David Rosenfelt - New Tricks

The potential benefits are obvious. Walter Timmerman’s work involved him with very rough people, so rough that the person he was in a form of partnership with was poisoned to death. This couldn’t help but create the credible thought in a jury’s mind that the perpetrator might have killed Walter as well.

Diana’s death is more problematic, in that we have no evidence she was involved with Walter’s work. However, the manner in which she died helps us. It also blew up Walter’s lab, and could easily have killed Waggy, both of which fit into our theory.

Unfortunately, while this all makes sense to us, it is unlikely to impress the jury, because the jury is very unlikely to ever hear about it. We have no real way to connect Robinson to Walter’s DNA work except our theory. We can’t even factually prove that Walter was working in the weeks before his death, no less on something momentous.

We are going to have to try to get Corvallis to testify. He’ll refuse; he already as much as said so tonight. But Hatchet can compel his testimony, albeit with assurances that he does not have to reveal classified, national security information. It’s by no means definite that we can get Hatchet to go along, since we have little to advance as an offer of proof.

But we’ll certainly try, and Kevin goes off to prepare a legal brief to present. Kevin is far better at this aspect of the law than I am, which is damning him with faint praise. The truth is, he’s pretty much the best at it of anyone I’ve ever been around.

Among the things about this that bother me, and one that has bothered me from the beginning, is why such a great effort was made to frame Steven. These were murders that seem to have been committed from a distance by powerful entities, and it’s hard to picture them as having been solved. For example, I would strongly doubt that an arrest will be made in the Robinson murder; nor do I believe that anyone will be framed for it. Why pick on Steven?

I also can’t quite pin down Robinson’s role in all this. It seems logical that he was Timmerman’s way to connect to the type of people who would pay huge dollars for the right to use the synthetic DNA, probably to make biofuels. But Robinson would have made a fortune as well, so it seems unlikely he would have killed Walter.

More to the point, why would anybody have murdered Walter? If his work was the golden goose, why kill it? The only thing that comes to mind is an entity that was threatened by that work, perhaps someone who did not want the energy status quo threatened. But we are light-years away from making that connection in the real world, and the trial is winding down.

I call Richard and inform him of what happened at Robinson’s house, and of my intention to try to get Corvallis to testify. The call is a courtesy similar to those he’s extended to me in the past, but it in no way has a negative impact on our position. If I sprang the issue on him in court, he would just ask for a delay to prepare a response, and Hatchet would undoubtedly give it to him.

“Have you decided what to do about Waggy?” Kevin asks.

“Nothing for the time being,” I say. “With Robinson gone the pressure is off, but if Waggy ‘shows up’ again, Hatchet could get on my back.”

Once Kevin leaves I sit down in the den and do what I frequently do during a trial. I take the discovery documents and reread them. There are often things that I find that I’ve missed in previous readings, but that’s not the main reason I do it. It keeps my mind alert to the details, so that if something comes up during court, I can remember it instantly and react.

I usually do it in segments; each night I’ll read everything related to one particular area of evidence. Tonight I pore through everything about the night of Walter Timmerman’s murder, including the forensics on the scene, the phone call Walter made to Steven, the location of Steven’s car, et cetera.

Almost every time I do this I am bothered by the sensation that I am missing something, but in fact I rarely am. Tonight I have the same feeling, though the information is fairly dry and straightforward.

The Mets are playing the Dodgers on the West Coast tonight, and I turn on the game while I continue to read. The next thing I know Laurie is waking me, and a glance at the TV shows it to be the eighth inning. I slept through the first seven, and since fourteen runs have been scored, those seven innings couldn’t have been very quickly played. Unfortunately, the Dodgers scored eleven of the runs.

Laurie leads me into the bedroom, and within five minutes we’re both back asleep. She hasn’t even decided what to do, and already we’re an old married couple.

I get to court early and bring Steven up to date on everything that has transpired. Since he doesn’t have access to the media in his cell, he has not heard about Robinson’s death, and he is stunned.

When my meeting with Steven is over, an FBI agent, as promised, is waiting for me with a typed copy of my statement from last night for me to sign. I do so, and then make him wait while I have the court clerk make a Xerox of it for me.

Before the morning session begins, Richard informs me that he will be finishing his case today. That case is basically done, and the witnesses he calls will simply dot his I’s and cross his T’s.

His first witness is a prime example. A representative of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority named Helene Markowitz, she is merely there to testify that Steven’s car went through the Lincoln Tunnel at seven forty-five that evening, thirty minutes after he received the phone call from his father.

“How can you be so precise about the time?” Richard asks.

“He has an E-ZPass chip on his car, so that tolls are automatically paid by his credit card without his having to stop. It records the time he goes through the tollbooth.”

For some reason, her answer causes me to think of something I hadn’t registered before. I quickly write a note and slide the paper over to Kevin. It says, “How did Walter Timmerman get to the murder scene?”

Kevin looks confused by the question and writes back, “The killer drove him there.”

That is most likely true, especially since Walter Timmerman’s Lexus was destroyed at the house. But something bothers me about Kevin’s answer, something I can’t quite place and don’t have time to wonder about now.

Richard calls two more uneventful witnesses and then announces that the prosecution rests. I immediately request a meeting in chambers with Hatchet and Richard, so that I can present our request to have Corvallis come in and testify.

I lay out the entire situation for Hatchet, making my point that I need to be able to do the same for the jury. If I can demonstrate that Walter Timmerman was involved with very dangerous people, and in fact those people killed his friend and partner, Robinson, the jury would very likely find reasonable doubt as to Steven’s guilt.

“Mr. Wallace,” Hatchet says, “I assume you don’t agree?”

“We certainly do not, Your Honor. It is a classic fishing expedition.” Richard then goes on to give a response that is predictable and mostly correct. He points out that I have made no tangible offer of proof; instead I have presented a series of suppositions and theories. Even the one fact I can cite, Robinson’s murder and my tangential role in it, is not relevant to this case, since I can make no real connection between that murder and Timmerman’s.

“Your Honor,” I say, “Mr. Wallace would be correct if I were arguing to take the information I currently have before the jury. I agree that I am not ready to do that, and I am not asking you to allow it. What I am simply asking is that you direct the FBI to testify to these facts, and to detail how their own, separate investigation relates to this trial. Then, if the relevance is proven, I would call him before the jury.”