Marc Kadella Legal Mysteries Vol 1-6 (Marc Kadella Series)

by Dennis Carstens

  “Positively? I don’t, except he swore to me this would happen and he wanted it on record that his client adamantly refused to even consider a plea. He knew Slocum’s office would make an offer and his client would turn it down. And he predicted Slocum would leak it to the media that Kadella made the offer and the prosecution turned him down. Less than an hour after court adjourned today that’s exactly what happened.”

  “Late Friday afternoon would be the perfect time to do it too,” Eyler chimed in. “It’ll be all over TV and the papers all weekend. The jurors are bound to hear about it.”

  “So, what do we do?” Oswood asked somewhat rhetorically as he leaned back, locked his fingers behind his head and looked at the two women.

  “I say we scoop everybody and report the lie. I’ll go on the air and report what I told you. Kadella called me and warned me this would happen,” Gabriella said.

  “And Slocum’s office will deny it,” Eyler said.

  The two of them, Eyler and Gabriella politely argued about it for almost two minutes with Eyler mostly playing the part of devil’s advocate.

  “Okay, here’s what we will do,” Oswood announced. Madison Eyler was the station G.M. and Oswood’s boss. Oswood, being the news director, normally had the final word on what went on the air. “I think we can have it both ways. We’ll go with the story tonight that Kadella made the offer. ‘Sources have informed us that…’ blah, blah, blah. Then,” he continued looking at Gabriella, “you try to get Kadella on camera tomorrow for a rebuttal.”

  “What if he refuses?” Gabriella said in a bit of a sulk.

  “Then he does,” Oswood said. “If that happens then he doesn’t get to go on and confirm that he called you ahead of time and told you this would happen.”

  “I did not want to say this, Gabriella,” said Eyler, “but if we do it your way we’ll have problems getting information out of Slocum’s office in the future. We can’t afford to damage that relationship.”

  “That’s a crock!” Gabriella steamed.

  “No, it isn’t and you know it,” Oswood interjected.

  Gabriella looked at both of them, took a deep breath, sighed and said, “Putting Marc on the air on Saturday won’t correct the damage to his client. Slocum’s office is using us and….”

  “It really sucks,” Oswood admitted. “But this is the way we’re going to handle it. Life is a two-way street and after this trial we’ll still have to deal with the county attorney on other matters.”

  Marc was seated in a client chair in front of Connie Mickelson’s desk. It was almost five o’clock and the two of them were the only ones still there. Connie liked to kick the staff out a little early on Friday afternoons, at least as often as she could.

  The two of them were going over the jury selection and Marc was bouncing a couple of ideas off his good friend. The office phone rang and Connie answered it.

  “Yes, he’s right here,” Marc heard Connie say.

  She covered the mouthpiece on the phone and whispered, “It’s Aaron Forsberg. You want to take it in your office?”

  “No,” Marc answered as he reached for the phone. “I’ll talk to him here. Marc Kadella,” he said into the phone, “what can I do for you, Aaron?”

  “I thought you’d like to know, the cops are still watching me. Even though they arrested Traynor and Parlow is dead, apparently they’re not completely convinced I’m not involved.”

  Marc was listening as he jotted down the date, time and a note about the substance of the call.

  “Thanks for the update. Anything else?”

  “No, that’s it. If anything else happens, I’ll let you know,” Forsberg said.

  “This is very interesting. I appreciate the call and keep me informed.”

  Craig Slocum knocked once as a courtesy then went into the conference room that Harris and Ramsey were using. Paul Ramsey was gone for the evening leaving Tommy Harris to wait for Slocum.

  “Did we get the information out to all of the media that we wanted to?” Slocum asked as he sat down.

  “We did,” Harris answered him. “It should be all over the news for the next couple of days. The jurors are bound to hear about it.”

  “Good. What about the flawed DNA test? The one that got this Traynor released from prison. What did you decide about it?” Slocum asked.

  Harris paused for a moment then said, “I think I should bring it out right away in my opening statement.”

  “I agree. If you don’t, Kadella will find a way to bring it up. He’s a sneaky little bastard. Better to bring it out into the open, use it as a motive so you can control it. What about the surveillance by the police?”

  “We have to tell the jury ourselves, Boss,” Harris said.

  Inwardly Slocum loved being called Boss. To him it was a clear, succinct statement of who was in charge. Harris made sure everyone in the office knew Slocum preferred the title. Because of this, very few of the staff or lawyers referred to Slocum this way.

  “I agree. Since you can clearly show how he managed to slip away, don’t leave it for Kadella. I’m off to a fundraiser,” Slocum said. He rose to leave then added, “Win this, Tommy, and you’ll soon be working for Governor Slocum.”

  FORTY-NINE

  Marc found Howie and Father John already in the courtroom and waiting for him. He shook hands with both men then directed the priest to the empty chair with the “Reserved” sign on it. Marc made sure that the court deputies would reserve the aisle seat for Father John in the front row directly behind the defense table. Judge Koch would not allow him to sit at the table with Howie but she did agree to set this seat aside for him.

