Sergio De La Pava - A Naked Singularity

“There’s nothing close to this,” she said.

“This is bad,” he said.

“What do you mean? A lot of people predicted she’d be dead,” said Conley.

“Not like this,” she countered.

“Not even close,” Liszt added.

Which was what Alana said the night I spoke to her and she had no reaction to the chimp disclosure. I asked her how much of the money she needed she had come up with.

“Not even close,” she said, and I looked around in my apartment at strewn letters from collection agencies and feeble pay stubs and felt shame. Later I would feel shame again when I stood up and started picking a jury in People of the State of New York vs. Juan Hurtado . I was woefully unprepared and it didn’t matter a bit. I was so unprepared because I knew, as certainly as I could know anything, that there was nobody crazy enough to go to trial on a case this bad. When confronted with the unimpeachable logic of 2 to 4 years in prison being preferable to 3½ to 7, any reasonably intelligent person would take the 2 to 4.

“I can’t take it,” said Hurtado.

When explained to them in a dispassionate and methodical manner any and every one would understand the futility of trying to win such a dead case. Especially when that person’s attorney virtually guarantees said person the case will be lost.

“I have faith in you. I think you’ll win,” he said.

And of course even were somebody crazy enough to take it this far, once they saw that we were sent to Judge Arronaugh, saw how hostile she was to everything we attempted in defense, heard her all but promises the max, then heard her call for a jury pool and shortly thereafter heard those prospective jurors congealing outside the walls of the courtroom ready to come in and convict, certainly at that point any person would grasp at their last chance to end it all with a nice 2 to 4. This would be true even of a loony Vietnam vet with a tattoo necklace.

“I’m going all the way,” he said. And he did. “But I’ll take 1½ to 3,” he added.

Good news because no DA would willingly conduct a trial on a silly case like this over six months. They would offer the 1½ to 3 and move on with their lives.

“Can’t do it,” said prick McSlappahan.

We must have picked a jury in record time, at least since the advent of the shot clock.

“How do you like your jury?” Toomberg wondered once they were picked.

“What’s to like,” I said. “But my problem isn’t going to be the jury, it’s the fact that the people of this state, excluding me and Hurtado, have an overwhelming case.”

“It sure does sound that way. What can you do if your client won’t plead you know? At least when you lose—”

“Hold it right there bub. Who said anything about losing? What are you trying to do? Jinx me?” I could afford to talk all tough even though the case was so dead because of my secret weapon, which I was about to unveil. The weapon had come to me when I was staring at the relevant statutes while Arronaugh prattled on to me and the DA about the rules of her courtroom. What an annoying piece of shit. But the brilliance of it, my God. I was more than an attorney. I was an almost mythological entity whose wings would never melt no matter how close I flew to the sun. I couldn’t wait to disclose my brilliant defense to anyone who would listen. Just as I predicted, the response was overwhelmingly positive.

“Hate it,” said Swathmore.

“It’s a loser,” said Debi. “And I don’t think it’s an adequate or even correct statement of the law.”

“This guy needs to take a plea,” said Gold. “Why doesn’t he? Do you want me to talk to him?”

I did. Somebody needed to talk some sense into this chump before we went down faster than two naked skydivers. They were right. My brilliant defense was a sham. Everybody knew I was screwed.

Except Toomie. Sweet, angelic Toomberg with his convex-lensed glasses. I had forbidden him from talking to me about Kingg until Hurtado was done. On Hurtado I was all ears, and he struck the only somewhat optimistic note of the day when he told me that I just might be on to something because he seemed to recall reading something on the issue in a random practice commentary written by an esteemed judge. In the end he agreed to help me out in exchange for my promise to later reconsider on Kingg. He couldn’t be in court to watch the trial but, since I had forged Swathmore’s signature on a minutes order form and was getting daily copy, the plan was that Toomberg would review the transcripts as I got them and offer priceless insights. The only thing we had done that day besides pick a jury was open:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK:

CRIMINAL TERM: PART 23

TRIAL

111 Centre Street

New York, New York

BEFORE: HONORABLE POLENTA DWADNUM ARRONAUGH, Justice.

APPEARANCES:

ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU, ESQ.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NEW YORK COUNTY

BY: SEAN McSLAPPAHAN, ESQ.

Assistant District Attorney

CASI ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

DIANE S. SALON

Official Court Reporter

THE CLERK: Case on trial, People of the State of New York against Juan Hurtado. The defendant, his defense attorney, the District Attorney and the sworn jurors are all present.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We have now completed jury selection. As we indicated to you during voir dire, we anticipate that this will be a very brief trial. I can now be more specific and tell you that we expect that you will hear from all of the witnesses in this case tomorrow morning, with you receiving the case to begin your deliberations probably some time around lunchtime tomorrow.

It’s too late in the day now to hear any witnesses since we usually make every effort to end court by five. There is time, however, for you to hear opening statements.

First, a couple of things about opening statements. Opening statements are not evidence. They are a rendition of what the attorney expects the evidence to show. Think of them as the table of contents in the beginning of a book or the previews of a movie.

Now as we discussed often during voir dire, the burden of proof in this case, and indeed in all criminal cases in this country, rests solely on the prosecutor. As a result he is required by law to give an opening statement in which he details what he expects to prove through the evidence presented. Conversely, the defendant and his attorney are not required to prove anything so the defense attorney is not required to give an opening statement although he may choose to do so if he wishes.

That said I now turn you over to Mr. McNappashaw for his opening statement. Mr. McNappashaw.

MR. McNAPPASHAW: Slap a hand.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. SLAPAHAND: Slap a hand.

THE COURT: Slap it yourself, let’s move on.

MR. SLAPAHAND: It’s McSlappahan Your Honor with all due respect and obsequiousness.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Go ahead Mr. McSlappashee.

MR. McSLAPPASHEE: Thank you. May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, defense counsel, Mr. Hurtado. This case is about crass opportunism. It’s about one man who works very hard and another who prefers to steal for a living.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. McSLAPPASHEE: On April 27th of last year, that man seated over there, Juan Hurtado, broke into a van belonging to the Salieri Construction and Remodeling Company. As a result, the grand jury in this case has handed down an indictment charging the defendant with the crime of Burglary in the Third Degree.