The Case of the Missing Department Head

by David Staats

  The best remaining chance would be to get the real murderer on the stand and provoke some self-incriminating statement. For this reason, Dure, after looking at the witness list which the prosecution had served on him, had served subpoenas on Snodhuis and Blackwell; both Parkers were already under subpoena. And Dawn Parker had hired a lawyer to try to quash her subpoena. Hmm.

  * * *

  The next morning at the hearing on Attorney Whittaker’s Motion to Quash, Whittaker tried to put Dure in a box: either explain why the defense needed Dawn Parker as a witness, or give up the subpoena. Dure did not want to give away information that would alert Parker to either his trial strategy or his reason for wanting her at trial. So Dure only explained his need for the witness in vague generalities: background information about the victim, and in a capital case, the defense should be given full latitude to defend without having to disclose its trial strategy.

  Fortunately for Dure, Judge Ozma, the young woman with the lime green fingernails, was impatient that morning and denied Whittaker’s motion without, seemingly, giving much attention to either lawyer’s argument.

  “I’ll renew the motion before the trial judge,” snarled Whittaker as he and Dure walked out of the courtroom.

  Thus were two hours of Dure’s time wasted on the day before trial.

  * * *

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” began Mr. Preston in his opening statement, “this is a simple case of extreme domestic violence. Medical evidence will show that Mrs. Tiffany Houlihan died a brutal death. You will see photographs of her decapitated body as it was found in the backyard of the marital home.

  “The Commonwealth will show, by testimony of neighbors, that there had been long-standing domestic strife between Mr. Houlihan and his wife.

  “Experienced police homicide detectives will testify that Mr. Houlihan called the police late Monday morning to report a dead body in his yard. When the police responded to the site, they found the body of Mrs. Houlihan in the condition which you will see in photographs. The detectives then interviewed Mr. Houlihan, who said that he had left home the preceding Friday at approximately 1:15 in the afternoon and did not return home until Monday morning, when he called the police. Mr. Houlihan, at that time, also denied having anything to do with the death of his wife.

  “Testimony of medical experts will establish the probable time of death as being from Friday morning to early Friday afternoon – a time frame during which Mr. Houlihan admittedly was at home.

  “Police detectives will testify that from the beginning, their interest centered on Mr. Houlihan, and that in the course of their investigation they did not find any suspects with motive or opportunity other than Mr. Houlihan. The detectives will tell you, from the witness stand, that after ten days of investigation, they re-interviewed Mr. Houlihan, at which time . . . he broke down and confessed to killing his wife.” Preston paused here to let that sink in. “At the request of the detectives, Mr. Houlihan signed a written statement confessing to the murder. The Commonwealth will introduce into evidence a video recording of the confession and the original document signed by Mr. Houlihan, and you will be able to examine it in the jury room.

  “At the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth believes that you will be convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Mr. Howard Houlihan, the man sitting at the defense table, right over there, did willfully and with malice aforethought, kill and murder his wife, and that you will return a verdict of Guilty.

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention.”

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” said Dure, looking remarkably handsome in a freshly pressed suit, but still with his habitual glum expression, “If there were a genuine, good-faith confession in this case, then why have the police not recovered the murder weapon? And why have they not recovered the head? The defense is not going to dispute that the poor woman was murdered. But the question at issue will be: who did it? Who did it?

  “Are you going to believe that someone would confess to a murder, and then, as if it were some kind of game, some crazy version of hide-and-seek, refuse to disclose what he did with the murder weapon, and where he disposed of part of the body?

  “Ladies and gentlemen, watch for what the prosecution does not tell you. There will be no eyewitness to the killing. There will be no fingerprints of Mr. Houlihan on any instrumentality of death. There will be no murder weapon introduced into evidence. There will be no evidence of the whereabouts of the poor woman’s head.

  “When you have seen all the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, you will be left wondering what happened. It will be a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  “Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your kind attention, and I invite your closest attention to the trial that is to follow. For a man’s life is at stake. Mr. Houlihan could have plea-bargained, but instead, trusting in his innocence, he gives his fate to the judgment of a jury –”

  “Objection!” said Mr. Preston. “Highly improper for the defense to mention plea negotiations.”

  “Your honor,” said Dure, “I mentioned no negotiations, but merely said that Mr. Houlihan did not choose to plea bargain.”

  “Mr. Dure,” said the judge, “you were just about to conclude your opening?”

  “I was, Your Honor.”

  “You have just a sentence or two?”

  “Half a sentence, Your Honor,”

  “Alright, you finish and let’s move this case along.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor,” said Dure

  “Ladies and gentlemen, as I was saying, Mr. Houlihan is trusting his fate to the fair and impartial judgment of a jury of his peers. Thank you.”

  Live-blogging from the court in the Houlihan trial. [post] Opening statements just completed. The defense opening statement was well delivered, but short on substance. Either the defense doesn’t have much, or defense attorney Dure is holding back for tactical reasons. [post] Torvald Bornstein’s head was bowed down as he concentrated on his typing. He did not notice the bailiff go up to the side of the bench and claim the judge’s attention.

