Natural Justice: A Legal Thriller (Tex Hunter Legal Thriller Series Book 6)

by Peter O'Mahoney

  “What?” Carlos laughed again. “You think it matters? You think I care whether you’re innocent or not? You’re stupider than you look.”

  Carlos stood up, winding up for another kick.

  “Wait.” Javier winced in pain. “Don’t do it.”

  “Then commit.” Carlos pressed.

  “If I get out, I’ll be your contact on the outside.”

  “See? That wasn’t so hard, was it? Easy.” Carlos clapped his hands together. “We stick together in here. And if you betray us on the outside, you die. The rules are simple.”

  Javier knew it was true. He knew it was going to be the case. When in solitary confinement, he thought he could survive in prison. He thought he could make it through a sentence. But he was beginning to realize he was wrong. He wouldn’t survive a year behind bars.

  He had a secret that he’d kept from his lawyer, and it was time to reveal it.

  Chapter 21

  “You didn’t tell me everything.” Hunter swung open the door to the meeting room next to the holding cells in the courthouse. “How do you expect me to win this trial when you haven’t told me the truth?”

  Javier sat at the table in his suit, head down, hair over his face, ready for the trial to begin. He looked up to the lawyer with a confused look on his face. Javier’s new suit did little to brighten his appearance. His face was gaunt and pale, his eyes looked sunken into his head. After the beating, he struggled to move his right side, making it hard to find a comfortable way to sit.

  After months of posturing, months of surviving the small city prison, the day had arrived, and Javier wasn’t sure what he could and couldn’t say. He wanted to tell the lawyer the truth. He wanted to tell Hunter everything he knew, but he also had to protect someone.

  The evidence against him was solid—bloodied clothes, witnesses saw him at the park, and a motive—but the secret he kept could allow him to walk out of court in a heartbeat. Javier wanted to tell the truth to the lawyer, he wanted to expose what he knew, but he didn’t know how.

  “I know,” Javier responded, his head down. “I was going to tell you the truth.”

  “When? We’re about to walk into a courtroom full of people who hate you, and I’ve only just talked to a witness who says they saw you walk out of Chief Richardson’s house on Elliston Avenue on the day before the murder. Do you want to explain to me why, Javier?”

  Javier shrugged and didn’t answer. He wanted to say something, anything, but the words wouldn’t come out.

  “Javier. I need you to be honest with me. Why were you seen leaving Chief Richardson’s house the night before the murder? How deep do these secrets go?”

  There was a knock at the door. It was the bailiff. He called out and told them it was time to prepare for court.

  “Who saw me on Elliston Avenue?” Javier questioned.

  “Someone walking past the house that night. They said they saw you exit Chief Richardson’s house at 10pm the night before the murder. Why haven’t you told me this? This could change everything. What are you hiding?”

  “I… I don’t know why they would say that.” He looked away, blinking back the tears. The internal turmoil was tearing him apart. “I didn’t know anyone could see me.”

  “Javier.” Hunter was firm. “We’re about to walk into a courtroom full of people who want to see you convicted and sent to prison for life. I need every chance I can get to win this case. Tell me why you were seen leaving his house.”

  “I… I can’t.” He looked to the floor. “I… can’t tell you the truth.”

  There was another knock at the door. “It’s time to go,” the bailiff called out. “The judge is ready, and Javier needs to be out there, now.”

  Javier kept his stare on the floor in front of him. There was another knock. Louder this time.

  Hunter stood, staring at Javier. “Javier, I need the truth.”

  The bailiff opened the door. “I said let’s move. I’ve got to get you into court before the judge arrives. He doesn’t like being left waiting.”

  Hunter kept his eyes on Javier for a moment, before he turned and walked out the door.

  It wasn’t just the chance to win that was slipping through his fingers. He was losing the chance to find out the truth about his family.

  Chapter 22

  Hunter walked out of the meeting room and into the hallway that led to Courtroom One. Waiting by the door was Tanner, a smug look washed across his face when he saw Hunter.

