Майкл Коннелли - The Law of Innocence

“I’ve called, left messages,” Maggie said. “I’ll keep trying.”

The door opened and Deputy Chan stuck his head in and gave us a five-minute warning. I stood up to go but then thought of something.

“What about Milton? Did we get the cell records?”

“Yes, I was going to tell you about it later,” Maggie said. “I didn’t want to pile on the bad news. We got the records but they don’t help.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“He did get a text at the exact time on the video,” Maggie said. “But it was from another Metro cop in the civic center surveillance that night. He was just asking when they were going to eat and where.”

“Any chance they dummied it up?” I asked.

“The documents we received look legit,” Maggie said. “We can check for tampering but we aren’t going to be able to do anything with it this week.”

“Okay, so I guess we drop it,” I said.

“The problem is, the same stuff goes to Dana in discovery,” Maggie said. “She won’t drop it. You can count on her introducing it in rebuttal.”

That was bad news and I now wished I hadn’t brought it up. Between losing Opparizio and handing the prosecution some solid rebuttal evidence, the defense was stumbling before it was even out of the gate. I knew that going head-to-head with Drucker again was going to be a challenge, but I needed to put a couple hits on the house.

Five minutes later, I was at the defense table when Judge Warfield entered and took the bench. She seated the jury, then looked down at me and told me to call my first witness. She seemed slightly surprised and disappointed when I called Kent Drucker. I think she thought recalling a prosecution witness was a weak way to start my case.

Drucker seemed surprised himself. He had been sitting in the gallery but now proceeded through the gate and to the witness stand, stopping by the prosecution table to retrieve the murder book in case he was called on for details he didn’t quite remember.

The detective was reminded by the judge that he was still under oath from his first round of testimony.

“Detective Drucker, how many times did you search my home?” I asked.

“Twice,” Drucker said. “The day after the killing and then in January, when we searched it again.”

“And how many times did you search my warehouse?”

“Just the once.”

“My other two Lincolns?”

“Once.”

“Now, would you describe these searches as thorough?”

“We try to be as thorough as possible.”

“You try ?”

“We are thorough.”

“If you were so thorough in the search of my house, why did you need to search it a second time?”

“Because the investigation was ongoing and as new information was gathered, we realized that we needed to search again for different evidence.”

“Now, one of the state’s experts testified yesterday that ballistic markings on the bullets that killed Sam Scales indicated that the murder weapon was a twenty-two-caliber Beretta handgun. Do you agree with that?”

“Yes, I do.”

“And after all the thorough searches of my properties and cars, did you find such a weapon?”

“No, we didn’t.”

“Did you find any ammunition for such a gun?”

“No.”

“Your experts also testified yesterday that there was convincing evidence that the murder of Sam Scales occurred in the garage located below my house. Do you agree with that?”

“Yes.”

“The coroner testified that time of death was between ten o’clock and midnight. Are you in agreement with that estimate?”

“Yes.”

“Did you conduct a canvass of the neighborhood where the murder occurred?”

“Not me personally, but we did conduct a canvass.”

“Who conducted it?”

“Other detectives and patrol officers at the direction of my partner.”

“How long did that take?”

“It was about three days before we talked to everyone on the block. We had to keep going back until we got to everyone.”

“You were being thorough, yes?”

“Yes, we had a checklist of every house on the block and we made sure we spoke to someone from every address.”

“How many said they heard gunshots between ten and midnight on the night of the murders?”

“None. No one heard anything.”

“And based on your experience and knowledge, did you draw a conclusion from that?”

“Not really. There could have been a lot of factors.”

“But you are sure, based on the evidence, that Mr. Scales was killed in my garage?”

“Yes.”

“Do you assume the garage door was closed during the time of the killing to help prevent the gunshots from being heard?”

“We considered that but it’s speculation.”

“And you don’t want to speculate in a murder case, correct?”

“Correct.”

“Now, without revealing any results, you told the jury during your earlier testimony that the LAPD conducted sound tests in the garage, correct?”

“Yes, we did.”

“Again, not getting into any results, did you measure the sound of gunfire from inside the house?”

“I’m not sure I understand.”

“When you were test-firing guns in my garage, did you have anyone upstairs in the bedroom to determine if those shots could be heard?”

“No, we did not.”

“Why not?”

“It just wasn’t part of our investigation at that point.”

My hope was that Drucker’s answers would give credibility to the possibility that I had slept through the killing of Sam Scales in the garage below my house.

“Okay, let’s move on,” I said. “Did your canvass of the neighborhood produce any reports of other sounds or unusual occurrences at the time of the murder?”

“One neighbor reported hearing the voices of two men arguing the night of the shooting,” Drucker said.

“Really? But you did not tell the jury about that during your earlier testimony, did you?”

“No, I did not.”

“Why is that? Wasn’t two men arguing on the night of the killing important to the case?”

“After we received the toxicology report from the medical examiner, we determined that it was unlikely that Sam Scales was conscious at the time of the killing.”

“So the neighbor who heard two men arguing was wrong or lying?”

“We believe she was mistaken. It could have been a TV she heard, or the time could have been different. It wasn’t clear.”

“So you discarded it and didn’t bother telling the jury.”

“No, it wasn’t discarded. It was—”

“Is that what you do, Detective? If something doesn’t fit with your theory of the case, you just hide it from the jury?”

Berg objected for a variety of reasons and Warfield sustained them all, admonishing me to let the witness finish his answers.

“Go ahead, Detective,” I said. “Finish your answer.”

“We evaluate every potential witness,” Drucker said. “We found the information from this witness not to be credible. No one else heard an argument, and there was an indication that the witness may have been confused about the night in question. We have not hidden anything from the jury.”

I asked the judge for a moment and then walked over to the defense table, where I leaned down to whisper to Maggie.

“Do you have that arrest report from Ventura?” I whispered.

Maggie was ready with the report and handed me a file.

“Okay,” I said. “Anything else I should get on the record before the big finish?”

Maggie thought for a long moment before responding.

“I don’t think so,” she said. “I think it’s time to go for it.”

I nodded.

“Is Schultz here yet?” I asked.

“Cisco texted,” she said. “He’s out in the hallway and ready to go.”