  After talking with the bailiff, the judge scooted his chair over to the center of the bench. “I have been informed that someone in the courtroom is using an electronic device.” The judge looked at the bailiff, who had gone to the barrier separating the well of the court from the spectator seating, and was pointing directly at Bornstein.

  “Stand up, Sir,” said the judge.

  “Who, me?” said Bornstein, looking up suddenly, startled.

  “You,” said the judge. “What are you doing?”

  Bornstein seemed to know that he had been caught and seemed desperate for an answer. “What am I doing?” he asked.

  “That’s right, what are you doing?” said the judge, in a deadpan, ironic tone of voice. He too seemed to know that Bornstein had been caught, and because of Bornstein’s evasiveness, was going to enjoy his unmasking.

  “I’m . . . I’m just typing.”

  “And what are you typing on?” asked the judge.

  Bornstein held up his i-pad.

  “Is that an electronic device capable of transmitting outside of this courtroom?” asked the judge. Without waiting for an answer, he said, “Bailiff, bring that device to the bench.”

  As the bailiff was moving to carry out the judge’s instructions, Bornstein said, “Yes, sir.”

  “My Standing Order is very clear that electronic devices capable of transmission are not permitted in jury trials. That means Blackberries, smart phones . . . and i-pads.”

  The bailiff carried the i-pad to the bench. The judge looked at the i-pad. “You are making public commentary on the trial?” he asked Bornstein.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And transmitting your commentary presumably to some blog or news site or something similar?”

  “To the Coke’s Law Blog,” said Bornstein.

  “I appreciate your cando
r,” said the judge. “Because of that, I am only going to sentence you to twenty-four hours in jail. I had thought of five days. I find you in contempt of court for violating the Standing Order of this Court. Let the record show that the contempt occurred in open court. The Court will also confiscate the electronic device which was used in the contempt. The sentence will start immediately. Bailiff, take the gentleman into custody.”

  The courtroom was silent while Bornstein was removed by the bailiff.

  “Proceed, Mr. Preston,” said the judge, when Bornstein was gone.

  The prosecution called Cleveland McCann, M.D., medical examiner. Dr. McCann testified that based on his examination of the corpse that the woman was dead, that she had been decapitated, that she had not committed suicide, that the probable time of death was from Friday morning to early Friday afternoon, that this determination was based on the contents of the deceased’s stomach, that she appeared to have eaten something fatty that would take some time to digest, that it probably was cheese, and that the deceased had probably consumed it at lunch time.

  “No further question,” said Preston.

  Dure was whispering to his client. “One of the things I want to do,” he said, “is emphasize to the point of ridiculousness that the prosecution has not located the head.”

  “Counsellor?” said the judge.

  Dure stood to cross-examine. “Doctor, you did not examine a corpse, did you?”

  “Of course I did.”

  “Isn’t it true that you examined a body part without a head?

  “I examined a corpse without a head.”

  “Well, a body without a head is not a corpse, isn’t that right?”

  “You can call it a corpse.”

  “Well, you can call a Buick a hot air balloon, can’t you?”

  “I suppose.”

  “You suppose? Isn’t it true that you can call a Buick a hot air balloon?”

  “Yes.”

  “But a Buick is not a hot air balloon, isn’t that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “So, I repeat, you did not examine a corpse, did you?”

  “I repeat, I did.”

  “Is a head important?”

  “Is a head important? Yes, a head is important.”

  “A corpse is a dead human being?”

  “Yes.”

  “And a human being is not complete without a head, isn’t that right?”

  “I suppose.”

  “You suppose? Would you consider yourself a human being if you didn’t have a head?”

  “Counsellor!” said the judge.

  “It’s cross-examination, Your Honor,” said Dure.

  “Come to the point, counsellor,” admonished the judge.

  Dure turned again to the witness. “This thing which you examined, and which you want to call a corpse, did not have a head?”

  “No.”

  “That being so, you did not examine the teeth of this body part, did you?”

  “No.”

  “And that being so, no check of dental records could be made for purposes of identification, isn’t that so?”

  “Yes.”

  “So you have no idea of the identity of the person to whom this body part belonged?”

  “Identifying the deceased was not part of my duties.”

  “Would you please answer my question: you have no idea of the identity of the person to whom this body part belonged?”

  “I did not identify the corpse, no.”

  “You did not note the existence of any tattoos on the body part that you examined?”

  “I don’t recall noting any, no.”

  “In fact, you did not record in your report any peculiar identifying characteristics on the body part which you examined?”

  “The corpse was in a state of partial decomposition.”

  “Would you please answer my question: you did not record in your report any peculiar identifying characteristics on the body part which you examined?”

  “I don’t recall.”

  “Would you like to review your report to refresh your memory?”

  “Thank you.”

  Dure went to the defense table and retrieved a copy of the doctor’s report. “Your Honor, may I approach the witness?”

  “You may,” said the judge.

  Dure gave the report to the doctor, then said, “Take your time, doctor.”