  “Finally decided to join us?” Tanner said. “Or is your client finally ready to confess to his sins?”

  Hunter stopped next to the entrance. He nodded back towards the crowd gathered in the foyer. “I see most of Longford has come out to see you lose this case.”

  “On the contrary. We like justice in Longford,” Tanner stated. “Everyone likes to see criminals put behind bars for crimes they committed. And as I told a news reporter this morning, this case is a celebration of justice and the whole city is invited for the show.”

  Hunter pushed open the doors to the courtroom to be confronted by a sea of brown, and Tanner followed him through. Carol was waiting in the row behind the defense table, and on the opposite side of the room, two junior prosecutors were discussing tactics for the case.

  They spent the morning in voir dire, the jury selection process, which proved to be a nightmare for Hunter. After half the pool was excluded due to their incomprehension of legal terms put before them, an additional quarter of the jury pool was dismissed due to their relationships with the deceased, witnesses, and Javier’s family. The remaining group didn’t look promising. Hunter used up his ten peremptory challenges, to strike a jury from the pool without cause, within the first fifteen members, as Judge Johnson refused 10 of the 15 ‘for cause’ challenges he presented to the court. The remaining twelve that survived the questions all denied they’d heard about the case and all denied they’d met Chad Townsend personally. The majority were middle-aged workers; some of them single, some with families. A female manager at a retail store. An accountant with five children. A chef, a farmer, and a school teacher. A Black mechanic, a retired Hungarian immigrant, and a former New Yorker who returned to Longford after his marriage broke down. Seven men, five women. Four alternatives were also chosen, people who would hear the evidence but take no part in the deliberations unless someone fell ill or was otherwise excused.

  After the jury was selected, Hunter filed another motion to move venues based on the makeup of the jury pool, however, Judge Johnson took little time in refusing it. Even with the statistics that stated every out-of-towner who went to court in Longford was convicted over the last five years, Judge Johnson barely spent fifteen minutes considering the motion. It was further grounds for appeal, grounds for throwing the case out on review, but Hunter wasn’t sure Javier would last that long behind bars.

  After the jury selection, the court took a brief recess. When the court doors opened, Hunter could hear the chattering noise from the foyer, full of people desperate to enter the courtroom and watch the show. Ten minutes later, the five rows of seats began to fill behind them. Hunter turned around and was met with glares from most of the crowd. A number of men stood by the back of the courtroom, most of them with their arms folded across their flannel shirts, and two bailiffs stood by the doors. In the row behind Hunter sat Carol, then Javier’s parents, who had arrived from Mexico, and Javier’s uncle and cousin next to them.

  The crowd hushed when the door to the side of the room opened, and Javier was escorted to the defense table. His suit was too big. He kept his eyes down as he walked to the table, too embarrassed by his situation to even look at his parents. There was grumbling from the crowd. There wasn’t much like the first day of a murder trial. Hectic and feverish, the atmosphere was an intense buzz.

  Hunter looked at the young man next to him. Not only was he the young man he was trying to save, but he was also the young man who held the key to the truth about the Hunter family’s past. Hunter w
rote a note on his legal pad and slid it in front of Javier. It read, ‘I need the truth.’ Javier read the page and then shook his head. Hunter was not only working against the system, he was not only working against the city of Longford, but he was also working against a client who wasn’t telling him the whole truth.

  When the bailiff called the room to order, the tension was thick and heavy. Judge Johnson walked into the courtroom, in no rush to begin the trial. Once he sat down, he looked over the files, groaned, coughed deeply, and then raised his eyes to look at the packed courtroom before him.

  With a firm voice, Judge Johnson acknowledged the parties in the court and announced the procedure for the defendant. When instructed, the bailiff walked to the door in the front left corner of the room, opened it and directed the members of the jury to their seats. The twelve people to decide Javier’s fate walked in, and they all looked at Javier first. Two snarled, seemingly already marking him as guilty before they’d heard a word of the trial.

