The referenced connection between Hollister and Thomas did not escape Brooks. He hoped this meant Lotello might indeed have made some progress. “What do you mean he’s a no-show, Ms. Klein? Hasn’t he been here all week?”
“He has, Judge. But he’s not here this morning.”
“He’s your witness, Ms. Klein. Where is he?”
“Judge, he’s on the defense’s witness list. But only because we subpoenaed him. He’s a hostile witness. I have no influence or control over him beyond the subpoena. And he now seems to have skipped out on that.”
“Have you called his office? What do they know about his whereabouts? Maybe he’s just lost sight of the time. Or is stuck in traffic?”
“I have. He’s not there. They have no idea where he is. They haven’t seen or heard from him in a week.”
“What about his residence? Have you tried him there?”
“Our process server got him with the original subpoena at his office. We have no residence information for him.”
“Did you ask his office people for his residence information?”
“I did. They say they don’t have any residence information on him.”
“That’s more than a little odd. An employer who has no contact information on its employee. Do you want me to issue a bench warrant for his arrest?”
“I appreciate the offer, Judge, but we obviously have a sequestered jury. I don’t want to delay matters. The defense is prepared to proceed without calling either Mr. Hollister or Mr. Thomas.”
Brooks sensed that Klein was giving up too easily. Way too easily. He wondered what she wasn’t telling him. “What about Hollister, Ms. Klein? Are you sure you don’t still want to call him?”
“No, Your Honor. As I said, the defense needs both of these witnesses or neither of them. The value for Mr. Norman is lost if we don’t have them both.”
Brooks knew something was fishy. Klein wasn’t even asking for permission to call Hollister if Thomas did happen to show during Reilly’s rebuttal case. Klein’s definitely not telling me the whole story. Maybe she’s doing me a favor. Maybe I don’t want to know the whole story. But I don’t like being in the dark. Not good.
Brooks guessed Reilly was also suspicious. No doubt wanting to gain whatever advantage he could out of this turn of events. “Your Honor,” Reilly jumped in. “This is highly irregular. The people would like to have an offer of proof of what the defense had in mind to do with Hollister and Thomas.”
“Vince, where’d you come up with that poppycock? You’re not entitled to any offer of proof when Leah is not offering some evidence. Nor are you entitled to know her privileged work product. You don’t have a dog in this hunt. You’re only in here because I don’t meet ex parte with counsel on one side to the exclusion of opposing counsel. I may just change my mind about that if you don’t pipe down.
“Okay, here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to announce that the defense has decided to rest without calling any more witnesses. I will ask you to confirm that, Leah. You will do so. I will then deny the pending motions to quash the two subpoenas as being moot and ask the people to proceed with their single-witness rebuttal case. Vince, are you ready to go?”
“Yes, Judge. The people are ready. Someone has to be ready to go.” Brooks chose to ignore Reilly’s cheap shot. He knew this was not one of Klein’s finer moments. But Klein was the least of his concerns at the moment. She’ll survive. His fear was that the jury might perceive these developments as indicating some kind of weakness in Norman’s case. If so, Norman might not survive. Literally. Definitely not good.
“That’s it. Get back into the courtroom. I’ll be along momentarily.”
Klein and Reilly withdrew.
Brooks asked his administrative clerk to have Hollister come into the court from where he was sitting out in the corridor.
* * *
KLEIN SAT DOWN NEXT to Norman and pondered her fate. Thomas’s no-show gave her some cover. But not much. Brooks obviously cut me some slack in there. Wonder why he did that. Seems like he knows more about what’s going on than I do. Could that be?
* * *
BROOKS CONTEMPLATED ALL OF this a bit further before taking the bench. There’s no question I haven’t yet heard the full story on Hollister and Thomas. I may not ever get it from Klein. If she even knows. But Lotello sure as hell owes me an explanation and I’m sure as hell going to get it out of him. But that’s for another day. Right now, I’ve got a trial to finish. Today.
CHAPTER 117
Friday, August 7, 8:45–10:15 a.m.