  “No, I don’t see any.”

  “So, based on your examination, doctor, there is no way that the identity of the deceased could be determined?”

  “Not on my report, no. But again, identifying the deceased was not part of my duties.”

  “Thank you, doctor. Now doctor, you gave as your opinion that the cause of death was decapitation, isn’t that so?”

  “Yes.”

  “But isn’t it possible that the corpse lost its head after the person was dead?”

  “I suppose so.”

  “You do a lot of supposing, doctor. Isn’t it possible that the corpse lost its head after the person was dead, yes or no?”

  “That is medically possible, yes.”

  “Medically possible. It is also non-medically possible, isn’t that right?”

  “I don’t know what you mean by “non-medically.” My job is to render a medical opinion.”

  “The point is, a head can be cut off a corpse, whether by a doctor or a butcher, or anybody else?”

  “Yes.”

  “And in point of fact, wouldn’t it be easier to cut the head off a corpse than off a living person?”

  “I suppose so.”

  “You suppose so. Don’t you know, or is that beyond your medical expertise?”

  “It seems reasonable. I haven’t tried it myself.”

  There was laughter in the courtroom.

  “You examined the body part for signs of struggle, did you not?”

  “I examined the corpse for scratches, bruises, foreign matter, things that would indicate struggle or resistance, yes.”

  “And you found none, isn’t that right?”

  “You have to remember that the corpse was in a state of partial decomposition.”

  “Doctor, would you please answer my question: you found no signs of struggle, did you?”

  “No.”

  “Doctor, in your medical opinion, wouldn’t the fact of absence of signs of struggle indicate that the deceased was already dead when the head was removed?”

  “I can’t answer that on account of the decomposition which had taken place. There might have been signs of struggle which were lost.”

  “Doctor, you did toxicological tests?”

  “I did not, but I understand that they were done.”

  “And the results were made available to you?”

  “Yes.”

  “And did you take those results into account when rendering your opinion about the cause of death?”

  “Yes.”

  “And those tests were for commonly abused substances?”

  “Basically, yes.”

  “A test was done for the presence of alcohol?”

  “Yes, but you have to consider the time factor. Alcohol may have been metabolized, or may have evaporated.”

  “No alcohol was found?”

  “No.”

  “A test was done for marijuana?

  “For cannabis, yes.”

  “For methamphetamines?’”

  “Yes. And their metabolites.”

  “And all of these tests returned negative results?”

  “Yes.”

  “Was a test done for arsenic?”

  “Not to my knowledge.”

  “Was a test done for any substance commonly used as a poison.”

  “It is not possible to test for everything.”

  “So the answer is, no tests were done for substances commonly used as poisons?”

  “Not to my knowledge.”

  “So, doctor, it would be possible, that the deceased was poisoned, and thereafter, the he
ad was taken off, isn’t that right?”

  “I-I, I couldn’t say.”

  “Come now, doctor, the woman could have been poisoned, and after she was dead, her head could have been removed, isn’t that right?”

  “That would be speculation.”

  “You’re right. That would be speculation. And I am asking you if that speculation is admissible from a medical point of view?”

  “I couldn’t say.”

  “In fact, doctor, the deceased could have died from any number of causes, and after death, the head removed?”

  “I’m not willing to speculate.”

  “In fact, your opinion that the deceased died from decapitation is speculation?”

  “Whatever else may have occurred, the body was decapitated, which would be a sufficient cause of death.”

  “You’ve admitted that no tests were done to determine whether the deceased was poisoned.”

  “Not that I know of.”

  “So, the deceased could have died from poisoning?”

  “I suppose.”

  “She could have died from a gunshot wound to the head?”

  “I suppose.”

  “She could have died from a knife wound cutting the carotid artery?”

  “Possibly.”

  “The fact is, she could have died from any number of causes, and you don’t have a clue as to what the real cause of death might have been?”

  The doctor did not answer.

  “Doctor? Did you hear the question?”

  “No.”

  “Should I repeat it?”

  “No, I mean, I heard the question . . . I don’t know.”

  Here Dure stopped questioning and went to the defense table and stood still, staring at his papers. The courtroom was quiet. He shuffled among his papers for several moments. Then with papers in hand, he returned to the podium. With more questions, he got the doctor to admit that contrary to his written opinion, the time of death could have occurred anytime between Friday morning and Saturday afternoon; and that it was difficult to tell on account of the decomposition of the body. It was just after one o’clock and the judge declared recess for lunch.

  When the court reconvened, the prosecution called Elfina Thistle to the stand. She testified that she lived one street over from the Houlihans. One Saturday, mid-morning, she had been walking her dog and passed by the Houlihans’ house. She heard “extremely loud” screaming coming from the backyard of the Houlihans’ house. She stood there for a few moments because her dog was marking his territory, and she heard, “You don’t tell me what to do! Who are you? How do you have the nerve to even take up space? Useless!” It was a woman’s voice, shrill, so high-pitched, and under such pressure, that it almost cracked.