There was no counting sheep. No counting stars. He lay in his bed most of the night in a cold sweat, his imagination running wild.
11
THE HEARING
As Dewitt entered the Monterey County Courtroom in Salinas on the morning of Thursday, January twenty-sixth, Leala Mahoney was at the defense table, standing as she read from a folder. Green-eyed, long-legged, she had the learned, professional look—a tight-fitting gray suit, a sumptuous white linen blouse, sheer white stockings encompassing deliciously firm calves, and shiny black Italian pumps. She carried a yellow pencil behind her right ear—a nice schoolmarm touch. Her fingernails were painted bright red, as were her apparently wet lips. A judge killer.
He approached the two tables to leave off some last-minute paperwork for Saffeleti.
“Mr. Dewitt,” she said, noticing him.
“Ms. Mahoney.”
“You received proper notice of the search warrant?”
He studied her more carefully, irked by her controlled contempt. “Yes.” He couldn’t resist asking, “Your doing?”
She shrugged. “You’ll find out soon enough, Dewitt. I thought you were known for your patience.”
He deposited the folder on the prosecution’s table and found a seat in the churchlike pews of the gallery, Nelson arrived after a few minutes, as did Clare, Dr. Frederick Hart, and a good many reporters.
Capp, Marvin Wood, Peter Tilly, Dr. Harold Christiansen, Hector Ramirez, Clare, and, in the very back, several uniforms.
The room resembled an advertisement for wall paneling and acoustical ceiling tile. The carpet was an indistinguishable brownish gray, the two flags on either side of the raised judge’s podium, lifeless, the California state seal on the wall directly behind and above where the judge would sit. An easel with a huge sheet of blank paper stood next to the witness stand.
Quinn was led in and seated on Mahoney’s left, wearing the shameful orange jump suit afforded all prisoners.
“All rise for the Honorable Alberto Danieli,” cried the bailiff’s deep male voice.
Danieli, in his early forties, had dark hair flecked with gray, a strong Roman nose, and drawn cheeks. He was a slight man even encumbered in the black robe.
Saffeleti looked smashing in a dark pin-stripe and a pinned collar. He wore a patriotic tie of red, white, and blue.
The drone of forced air poured from the ceiling vents. Dewitt looked up at the vent and pictured how Quinn had killed his victims. He banged his thumbs together nervously.
Clare wore a conservative navy blue suit, dark hose, and patent-leather heels. She had on oversized glasses with dark frames. She looked like an attorney herself. She carried a heavy briefcase, which rested at her feet. Her left hand was strangling a small handkerchief. No jewelry other than small gold studs in her ears.
Danieli said in a metallic voice that sounded overused, “The matter before the Court is a preliminary hearing in file thirteen-nine-seven-one, entitled State of California versus Michael Quinn. Is that your correct name?”
“Yes, sir,” answered Quinn.
“The record should reflect the defendant is present with defense counsel. The state is represented by Bill Saffeleti, District Attorney for Monterey County. I am Judge Alberto Danieli. Is the state ready to proceed?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
“How about the defendant?”
Mahoney said, “Defense is ready, Your Honor.”
“Do you wish the complaint read or the formal reading of it, or do you waive that?”
“We will waive that. I would, however, like to make a motion at this time to exclude witnesses.”
“So ruled.”
“Your Honor,” Saffeleti said, “the state designates James Dewitt as investigating officer to assist.”
“Fine,” Danieli said confidently. “Detective Dewitt, you will join Mr. Saffeleti up front at the table, please. All other witnesses, you will be sequestered outside of the courtroom and will be called at the appropriate time. Thank you.” There was some confusion and quite a bit of commotion for the next few minutes as names were read and witnesses, including Clare, left the courtroom. By the time the preliminary hearing was ready to resume, the gallery held only a handful of the curious, a half-dozen reporters, and two sketch artists.
“The state may call its first witness.”
“Thank you, Your Honor. If I could have the clerk first mark some exhibits, I think it will speed things up.” This took several minutes. “The state would call Detective Sergeant James Dewitt.”
Dewitt stood, tucked in his shirt, and straightened his tie.
After being sworn in, Dewitt took the witness stand, a familiar seat to him from his days as a lab technician. Saffeleti approached.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
OF JAMES DEWITT
BY MR. SAFFELETI
SAFFELETI: For the record, please state your name.
DEWITT: James Dewitt.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I’m an investigator with the Carmel Police Department.
Q. What are your duties as an investigator?
A. I investigate all cases above traffic citations that occur within the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Q. All crimes?
A. I’m the only detective.
Q. How many years have you been involved in law enforcement?
A. Approximately fifteen.
Q. As a detective?
A. No. Years ago I was a patrolman briefly, then a forensic investigator, and later director of the Department of Justice’s Criminalistics Laboratory in Salinas.
Q. Detective Dewitt, have you received any special training in law enforcement?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Will you please describe for the Court the experience you have received, the training that you have received?
A. I have attended the FBI’s National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. I’ve also attended training seminars with the California Department of Justice.