BROOKS TOOK THE BENCH. “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I apologize for the delay getting started this morning. It couldn’t be helped. I understand from Ms. Klein that the defense has decided to rest its case without calling any further witnesses. Have I got that right, Ms. Klein?”
“Yes. That’s correct, Your Honor. The defense rests.”
Brooks took in his courtroom. Several jurors looked askance, perhaps speculating that this was an indication of some hole in Norman’s defense. Precisely Brooks’s concern. Norman, too, seemed distressed. Brooks wondered if Norman was wired into what was going on. “Very well, then. The submitted motions to quash subpoenas are denied as moot. Mr. Hollister, you’re excused from your subpoena and are free to go.”
“I had to sit out in the hallway for an entire week? For this?” Hollister stood and indignantly marched out of the courtroom. He didn’t even stop to speak with Mortimer before leaving.
“The people have one rebuttal witness they wish to call. After examination of this rebuttal witness, we’ll hear closing arguments and then break for lunch. When we return, I will provide you with my jury instructions and the case will be turned over to you for deliberation. I expect to accomplish that by early afternoon. We’re in the home stretch, ladies and gentlemen. Please call your rebuttal witness, Mr. Reilly.”
“Your Honor, our one rebuttal witness, Dr. Halston Bartholomew, just stepped outside to take an emergency call he said he couldn’t avoid. He said he would be back within five to ten minutes. I’m terribly sorry, Your Honor.”
Brooks was annoyed. What the hell’s happening to my courtroom? “Ladies and gentlemen, we’ll be in recess for ten minutes. Mr. Reilly, make sure your witness is back here ready to go in ten minutes sharp.” Brooks returned to his chambers.
* * *
NORMAN SAT REFLECTING TO himself on the developments. Fighting to keep his concern from showing. Klein was obviously going to use Hollister and Thomas in some way to cast doubt on my guilt. Now the jury is only going to have me to focus on. That can’t be any good. I would sure like to talk to Ms. Klein. But I don’t dare.
* * *
HOLLISTER LEFT THE COURTROOM not sure what had happened. He could hardly believe his luck. It seemed too good to be true when Thomas didn’t show this morning.
Maybe I did get to him last night. Sometimes you just have to be tough. Until the opposition folds. Klein must have been intending to use Thomas to hang me. To build some reasonable doubt about Norman’s guilt. When Thomas didn’t show, she obviously lost her path to me. Have to make sure Thomas doesn’t get the chance to change his mind. Shit. Forgot to say anything to my shyster lawyer as I left the courtroom. I’ll call him later. It doesn’t really matter. I don’t think I’ll be needing him anymore.
* * *
DR. BARTHOLOMEW WAS SITTING in the witness chair when Brooks again took the bench exactly ten minutes later. “Please proceed, Mr. Reilly.”
Reilly first walked Bartholomew through his professional résumé, qualifying him to testify as an expert. Dr. Bartholomew’s credentials were comparable to those of Dr. Farnsworth, the defense medical expert who had testified one day earlier.
Brooks sat there listening along with the jury to the same typical bunk. One side’s medical expert says white and the other side’s says black. Not a snowball’s chance in hell that a lay jury can meaningfully know who’s right and who’s wrong. Or if
either side’s right. The truth is that the expert who typically carries the day is not the one who’s necessarily right, but the one who relates better to the jury. Who speaks in terms the jury can better grasp.
“Dr. Bartholomew, you were here yesterday when Dr. Farnsworth testified for the defense, were you not?”
“I was.”
“And you heard what Dr. Farnsworth had to say?”
“I did.”
“Did you agree with what you heard?”
“For the most part, no, I didn’t.”
“Can you please explain to the jury why not?”
“Dr. Farnsworth and I have known one another for years. We frequently testify in the same cases. She tends to testify for the defense. I tend to testify for the prosecution. We are both schooled in the same principles and studies and are aware of the same reported literature and data. We conducted virtually the same examinations and tests of the defendant. To the extent that Dr. Farnsworth relies on some study or report, I can’t necessarily disagree with her, because she accurately reports that material. Where Dr. Farnsworth and I part company is how we interpret the material. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Farnsworth is from what is often referred to as the subjective school of thought. I come from the objective school of thought. We just agree to disagree.”