  While Howie took his seat at the defense table, Marc walked up to the clerk’s desk and told Andy Combs, Koch’s clerk, he needed to see the judge. Marc motioned for Howie and the two prosecutors and Combs led them back to chambers.

  “Your Honor,” Marc said to her, “I want the jury polled before we get started.”

  “About what?” she asked although she suspected what it was.

  “Friday afternoon, Mr. Harris made a plea offer to my client which was promptly turned down. Within an hour, every news outlet in the Cities and many national ones as well, were reporting that I made the offer to them and they turned it down. Obviously, this was promptly leaked to make my client look guilty.”

  “I resent that!” Harris blurted out.

  “Give me a break,” Judge Koch said. “Did you or did you not make the offer as Mr. Kadella said?”

  “Well, yes but…”

  “Then why was it reported so quickly the other way? I saw the news myself and he’s right, it does make his client look guilty,” Koch said.

  Paul Ramsey, who had nothing to do with this, looked calm and relaxed. Tommy Harris, on the other hand looked like a little kid who just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow.

  “Before you open your mouth and lie to me,” Koch continued looking directly at Harris, “there better not be any more of these little games Craig Slocum likes to play. Do I make myself clear?”

  Harris sat silently not sure what to say.

  “I’ll be out in a few minutes. We’ll start opening statements then,” she finished looking up at the lawyers. “I don’t think we need to poll the jury. That would only serve to make sure they know about this.”

  Marc had the same thought. In fact, the reason he brought the subject up was to let Koch know the prosecution pulled this little stunt. Prosecutors love to claim they won’t try the case in the media but almost never miss an opportunity to leak damaging news to them.

  Tommy Harris went first and for the next hour and a half did a very credible job with his opening statement. The opening statement is the first opportunity for each side to address the jury as a whole. It is also another opportunity to make a good impression on them of yourself and your case. Not wanting to bore them, Harris walked them through the case competently explaining what the witnesses would tell them and the evidence they would
see.

  “Ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to be told that the defendant was under surveillance during the time of these murders. Originally, he was watched by private investigators and retired police officers. There was then a gap of a few days after which the police themselves put him under surveillance.

  “Now, this may sound like an airtight alibi but it’s not. We will show you and present you with the physical evidence how the defendant evaded the police to commit these brutal, vicious murders.

  “And when we are done, you will have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Howard Traynor is guilty. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.”

  While Harris led the jury through the prosecution’s case, Marc listened very attentively. It was the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of every crime charged in the indictment. If Harris told the jury they would see or hear evidence or testimony about something and then failed to present it, Marc would use that in his closing argument. A significant part of a defense lawyer’s job is to make sure the prosecution delivered and made their case. If they failed to do so, if they were unable to provide sufficient evidence of a single part of a crime charged, then the verdict for that particular crime, must be a not guilty,

  Before Marc began, Koch called him and the prosecutors up to the bench.

  “How long?” she asked.

  “Not very,” Marc replied. “I’ll be done by lunchtime,” he assured her.

  “Okay, we’ll take a short break then you can begin.”

  It was after 11:30 by the time Marc started. His job, which of course he did not tell the jury, was to poke holes in the prosecution’s case and create reasonable doubt. Because of this, he used his opening statement to make a couple of significant points.

  The first was to get the jury to like him and to make them start thinking that, “if this amiable, well-dressed, nice-looking man was on the defendant’s side then perhaps Howie Traynor isn’t the blood-thirsty monster the prosecution claimed.”

  Marc spoke slowly, clearly and even casually to them, walking up and down the jury box, making eye contact with each and smiling when appropriate.

  The second part of his opening statement was to remind them of the law and the legal responsibility of the prosecution. Even though everyone with a TV in America has heard of the burden of proof, presumption of innocence and the legal term beyond a reasonable doubt, Marc made sure each juror heard and understood them again and promised to abide by their oath.

  Before he began, he made the decision not to try to refute what Harris had told them. He would do that as the trial went along. Plus, there was no reason to reveal his strategy yet. He would keep that to himself and not warn Harris what he was up to.

  In reality, Marc didn’t have much of a case to present. The only real defense Howie had was an alibi and the small amount of physical evidence. The cops and Tony Carvelli had him under surveillance at the time of most of the murders. Harris’ claim that they knew how Howie evaded this surveillance was mostly speculation backed up by virtually no physical evidence.

  The first witness for the prosecution would be the lead investigator, Detective Owen Jefferson. He was called forward, sworn in and took the witness stand. Jefferson would spend the remainder of that day and most of the next two giving testimony.

  Harris began by slowly tossing easy, open-ended questions to him. They spent the first fifteen to twenty minutes giving the jury a detailed account of Jefferson’s record as a police officer. By the time Harris finished with this, even Marc was impressed. It was about this time that Marc noticed something that made him smile. Jefferson had removed the tiny gold stud he normally wore in his left ear. Marc made the decision not to bring this up on cross-exam. It would be objectionable and could easily look petty, almost childish.

  For a first-degree murder conviction there are several particular elements that must be proven for each charge. The first, of course, the death of the victim must be proven. Jefferson was not a qualified medical examiner but as an experienced homicide detective he could testify that each victim was, in fact, dead. He could also tell the jury that he had read the autopsy and what it contained as to the cause of death. The M.E. would come later, to expertly verify that fact and testify as to what the cause of death was.