  After Judge Johnson spoke to the jury about their responsibilities, explaining the charges were lodged under Illinois Criminal Code Chapter 720, Section 5/9-1, first degree murder, and what that meant, he took them through the purpose of the opening statement.

  “The opening statement is not an argument, nor is it a testimony,” he said. “It’s merely a roadmap for the case, and a forecast of what the evidence will show. The lawyers will not set forth the inferences which they think should be ascended from the proof. The lawyers will simply tell you what the actual evidence will be.”

  Judge Johnson looked down at Matthew Tanner, a warning with his glare. In a circumstantial case, the prosecution needs a way to tie all the pieces together, a way to convince the jury that the pieces make the whole puzzle, without directly saying it, and suggestions from the opening statement was the easiest way to do it.

  Once Judge Johnson was satisfied the jurors understood his instructions, he invited prosecutor Matthew Tanner to begin his argument.

  *****

  “Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is Matthew Tanner, and this is my colleague, Mrs. Tanya Hanson. We’re here to present the charge of murder in the first degree against the defendant, Mr. Javier Mitchell. In this opening statement, I’ll provide a roadmap of what the evidence presented during this trial will show, as nothing I say to you now can be considered evidence.

  I want you to look at the great American Flag hanging behind Judge Johnson. I want you to think, and feel, what that flag represents. Really think about it. Really feel, deep inside you, what that flag means to you. Does it represent Sunday barbeques to you? Fourth of July celebrations? Does it represent freedom and opportunity? Does it represent family? Or does it represent justice?

  To me, the flag represents justice, and that’s why we’re here—justice. Justice sees a person judged for their crimes. Justice sees a fair punishment. Justice sees a person convicted for their actions.

  As a definition, justice is the idea that people are treated impartially, fairly, and properly. They are treated reasonably by the law, and it sees that the accused receives a morally right consequence merited by their actions. A moral consequence. I need you to remember that as we go through this trial.

  You’re here, in this court, to decide whether there’s enough evidence to convict Mr. Mitchell of murder in the first degree, beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Who is Mr. Mitchell? He was born in Mexico, and spent most of his formative years living in that country. He grew up under a different flag. Although he holds an American passport, and has been living in the U.S. for six months, I want you to ask yourself if he could truly understand what the flag represents in such a short time?

  As prosecutors, we represent the State of Illinois. We work in the Marline County State’s Attorney’s Office, and our section is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases throughout this county. We represent the commitment by the State’s Attorney’s Office to combat the devastating effects of crime in our communities. Murders, and violent crime, rarely happen in the city of Longford. It’s not often that I stand up here and try a murder case. And I, for one, would like to keep it like that.

  Mr. Mitchell is accused of murdering Mr. Chad Townsend in cold blood at 11pm on the night of June 25th. His intention was always to murder Mr. Townsend, and we’ll show that during this trial. Mr. Mitchell arranged to meet Mr. Townsend at Norwich Park that night. What exactly happened there we may never know, but what we do know, is that there was an altercation, and Mr. Mitchell punched Mr. Townsend, sending him to the ground. Mr. Townsend hit his head on the ground and bled out.

  Mr. Mitchell left the scene of the crime without even calling for help. He left Mr. Townsend on the ground to die.

  This is a violent, callous, and heinous crime. All homicides are terrible circumstances, but this murder, this horrible crime, is particularly so. This homicide has caused pain, real pain, to the people of Longford. As such, this crime must have real consequences.

  In our everyday lives, we rarely see the underbelly of crime that exists. We know it’s there, of course, but we don’t often see it first hand. I didn’t ever think I would see this type of crime happen to one of Longford’s favorite sons.

  The Longford Police Department, led by Police Chief Phillip Richardson, investigated the case, and subsequently arrested Mr. Mitchell.

