Майкл Коннелли - Law of Innocence

“Thank you, Your Honor,” I said, acting as though there had been no rebuke.

I checked the notes I had scribbled on a yellow pad just a few minutes before.

“Okay, Detective Drucker,” I began. “Let’s talk about this letter you say you interpreted as a threat to violence.”

“I called it a threat,” Drucker said. “I didn’t call it a threat to violence.”

“But isn’t that what you are really saying, Detective? We’re here because this is a murder case, correct?”

“Yes, this is a murder case. No, I did not say the letter was a threat to violence.”

“You didn’t say it, but you want the jury to make that leap for you, correct?”

Berg objected, saying I was already badgering the witness three questions into the cross-examination. The judge told me to watch my tone but said that the witness could answer the question.

“I am stating facts,” Drucker answered. “The jury can draw whatever conclusion or connection they see fit.”

“You said this mysterious closet where you found this letter was hidden behind a rack of clothes, correct?” I asked.

“Yes, there was a stand-up rack of clothes that obscured the door and that we had to move.”

“So, now it’s obscured and not hidden?”

“Is that a question?”

“This rack of clothes that hid or obscured the closet door—was it on wheels, Detective Drucker?”

“Uh, yes, I believe so.”

“So when you said you and your fellow searchers had to move it, you mean you just rolled it out of the way, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And, by the way, was I present at this search?”

“You were.”

“But you didn’t mention that earlier in your testimony, did you?”

“No, it didn’t come up.”

“And was I not the one who told you to move the rack of clothes to get to the closet where I kept my financial records?”

“I don’t recall that.”

“Really? You don’t recall coming to my home with your search warrant and my volunteering to take you to my warehouse, where I kept the records you wanted to search?”

“You did agree to meet us at the warehouse and open it for us so we wouldn’t have to break the lock.”

“Okay, and once we were there and you found this so-called hidden closet, did I not tell you what file drawer to look in for communications between me and Sam Scales?”

“I don’t remember it that way, no.”

“Well, how many file cabinets were in the storage room, Detective?”

“I don’t remember.”

“More than one?”

“Yes.”

“More than two?”

“I don’t remember how many there were.”

I disengaged from Drucker and looked up at the judge.

“Objection, Your Honor,” I said. “The witness is unresponsive to the question asked.”

“Answer the question, Detective,” the judge told the detective.

“There were more than two,” Drucker said. “There may have been as many as five.”

“Thank you, Detective,” I said. “Did you search all five of those filing cabinets?”

“No. You said most of them contained client files and were covered by attorney-client privilege. You refused to unlock them.”

“But I unlocked the filing cabinet containing my financial records, isn’t that right, Detective?”

“I don’t remember whether it was locked.”

“But you remember that you were prohibited from searching some filing cabinets but not the one you searched, is that correct?”

“I suppose that is correct.”

“So, first you didn’t remember that I showed you the filing cabinet containing my financial documents, but now you admit that in fact I did show you where to search for my financial records. Do I have that right, Detective?”

“Objection!” Berg shouted.

Warfield raised her hand to cut off anything further.

“This is cross-examination, Ms. Berg,” she said. “Impeachment of the witness’s credibility is a proper issue of inquiry. Answer the question, Detective.”

“You did direct us to the filing cabinet,” Drucker said. “I apologize for my misstatement. I was not visualizing the events as I experienced them.”

“Okay, let’s move on here,” I said. “You said you searched the cabinet, found the file on Sam Scales, and removed the document now marked as state’s L. Do I have all that right?”

“Yes.”

“Did you look for or take any other documents during the search of my records?”

“Yes. There were two earlier letters to Sam Scales of similar nature—asking for money.”

“You mean asking him to pay his legal bills?”

“Yes.”

“Did they include threats to violence if he did not pay?”

“Not that I recall.”

“Is that why they have not been introduced in court today?”

Berg objected and asked for a sidebar. I was on a roll with Drucker and didn’t want to lose momentum. I withdrew the question, negating the objection and need for a sidebar, then pressed on.

“Did you take anything else from my storage files, Detective Drucker?”

“No. The warrant covered only financial communications between you and the victim.”

“So, you did not ask the judge who signed the warrant for permission to check my tax returns to see if I had written off the Sam Scales debt as a business loss?”

Drucker had to think for a moment before answering. This was completely new information to be considered.

“It’s a simple question, Detective,” I prompted. “Did you—”

“No, we did not ask for tax returns,” Drucker said.

“Do you think if you had known that this debt was turned into a tax deduction, it would have mitigated your belief that it was the motive behind the killing of Sam Scales?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you think it might have been good information to have as you investigated the case?”

“All information is good to have. We like to throw out a wide net.”

“But not wide enough in this case, correct?”

Berg objected to the question, saying it was argumentative. The judge sustained the objection, and that was what I wanted. I didn’t want Drucker to answer the question. It was meant for the jury.

“Your Honor,” I said. “I have no further questions at this time but will be calling Detective Drucker back as a defense witness.”

I returned to the defense table while Berg called her next witness. Maggie gave me the nod for my first swing at Drucker.

“Good stuff,” she said. “Should I have Lorna go to the warehouse and pull the tax return? We could use it as a defense exhibit.”

“No,” I whispered. “There is no deduction.”

“What do you mean?”

“You wouldn’t know this because you’ve spent your life in public service. Same with Berg and same with Drucker. Even the judge was a public defender before she got elected. But a private attorney can’t deduct unpaid fees as a business loss. The IRS won’t allow it. You just have to eat the loss.”

“So it was a bluff?”

“Pretty much. About as much bullshit as them saying that letter I sent Sam was a threat to kill without really saying it.”

Maggie leaned back and stared straight ahead as she computed this.

“Welcome to criminal defense,” I whispered.

44

linear, methodical, routine—Dana Berg was following textbook case delivery. The prosecution usually had such advantages in terms of its wealth and reach that that was usually all it took. The state overwhelmed with its power and might. Prosecutors could afford to be unimaginative, even stodgy. They trotted out their cases to the jury like furniture instructions from Ikea. Step-by-step with big illustrations, all the tools you needed included. No need to look elsewhere. No need to worry. And at the end you have a sturdy table that is both stylish and functional.