“Can you please explain that a little further?”
“What it basically boils down to is that Dr. Farnsworth gives defendants the benefit of the doubt. She tends to coddle. She hasn’t seen a defendant who wasn’t abused during his or her childhood. And whose behavior should be excused or explained in terms of that so-called abuse. I don’t buy that. I think individuals are far more aware of their circumstances and what is right and what is wrong than Dr. Farnsworth believes. It requires far more tangible evidence for me to conclude that a person is not accountable for his or her actions.”
Reilly then carefully walked Bartholomew through the several specific opinions Farnsworth had expressed about Norman’s mental state. Bartholomew disagreed with every conclusion that Farnsworth had reached. Where she said left, he said right.
“Thank you, Dr. Bartholomew. Your witness, Ms. Klein.”
“Let me see if I understand you, Doctor. You don’t question Dr. Farnsworth’s credentials. Correct?”
“Correct.”
“And you don’t question the integrity of the materials on which Dr. Farnsworth relied in formulating her opinions. Correct?”
“Correct.”
“So then, you and Dr. Farnsworth simply reach opposite conclusions on application of the same medical principles to the same set of facts. Correct?”
“Yes.”
“So tell me, Doctor, how do you expect a lay jury not trained like you or Dr. Farnsworth to have the slightest idea which one of you is correct and which one of you is incorrect?”
Brooks saw that the witness was caught off guard, exactly as he knew Klein must have planned it. Bartholomew was well acquainted with Farnsworth but had never dealt with Klein before. Brooks realized Bartholomew never saw Klein’s question coming. And was now trapped. She had very cleverly set him up on reasonable doubt. Virtually by definition. He had no credible way out.
Bartholomew paused. The pause dragged on. Brooks stifled his smile. The reactions of several of the jurors were more obvious.
Finally, after what seemed an interminable silence, Bartholomew said, “Ms. Klein, please don’t shoot me. I’m just the messenger. The cornerstone of our judicial system is predicated on a trial by one’s peers. Knowing who is right between Dr. Farnsworth and myself is what this jury must decide for itself.”
“I see, Doctor. Thank you so much for that judicial discourse. I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.”
“Any redirect, Mr. Reilly?”
Brooks watched the wheels turning in Reilly’s head, undoubtedly realizing that trying to restore Bartholomew’s credibility would likely backfire with the jury. “No questions, Your Honor.”
“Thank you, Dr. Bartholomew. You are excused, with our thanks.”
Bartholomew walked out of the courtroom, looking a little less sure of himself than he did when he entered.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will take our fifteen-minute morning break and then reconvene for closing arguments. As is customary, the sequence is the same as in the case of the opening statements you heard earlier. Except that the people are entitled to reserve some of their time for a rebuttal closing argument after the defense presents its closing argument. I have previously advised counsel they will each receive forty-five minutes for their respective arguments. The people are entitled to save some of their allotted time for rebuttal argument. Please be back at ten thirty sharp.”
Brooks trudged off to his chambers.
CHAPTER 118
Friday, August 7, 10:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF the jury, we are now ready to hear closing arguments. The people are first. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Reilly?”
“I am, Your Honor.”
“Please proceed.”
Reilly walked over to the jury box. He paused to look at each of the individual jurors. He finally began by telling the jury how much the prosecution appreciated the personal sacrifice and hard work of each juror.
Reilly was just getting started and Brooks was already beginning to fidget. It’s enough to make one throw up. Who does Vince think he’s kidding with that ass-kissing rhetoric? He must think the jury is a bunch of idiots. He’ll need more than that to get a conviction.
Brooks was relieved to see Reilly move to the substance of his case.