  Over the coming days, we’ll present witnesses to you, and they’ll provide the evidence in this case. You’ll hear from Chief Richardson personally, as he’ll detail the investigation and arrest. He’ll explain why Mr. Mitchell was arrested and what he said when he was taken into custody. You’ll see the footage from Mr. Richardson’s body camera, and the footage from other officers’ body cameras during the arrest. You’ll see, with your own eyes, the moment when Mr. Mitchell was arrested at his uncle’s home.

  You’ll hear from experts in the field of crime and justice. One of those experts will be forensic scientist Mr. Henry Elbert. He’ll explain that Mr. Mitchell’s blood was found on the shirt worn by Mr. Townsend at the time of death. He’ll explain that a sample of Mr. Mitchell’s blood was also found on Mr. Townsend’s shoe. And he’ll explain that Mr. Mitchell’s hair was found at the scene of the crime.

  You’ll hear from witnesses who will place Mr. Mitchell at Norwich Park at 11pm on the night in question.

  You’ll hear from witnesses who will explain that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Townsend had an altercation earlier that night, and Mr. Mitchell threatened to ‘kill’ Mr. Townsend. Those witnesses will detail how determined Mr. Mitchell was to get revenge. You’ll hear from witnesses who heard Mr. Townsend say he would meet with Mr. Mitchell that night.

  The defense will try and tell a story full of fiction. They’ll tell you there’s not enough evidence to convict this man, there’s not this legal reason, or that legal reason, but let me tell you this. We’re not here to judge who is the smartest lawyer. We’re not here to judge who knows the most lawyer tricks. We’re here to judge whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder.

  But looking at you, the jurors, you appear to be an intelligent group of people who will not be influenced by this defense lawyer’s tricks. The defense team is very well equipped and experienced, so I must warn you not to fall for fanciful stories, big words, or confusing legal jargon.

  Forget the games and listen to the facts. Listen to the evidence.

  And if you do that, I can guarantee you will conclude that Mr. Mitchell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  This was an unforgivable crime, and it warrants a conviction.

  At the end of this case, I’ll address you again and ask you to consider all the evidence we have presented and to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Javier Mitchell is guilty.

  Thank you for your time.”

  *****

  During Tanner’s opening statement, juror number five stared at Javier for the entire time, not taking her eyes off him once. She shook her head with disgust whenever the word
‘murder’ was mentioned, and tried hard to disguise her repulsion at the description of the night. Juror ten was the same. Dressed in his best flannel shirt and blue jeans, he stared at Javier when Chad Townsend’s name was mentioned, almost like he wanted to jump from the jury box and deliver justice with his own hands.

  Out of the twelve people who were to judge Javier’s guilt, Hunter identified five who appeared to be the most logical and unbiased. Those jurors would be his targets throughout the trial. He would focus his attention on them, making eye contact, directing small gestures at them. He needed one of them, at least one, to be a voice of reason in the jury deliberation room when the legal arguments were over.

  Tanner finished his opening statement with a smile on his face, and with his back to the jury, he winked at Hunter as he walked past. He’d made his attack clear—both Hunter and Javier were out-of-towners who were determined to destroy the lives they knew. He’d made it personal.

  After he was asked to open by Judge Johnson, Hunter took a moment, composed himself, and then stood, slowly moving to the lectern. He looked at the jury, studied their patient faces, and then began.

  *****

  “May it please the court. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Your Honor, my name is Tex Hunter. I’m a criminal defense attorney, and I’m here to represent the defendant, Mr. Javier Mitchell.

  Mr. Tanner pointed to the flag behind the judge. That beautiful flag. I’ll tell you what it represents to me. It represents fairness. It represents integrity. But most of all, most importantly to me, is that it represents honor.

  That’s what’s bestowed upon you in the jury box. That’s what you have to uphold. Fairness. Integrity. And honor. But it’s more than that. The colors of the flag mean something. The colors of the flag are symbolic as well; red symbolizes hardiness and valor, white symbolizes purity and innocence, and blue represents vigilance, perseverance, and most of all, justice.