to Sam Scales?”

“There were several because Haller had represented him in a number of cases over the years.”

“And in searching these files, did you find any documents pertinent to your investigation of his murder?”

“I did.”

Berg then went through the formality with the judge of gaining approval to show the witness a document he had found in my files. I had no idea what it could be until the prosecutor dropped off a copy at the defense table after handing the judge’s copy to her clerk. Jennifer and I leaned toward each other so we could read it at the same time.

It was a copy of a letter apparently sent to Sam Scales in 2016 while he was awaiting sentencing for a fraud conviction.

Dear Sam,

This will be the last correspondence from me and you will have to find yourself a new attorney to handle your sentencing next month — if you do not pay the legal fees agreed to during our meeting of October 11. My agreed-to fee for handling your case was $100,000 plus expenses with a $25,000 retainer. This agreement was made regardless of whether your case went to trial or was handled in disposition. It subsequently was handled by disposition and sentencing is set. The remainder of the fee — $75,000 — is now owed.

I have handled several prior cases involving you as a defendant and know that you keep a legal fund so that you can pay your lawyers for the good work they perform for you. Please pay this invoice or consider this the termination point of our professional relationship, with more serious action to follow.

Sincerely,

“Lorna wrote this,” I whispered. “I never saw it. Besides, it means nothing.”

Jennifer stood and objected.

“Your Honor, may I voir dire?” she asked.

It was a fancy way of asking if she could question the witness about the origin and relevancy of the document before the judge accepted it as a prosecution exhibit.

“You may,” Warfield said.

“Detective Drucker,” Jennifer began. “This letter is unsigned, true?”

“That is true, but it was in Mr. Haller’s files,” Drucker said.

“Do you know what the ‘p.p.’ before Mr. Haller’s printed name means?”

“It’s Latin for pro per-something.”

“Per procurationem — do you know what it means?”

“That it was sent under his name but he didn’t actually sign it.”

“You said you found this in Mr. Haller’s files. So it was never mailed?”

“We believe it is a copy and the original was sent.”

“Based on what?”

“Based on it being found in a file marked ‘Correspondence.’ Why would he keep a file full of letters he didn’t send? It makes no sense.”