Майкл Коннелли - The Law of Innocence

The judge’s voice had cut Trammel off like an ax coming down. She paused and looked at all parties before continuing.

“Ms. Berg, you need to school and control your witness on what is hearsay and what is not,” she said. “One more improper outburst and you will both be held in contempt.”

She turned to the jury.

“The jury will disregard the statements of the witness,” she said. “They are hearsay and not evidence.”

She turned back to the attorneys.

“You may continue, Ms. Berg,” she said. “Carefully.”

As attention in the courtroom returned to Berg, I heard a low whisper from behind and turned to see Cisco offering a file across the rail. I tapped Maggie on the arm and signaled her to take the file. She immediately opened it on the table between us.

Meanwhile, Berg was only too happy to end her direct examination of Trammel. She had gotten the message to the jury that I was vindictive when it came to money.

“Your Honor, I have nothing further for this witness,” she said.

The judge threw it to the defense, and Maggie asked for a brief recess before she questioned the witness. The judge gave us fifteen minutes and we spent the time reading the correspondence that had come in from Trammel over the years.

When court reconvened, Maggie was ready. She got up with her legal pad and went to the lectern. She came out aggressive.

“Ms. Trammel, have you ever lied to the police?” she asked.

“No,” Trammel said.

“You’ve never lied to the police?”

“I said no.”

“How about under oath? Have you ever lied under oath?”

“No.”

“Aren’t you lying right now under oath?”

“No, I—”

Berg objected, saying McPherson was badgering the witness, and the judge sustained the objection, telling Maggie to move on. She did.

“Isn’t it true, Ms. Trammel, that early on, you agreed to share any movie revenues from your story with Mr. Haller?”

“No, he wanted publicity, not money. That was the agreement.”

“Did you kill Mitchell Bondurant?”

Trammel involuntarily pulled back from the witness-stand microphone as the question came out of the blue. Berg stood and objected again, reminding the judge that Trammel had been found not guilty in the Bondurant case.

“Everyone knows that a not-guilty verdict is not a finding of innocence,” Maggie argued.

The judge ruled that Trammel could answer the question.

“No, I did not kill Mitchell Bondurant,” she answered pointedly.

“Then, was it established at trial who did?” Maggie asked.

“There was a suspect named, yes.”

“Who was that?”

“A man named Louis Opparizio. A Las Vegas mobster. He was brought in to testify, but he took the Fifth because he didn’t want to.”

“Why was Louis Opparizio a suspect in Mr. Bondurant’s murder?”

“Because they had shady dealings together and Mr. Bondurant had contacted the FBI about it. There was an investigation starting and then Mr. Bondurant got killed.”

“After you were found not guilty, was Opparizio charged with the crime?”

“No, he never was.”

We now had Opparizio on the trial record and known to the jury. If nothing else came out of Maggie’s cross, that was the one thing we could take into the defense phase and work with.

But Maggie wasn’t finished. She asked the judge for a moment and then walked to the defense table, where she retrieved the letters that had been in the Trammel file. She had planned it that way. She wanted Trammel to track her movements as she went to pick up the loose pages. She wanted Trammel to know what was coming.

“Now, Ms. Trammel, you clearly blame Mr. Haller for your current situation in prison, correct?” she asked.

“I’ve owned what I did,” Trammel said. “I didn’t go to trial. I pleaded guilty and have taken full responsibility.”

“But you blame Mr. Haller for the police finding your husband’s body buried in the backyard, do you not?”

“I thought the judge said I can’t answer that.”

“You can speak for yourself. You can’t speak for him.”

“Then, yes, I blame him.”

“But isn’t it true that you are the one who has threatened Mr. Haller and repeatedly told him that there would be consequences for his actions?”

“No, that’s not true.”

“Do you remember writing Mr. Haller a series of letters from prison?”

Trammel paused before answering.

“It was a long time ago,” she finally said. “I don’t remember.”

“What about more recently,” Maggie pressed. “Say, a year ago. Did you send a letter from prison to Mr. Haller?”

“I don’t remember.”

“What is your inmate number at the prison in Chowchilla?”

“A-V-one-eight-one-seven-four.”

Maggie looked up at the judge.

“Judge, may I approach the witness?” she asked.

After receiving permission from the judge, Maggie handed an envelope to Trammel and asked her to open it and remove the letter that was inside.

“Do you recognize that as a letter you sent last April ninth to Mr. Haller?” she asked.

Berg stood to object. She couldn’t know what was in the letter but she knew it was bad.

“Your Honor, I have not been shown the document,” she said. “It could be from anyone.”

“Overruled,” Warfield said. “You’ll get your chance when Ms. McPherson is done authenticating the letter through this unexpected witness, Ms. Berg. You may continue, Ms. McPherson.”

“Is that your prisoner number on the outside of the envelope, Ms. Trammel?” Maggie asked.

“Yes, but I didn’t write it there,” Trammel said.

“But that is in fact your signature at the end of the letter, correct, Ms. Trammel?”

“It looks like it, but I can’t be sure. It could be forged.”

“Please examine these four other letters and confirm that they also bear your signature and inmate number.”

Trammel looked at the letters put down in front of her.

“Yes,” she finally said. “It looks like my signature, but I can’t be sure. There are a lot of women in prison who are there because they forged signatures on checks.”

“And you say it is possible that they forged letters to your attorney over a span of nine years?” Maggie asked.

“I don’t know. Anything is possible.”

Except it wasn’t, and Maggie was destroying her.

“Your Honor,” she said. “The defense offers in evidence what will be marked as defense exhibits A through E.”

Maggie handed the exhibits to the clerk to be marked.

“If further authentication is needed, Mr. Haller’s office manager can testify to receiving the letters and securing them over the years in a file,” she said.

“Let’s take a look at these letters,” Warfield said.

I trailed Maggie to the bench for the sidebar. The judge quickly scanned the original letters while Berg was handed copies.

“As an officer of the court and a prosecutor for twenty-plus years, I can represent to the court that the state prisons do not allow inmates to send letters anonymously,” Maggie said. “That was why her inmate number was written on the return address of each envelope.”

“Even if the letters are from her, there is a relevancy issue here, Judge,” Berg said.

“Oh, they’re relevant all right, Ms. Berg,” the judge said. “She just sat there and accused the defendant of threatening her over money. The exhibits are admitted. Ms. McPherson, you may proceed.”

We returned to our positions and Maggie approached the witness stand. She put another letter down in front of Trammel.

“Ms. Trammel, did you write this and send it to Mr. Haller from Chowchilla?” she asked.

Trammel looked at the letter and took a long time to read it.