Q. How long was the FBI course that you attended?
A. A quarter… a college semester. I also hold a degree in forensic science.
Q. What were the subjects of that FBI course?
A. We covered all subjects from evidence collection to processing; chromatography to biochemistry.
Q. Detective Dewitt, I’d like to direct your attention to January tenth of this month, shortly after six in the morning. Were you on duty?
A. I was on-call, yes. I was summoned to a crime scene. A DBF—Dead Body Found.
Q. A homicide?
A. No. At that point it was believed to be a suicide.
Saffeleti led Dewitt through the evidence collection for both the Osbourne and McDuff crime scenes, the detective explaining how the sand missing from the bottom of Osbourne’s shoes prompted an investigation that eventually led them to Marvin Wood’s trailer.
Q. That was a day- or nighttime search warrant?
A. It was a daytime search warrant.
Q. Who assisted in the search?
A. The main assistant in the search was Detective Peter Tilly of the Seaside Police Department.
Q. What were your duties during that search?
A. My main duties were the service of the search warrant, supervision of the search itself, and evidence custodian… taking charge of all evidence, processing it, packaging it, and documenting it.
Q. What premises were searched?
A. The residence of Marvin Wood.
Q. Did you discover or locate any stolen property or suspected stolen property?
A. Yes, we did. A car stereo matching the description of that stolen from Mr. McDuff’s truck.
Q. Where did you locate this?
A. In a cardboard box adjacent to the water heater. There was other suspected stolen property, as well.
Q. Did you subsequently conduct an interrogation of Mr. Wood?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Wood indicate to you a general location where he may have stolen thi
s tape deck?
A. He did.
Q. And what was this general location?
A. He indicated he had stolen the tape deck from a vehicle parked at a motel.
Saffeleti then steered Dewitt through the investigative process concerning the tracing of the hardware store that sold the Plexiglas, the bike track and stores, and discovery of Harvey Collette and the murder of Howard Lumbrowski.
Q. Did the medical examiner’s report turn up any unusual evidence?
A. It did.
Q. And what was this evidence?
A. A key, a motel-room key.
Q. And did this key lead you to a particular location?
A. Not the key itself, no. The trace evidence combined with statements such as Mr. Wood’s led us to a general search area. A task force was organized and a search conducted. It was during this search that the key was found to open Room Twelve of the Just Rest’Inn motel.
Q. And is the man who was managing this motel in this courtroom today?
A. He is. The defendant, Michael Quinn.
Q. In your opinion, was Howard Lumbrowski aware of the procedures of a homicide investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. He knew an autopsy would be performed on his body?
A. Absolutely.
MAHONEY: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation. Theatrical nonsense! I move counsel’s question be stricken from the record.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MAHONEY: Your Honor, defense contends that this key is inadmissible on the grounds evidence was removed from the premises without warrant.
SAFFELETI: Removed?
MAHONEY: As to this key, we have yet to hear of its existence from the medical examiner. Furthermore, can it be proven where, how, or from whom Lumbrowski obtained that key? It could have been mailed to him. He could have found it on a sidewalk. His killer could have forced him to swallow it before killing him. The source of that key is entirely speculative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Judge Danieli leaned forward onto his elbows, and directed his next comment to Saffeleti.
THE COURT: The Court will endeavor to keep an open mind concerning this key. Certainly additional testimony will be allowed concerning this evidence. But as to its relevance in this case… that decision will be reserved until all the testimony is heard. That’s the very purpose of this hearing, is it not? Continue, Mr. Saffeleti.
SAFFELETI: Your Honor, may we approach?
***
Danieli nodded and switched off his microphone. Both attorneys approached the judge. From the witness seat, Dewitt could hear clearly, though he was certain the others in the courtroom could not.
In a hushed voice, Saffeleti said, “Your Honor, you’ll pardon the pun, but this is the key to our case. I’ve shown this court the connective tissue that leads us to the motel, but it’s the key that ties the body to the motel. I need a reversal here.”
“Mr. Saffeleti,” Danieli cautioned gravely, “this court will not be swayed by circumstantial evidence. You know that. The bleach on those fibers, dog hairs? Come on! You want me to bind him over,” he said, referring to Quinn, “then give me something irrefutable. Miss Mahoney’s being good to you. There have already been a half-dozen times she could have filled your ass with buckshot. And why hasn’t she? Because, like me, she knows you have yet to submit a single piece of irrefutable evidence linking her client to the crime.” Mahoney remained silent. “I’m not saying Dewitt hasn’t done his job, I’m sure he has, but you had better have more than this,” he said, dancing his eyebrows. “This hearing is about his rights,” he said, gesturing toward Quinn. “Keep that in mind, Counselor.”
Saffeleti and Mahoney stepped back. “I don’t have any more questions. Thank you very much.”
“Go ahead, Ms. Mahoney.”
“Thank you, Your Honor.”
She approached Dewitt slowly, her outrageous body attracting attention.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF JAMES DEWITT
BY MS. MAHONEY
MAHONEY: Detective Dewitt, would you tell the Court, please, how long you have actually been a detective?
DEWITT: Two months.
