Майкл Коннелли - Law of Innocence

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,

p.p. Michael Haller

“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.”

“What evidence do you have that this letter was ever mailed or delivered directly to Mr. Scales?”

“I assume it was mailed or delivered. How else would Mr. Haller expect to get paid?”

“Do you have any evidence that Mr. Scales ever received this letter?”

“Again, no. But that is not what is important about the letter.”

“Then, what is important about the letter?”

“Mr. Haller says he knows that Sam Scales kept a fund to pay his lawyer and he wanted another seventy-five thousand. That is motive to kill.”

“Do you suppose that Mr. Haller knew about the fund because Sam Scales told him?”

“That would make sense.”

“Did Sam Scales reveal to Mr. Haller where he kept that fund and how to access it?”

“I have no idea, but it would be covered under attorney-client privilege.”

“If you can’t show that Mickey Haller knows where Sam Scales kept his money, how can you claim that he killed Sam Scales for his money?”

Berg had had enough and stood.

“I object, Your Honor,” she said. “This isn’t voir dire. Ms. Aronson is conducting a discovery deposition.”

“I can see what she is doing, Ms. Berg,” Warfield said. “And she has made her point. Anything further, Ms. Aronson?”

Jennifer checked me and I gave a slight shake of my head, reminding her that a lawyer should always quit talking when she’s ahead.

“No further questions at this time, Your Honor,” she said. “It is clear from the detective’s testimony as well as the document that it was not signed or written by Mr. Haller and has no relevancy to this hearing.”

“Judge, the relevancy is clear,” Berg countered. “Whether or not it was signed by the defendant, it was sent by his office and it references a meeting he attended. It is clearly relevant because it speaks to the issues and motives surrounding this crime—that the defendant was owed money and knew that Sam Scales, the victim, had the money and wouldn’t part with it. We have further documentation we are ready to present that shows the defendant filed a lien against the victim in furtherance of collecting his money. That lien is now lodged against the estate. If money is found, the defendant is in line to receive it, plus interest. He could not get Sam Scales to pay him in life—he hopes to collect from him in death.”

“Objection!” Jennifer yelled.

“Ms. Berg, you know better,” Warfield said. “Leave your sound bites for the reporters, not this court.”

“Yes, Your Honor,” Berg said, her tone falsely contrite.

The judge dismissed Drucker from the witness stand. I knew it was fruitless. The judge would either be canny and object to what the prosecution was doing or let it slide. Warfield asked if there was any further argument and Berg demurred while Jennifer asked to address the court.

“Thank you, Your Honor,” she said. “The court noted earlier that it has wide discretion over bail. The bail schedule is meant to protect the community as well as ensure that defendants accused of crimes are held to answer. To these points, I believe it is clear that Michael Haller is neither a threat to the community nor a threat to flee. He has been free on bond now for six weeks and he hasn’t attempted to flee. He hasn’t threatened the community or anyone associated with this case. In fact, he has sought and received the court’s permission to leave the county and state and yet returned the same night. Your Honor, you do have discretion in the matter and it is in pursuit of a fair trial in this case that I ask that bond be carried over from the original charge and that Mr. Haller be allowed to remain free to defend himself.”

Berg’s comeback was only to remind the judge that rules were rules. She said judicial discretion did not extend to the findings of a grand jury or to the legislature’s decision to make murder for financial gain a no-bail charge.

She then sat down.

I didn’t think we had a winning argument, but the judge built anticipation in the courtroom as she wrote notes before speaking.

“We’ll hear the other motion before I make a decision on this matter,” she said. “We are going to take a ten-minute break first and then we’ll consider Mr. Haller’s six-eight-six motion. Thank you.”

The judge quickly left the bench. And I was left with ten minutes to figure out how to turn things around.

32

It might have been my last chance to walk the halls of the courthouse, even ride the elevator down and step outside to enjoy a few moments of free, fresh air, but I remained at the defense table during the ten-minute break, which actually lasted twenty. I wanted to be alone with my thoughts. I even told Jennifer I didn’t want her next to me when court resumed. She might have been hurt, but she understood my reasoning. It was me against the state, and while I would not be speaking to a jury, I wanted the judge to be reminded of the fact that I was one man standing alone against the power and might of the beast.

I composed myself to be ready at the ten-minute mark and then dealt with the anxiety of waiting in overtime. Finally Warfield came out and retook her position on the bench above everyone.

“Very well, back on the record,” she said. “We have a motion from the defense to compel a speedy trial. Mr. Haller, I see you are now alone at the defense table. You will be arguing this motion?”

I stood up.

“Yes, Your Honor,” I said.

“Very well,” Warfield said. “I hope we can be succinct. Proceed.”

“If it please the court, I will be succinct. What the prosecution has done with its grand jury indictment is attempt to subvert the law and my constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial. It’s a shell game, Your Honor, played by the prosecution not in the furtherance of justice but in the gaming of it. There have been two constants since the very first minutes of this case. One is that I have steadfastly denied these charges and claimed my innocence. The other is my refusal under any circumstances to delay these proceedings for any amount of time.”