  The prosecution must also prove that whoever killed each victim did so with the express intent to kill him or her. Jefferson would testify about what he personally saw when he looked over each body. He would testify about the type of wound he observed, the blood covered abdomen and in most cases, the hands nailed down. The M.E. would later testify that the wounds and the slit throats could only be done with intent to kill. It is an opinion and not a fact but as an experienced M.E. he can give his opinion and the jury can take it or leave it. First degree murder requires that the act was committed with malice aforethought. Essentially this means that whoever did it planned it ahead of time. This does not require significant planning over any specific period of time. It does not require a confession. The jury can infer from the physical evidence of the wounds and how the bodies were posed that murder was what the perpetrator had in mind and planned it ahead of time.

  The death must have occurred in Hennepin County. Since the victims were all found there and there was no evidence to believe the act took place elsewhere, the jury is free to believe this was where each happened.

  Fourth, the defendant did not commit the homicide in the heat of passion. He must not have done it because he was provoked by the victim to such an extent that an ordinary person would have acted the same way. If this happened, if the defendant was provoked by the victim, then the defendant is guilty of first-degree manslaughter and not murder.

  This is a claim to be made by the defense, the act was done in the heat of passion, is what is legally known as an affirmative defense. What this means is that it is up to the defense to prove that the defendant was provoked by the victim. Obviously this did not happen to any of the Crown of Thornes victims.

  Finally, and this is the most crucial element and at the heart of this case, it must be proven that the defendant did it. Marc’s job was to poke enough holes in the prosecution’s case to create reasonable doubt about Howie Traynor’s guilt, the SODDI, “some other dude did it” defense. The defense is under no obligation to prove who that is. They need only provide the jury with reasonable doubt that the defendant did it.

  There were also several other charges included in the indictment. Howie was also charged with second-degree murder for each victim as well. Second-degree requires all of the elements of first degree except premeditation. If the jury believes the defendant did not plan to kill, they can fall back on second-degree.

  There were also several burglary charges involving the deaths of Rhea Watson and Judge Ross Peterson. Whoever murdered them broke into their homes with intent to commit a crime. And there was a single kidnapping charge in the death of Elliot Sanders, the foreman from Howie’s original trial.

  Most of these charges were added just to illustrate what a bad person Howie Traynor truly was, to inflame the jury to conclude he was, if not an animal, at least a bit subhuman, and someone of whom society needed to rid itself. This can also blow back on the prosecution. If they can’t prove the lesser charges, did they really prove the big ones?

  FIFTY

  Through Jefferson’s testimony, Harris explained each of the murders included in the indictment. They proceeded in chronological order and began with Rhea Watson first.

  Jefferson began by testifying about a report from Beltrami County of an appeals court judge having been murdered. Marc objected to this testimony as irrelevant since Howie was not charged with this crime and highly prejudicial. This issue had been argued prior to the trial and Koch had ruled it admissible as to similarity of crime. Marc believed the judge was wrong and objected on the trial record in front of the jury to preserve the issue for appeal. Koch quickly overruled Marc’s objection and Jefferson continued.

&n
bsp; “After you arrived at the home of Rhea Watson, what did you do next?” Harris asked.

  On direct-examination, this is the type of question that is supposed to be used. An open-ended question that does not suggest what the answer is. This kind of question allows the witness to tell the jury what he or she saw or did. Preparing a witness by literally practicing his testimony is not only allowed but any reasonably competent lawyer had better do this. Putting words in his mouth and telling him what to say is grossly unethical and not allowed. But practicing a witness’ testimony to get it down smoothly is absolutely necessary.

  “I spoke with the officer who was the first responder, Sergeant Norman Anderson. He told me what he found in the house and who the victim was.”

  “How did he know who the victim was?”

  “We both knew her. She was a former prosecutor in the county attorney’s office,” Jefferson said.

  “What did you do next?”

  “I spoke to the two women from Watson’s law firm, her new employer, who had called the police.”

  Jefferson went on to tell the jury what they had to say. This was technically hearsay, but since it was basically harmless and had nothing to do with who might have done it, Marc did not object. Objecting too much can give the jury the impression you are trying to hide something from them. Besides, Marc knew the women would be called to testify themselves.

  The next part of Jefferson’s testimony would bring gruesome shock to the jury. Jefferson told them how he went into the house and downstairs to the basement to examine the body. When Harris reached this point, he obtained permission to approach his witness. It was granted and Harris handed Jefferson an 8 x 10 full-color print of a photo.

  “Detective Harris, I have handed you a photo marked State’s Exhibit A, is this an accurate photo of what you found in the basement?”

  “Yes,” he answered holding the print, “that’s her.”

  A wide screen, high definition TV had been set up in front of the jury. When Jefferson verified the photo of Rhea Watson, Paul Ramsey hit a key on his laptop and the same picture appeared on the screen. It was a shot of the posed, naked, blood-covered body of Rhea Watson. She was wearing the barbed wire crown and her hands were nailed into the cinder block wall she was up against.