“I told you that the people would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Jane Wells was shot to death at her townhouse on the evening of February fifth, 2013, or early in the morning of February sixth, 2013. You have heard testimony in this trial that this is so.” Reilly identified and paraphrased that testimony. He continued. “The defense has not in any way disputed these facts. Nor could it.
“I also told you that the people would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that after being shot to death, Senator Wells’s dead body was then sexually assaulted by her assailant. Again, you have heard testimony in this trial that this is what happened.” Once again, Reilly methodically identified and reviewed the testimony. He then went on to say, “Again, the defense has not in any way disputed this sequence of murder first and sexual assault second. Nor could it.
“In my opening statement, I told you that the people would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Norman confessed repeatedly—and I emphasize repeatedly—to the commission of these crimes.” Once more, Reilly painstakingly walked the jury through each of what he referred to as Norman’s ironclad confessions. Carefully choosing his words so as not to invite an objection, Reilly added, “The defense has not disputed that Mr. Norman uttered the words he did. Nor could it.
“The defense has offered no alibis for Mr. Norman and no one else who may have killed Senator Wells. By process of elimination, then, it follows that Mr. Norman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing these crimes.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is not rocket science. This is actually a very simple case, precisely as I told you it would be at the outset. Mr. Norman is guilty, and you owe it to the people of the District of Columbia and to Senator Wells, who did nothing to warrant her fate, to bring in a guilty verdict.
“I do have a few additional comments to share with you, but I will reserve my time to do so after you hear from Ms. Klein. Thank you for your continuing attention and efforts.”
Brooks turned the podium over to Ms. Klein, who also began with a few remarks of her own about how terrific the jurors have been. Brooks managed to stifle a yawn. I guess they teach that stuff in law school these days.
Klein then turned to the business at hand. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Norman and I agree with Mr. Reilly that this is a simple case. You must find Mr. Norman not guilty, not just because the law c
ompels that result, but also because Cliff Norman isn’t guilty—as any reasoned review of the undisputed evidence demonstrates.
“I had prepared my own speech for you this morning. However, after listening to Mr. Reilly, I think justice will be better served by my setting my speech aside and instead reviewing with you what Mr. Reilly just said to you. If anyone follows and agrees with Mr. Reilly’s presentation here this morning, then I have some beachfront property in Nebraska that I would like to sell you.”
“Objection, Your Honor. Ms. Klein’s remark is entirely uncalled for.”
“Come on, Ms. Klein,” Brooks responded, “you are entitled to a lot of latitude in your closing argument, but there is no reason to personalize your remarks like that. It’s not necessary and I don’t think it serves your cause. On the other hand, Mr. Reilly, this is closing argument and it would behoove you not to be quite so sensitive. And not to interrupt.” That was a crafty remark Klein made. She knew it would draw a rebuke, but no doubt figured it was worth it to make sure the jury wasn’t sleeping.
“Mr. Reilly first argues that Senator Wells was murdered and then sexually assaulted, in precisely that order. There is absolutely no question this is true. Any civilized person would have wished Senator Wells a more seemly and dignified exit from this world. However, what does any of this have to do with Mr. Norman? The answer is not a thing, nothing whatsoever.
“The people have offered absolutely nothing to tie Mr. Norman to these crimes. No witnesses. No weapon was found. No fingerprints, no DNA evidence, and no other forensic evidence tying Mr. Norman to these crimes. Not to Senator Wells’s body. Not anywhere else at the crime scene.
“This brings us to the people’s next point: Mr. Norman’s supposed repeated confessions. Let’s take a closer look at these quote repeated confessions. Mr. Reilly tells you we have three such confessions.
“The first so-called confession is certainly not Mr. Norman’s confession. It may be Mr. Randall’s confession. Scripted by journalist Santana’s self-serving imagination to create a story that never existed. That may be fine for theater, but not for finding Mr. Norman guilty of murder and sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Randall couldn’t even remember how many times Mr. Reilly had to help him memorize this supposed confession only one night before he testified about it. He obviously did not recall what Mr. Norman supposedly said in his presence seven months ago.
Brooks-Lotello Collection Page 64