Q. Just two months?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you’ve investigated how many homicides?
A. Three, including Lumbrowski.
Q. Convictions?
A. None… but—
Q. Just answer the questions, please. So your entire experience as a homicide detective has been in the last week?
A. Two weeks. However, as a forensics investigator, I saw dozens of homicides.
THE COURT: The witness will just answer the questions, please.
Q. I have an affidavit here listing your qualifications. It seems to me—the way I read it—you’re more of a forensic investigator than a detective. To put it bluntly, Mr. Dewitt, you have to satisfy this Court that you have the wherewithal to conduct an investigation of this magnitude. I, for one, am not satisfied. Was your experience ever questioned by your superiors?
A. It was discussed.
Q. Did you have the full support of your department?
A. No. Not at first.
Q. Is it true that you were personally involved with Howard Lumbrowski on a case that eventually concluded with your wife’s tragic murder and your daughter’s permanent hospitalization?
A. Professionally involved. Not personally.
Q. You knew Howard Lumbrowski, did you not? Personally knew the man?
A. He was a police officer assigned to Seaside when I was director of the Salinas Criminalistics Laboratory. Of course I knew him.
Q. You worked with him on several cases, didn’t you? As a forensics investigator, I mean?
A. I just said I did.
Q. You worked with him on the Steven Miller case, did you not?
A. I just answered that also. The answer is yes.
Q. You lost that case, did you not?
A. I did not try that case. I was only an expert witness, as I am here.
Q. The state lost the case. In fact, Mr. Saffeleti lost that case, did he not?
A. No. He elected to drop charges and refile at a later date. As an attorney, I’m sure you understand that’s far from losing a case.
Q. On what grounds were the charges dropped?
“Objection!” Saffeleti hollered, coming to his feet, his frustration apparent. “What possible bearing—”
“Overruled,” the judge said immediately, waving his hand at Saffeleti. “I want to see where this is going, Mr. Saffeleti.” Then to Mahoney, he added, “And it had better be going somewhere, Counselor.”
***
Dewitt said reluctantly, “Insufficient evidence.”
Q. Evidence you collected?
A. Some of it. Yes.
Q. Some of it Mr. Lumbrowski collected?
A. Yes.
“And you were arrested by the police subsequent to that,” she said, reading a piece of paper. “Would you tell the court please on what charges.”
Saffeleti was quick to his feet. “Objection! Improper impeachment, Your Honor.”
Mahoney took long strides to her table, snapped up a blue soft-cover book, peeled it open, and read loudly:
“For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the crime—one—was punishable by death…”
To Dewitt, she said, “Was the crime you were accused of, punishable by death, Detective Dewitt?”
“I was acquitted. I was not convicted of any crime. But you know that, Ms. Mahoney. So I can only assume—”
“This is grandstanding, Your Honor,” Saffeleti complained. “Improper impeachment!”
THE COURT: Agreed. Ms. Mahoney, innuendo has no place in my courtroom. I am striking this last little bit of high drama.
MAHONEY: Your Honor, I am attempting to show bias or prejudice, which
is my responsibility to my client. If Your Honor would like an offer of proof, the defendant intends to show that Mr. Dewitt had no respect for the decedent, in fact, disliked the decedent and blamed him for his wife’s murder. Defense intends to show that Mr. Dewitt is not only inexperienced but is too emotionally involved in this case to conduct himself in an unbiased manner, and that, in fact, there remain unanswered questions as to Mr. Dewitt’s exact role in Mr. Lumbrowski’s murder.
***
The courtroom buzzed and Danieli called for quiet. Mahoney was staring Dewitt in the eye. The search warrant he had found on his front door suddenly weighed heavily upon him. What the hell was she after? She marched around the room, drawing everyone’s attention. “Have you ever threatened Mr. Lumbrowski with violence? I remind you that you are under oath, sir.”
Danieli complained: “Ms. Mahoney, does this look like a theater? You want to discuss procedures? You are, I will assume, familiar with the procedures of my courtroom, are you not? I’m calling a five-minute recess. The witness will remain on the stand. Ms. Mahoney, Mr. Saffeleti, you will join me in chambers.”
***
Saffeleti followed Mahoney through the door behind the dais and into the back hallway that led to chambers. Danieli was a small man. He motioned for them both to sit, and he slid up onto the edge of his walnut desk, the robe hanging like a dress. “Where the hell are you going with this, Ms. Mahoney?”
“Your Honor, I have a direction. In present company, that’s all I feel I should say.”
“The implication is that Dewitt may have acted in a criminal way. Is that actually your intention?” He waited. “You’ll answer that, Counselor.”
“It is, Your Honor.” She wouldn’t look at Saffeleti.
“Shit,” Danieli hissed. “You should have warned me of this development, Counselor. This is not the trial, I remind you. This is an evidentiary hearing.”
“The evidence isn’t there,” she said, looking over at Saffeleti. “The evidence, in fact, points in an entirely different direction. I’m not going to see my client put through the humiliation of a trial based on circumstantial evidence. This is a probable-cause hearing, Your Honor. Does the evidence presented show probable cause that my client may have been responsible? I maintain it does not.”
Probable Cause Page 23
