The Fifth Witness Part 25

When I finished recounting the trial testimony I asked them what they had been working on. Cisco said he was still reviewing the police investigation, looking for errors and a.s.sumptions made by the detectives that could be turned against Kurlen during cross-examination.

"Good, I need all the ammo I can get," I said. "Bullocks, anything from your end?"

"I pretty much spent the morning with the foreclosure file. I want to be bulletproof when it's my turn."

"Okay, good, but you've got some time there. My guess is the defense won't start until next week. Freeman looks like she's trying to keep a certain rhythm and momentum going, but she's got a lot of witnesses on her list and it doesn't look like a lot of smoke."

Often prosecutors and defense attorneys pad their witness lists to keep the other side guessing as to who would actually get called and who was important in terms of testimony. It didn't appear to me that Freeman had engaged in this sort of subterfuge. Her list was lean and every name on it had something to bring to the case.

I dipped my sandwich into some Thousand Island dressing that had dripped onto the paper wrapper. Aronson pointed to one of the display boards I had brought back with me from court. It was the ground-level shot I had tried to fool Margo Schafer with.

"Wasn't that risky? What if Freeman hadn't objected?"

"I knew she would. And if she didn't the judge would have. They don't like you trying to trick witnesses like that."

"Yeah, but then the jury knows you're lying."

"I wasn't lying. I asked the witness a question. Could she point out where Lisa was in the photo? I didn't say Lisa was in the photo. If she had been given the opportunity to answer, the answer would have been no. That's all."

Aronson frowned.

"Remember what I said, Bullocks. Don't grow a conscience. We're playing hardball here. I played Freeman and she's trying to play me. Maybe she already has played me in some way and I don't even know it. I took a risk and got a little hand-slap from the judge. But every person on that jury was looking at that photo while we were at sidebar and every one of them was thinking how hard it would have been for Margo Schafer to see what she claimed she saw. That's how it works. It's cold and calculating. Sometimes you win a point but most times you don't."

"I know," she said dismissively. "It doesn't mean I have to like it."

"No, you don't."

Twenty-four.

Freeman surprised me after lunch by not calling Margo Schafer back to the stand to try to repair the damage I had inflicted on cross. My guess was that she had something else planned for later that would help salvage the Schafer testimony. Instead, she called LAPD Sergeant David Covington, who was the first officer to respond to WestLand National after the 911 call from Riki Sanchez was logged.

Covington was a seasoned veteran and a solid witness for the prosecution. In the precise if not droll delivery of someone who has seen more dead bodies and testified about them more times than he can remember, he described arriving on scene and determining that the victim was dead by means of foul play. He then described closing access to the entire garage, corralling Riki Sanchez and other possible witnesses, and cordoning off the second-floor area where the body was located.

Through Covington the crime scene photographs were introduced and displayed in all their b.l.o.o.d.y glory on the two overhead flat screens. These more than any testimony from Covington established the crime of murder, a requirement for conviction.

I'd had marginal success during a pretrial skirmish involving the crime scene photos. I had objected to their introduction, particularly the prosecution's plan to display three-by-three blowups on easels in front of the jury box. I had argued that that they were prejudicial to my client. Photos of real victims of murder are always shocking and provoke strong emotions. It is human nature to want to harshly punish those responsible. Photos can easily turn a jury against the accused, regardless of what evidence connects the accused to the crime. Perry tried to split the baby. He limited the number of photos the prosecution could introduce to four and told Freeman she had to use the overhead screens, thus limiting the size of the photos. I had won a few points but knew that the judge's order would not limit the visceral response of the jurors. It was still a victory for the prosecution.

Freeman chose the four photos that showed the most blood and the pitiful angle at which Bondurant had dropped face-first onto the concrete floor of the garage.

On cross-examination I zeroed in on one photo and tried to get the jury thinking about something other than avenging the dead. The best way to do that is to plant questions. If they are left with questions but no answers then I have done my job on cross.

With the judge's permission, I used the projection remote to eliminate three of the photos on the screens, leaving only one remaining.

"Sergeant Covington, I want to draw your attention to the photo I've left on display. I believe it is marked People's Exhibit Three. Can you tell me what that is in the foreground of the photo?"

"Yes, that is an open briefcase."

"Okay, and is that how you found it when you arrived at the scene?"

"Yes, it is."

"It was sitting there open like that?"

"Yes."

"Okay, and did you make any inquiry of any witness or anyone else to determine if someone had opened it after the victim was discovered?"

"I asked the woman who had called nine-one-one if she had opened it and she said she had not. That was the extent of my inquiry on it. I left it for the detectives."

"Okay, and you've testified here that you have been working patrol for your entire career of twenty-two years, correct?"

"Yes, that's correct."

"You have responded to a lot of nine-one-one calls?"

"Yes."

"What did seeing that open briefcase mean to you?"

"Nothing really. It was just part of the crime scene."

"Did your experience cause you to think there may have been a robbery involved in this murder?"

"Not really. I'm not a detective."

"If robbery was not a motive in this crime, why would the killer take the time to open the victim's briefcase?"

Freeman objected before Covington could answer. She said that the question was beyond the witness's scope of expertise and experience.

"Sergeant Covington has spent his entire career working patrol. He is not a detective. He has never investigated a robbery."

The judge nodded.

"I tend to agree with Ms. Freeman, Mr. Haller."

"Your Honor, Sergeant Covington may not have ever been a detective but I think it is safe to say he has responded to robbery calls and conducted preliminary investigations. I think he can certainly answer a question about his initial impressions of the crime scene."

"I'm still going to sustain the objection. Ask your next question."

Defeated on that point, I looked down at the notes I had previously worked up for Covington. I felt confident that I had firmly planted the question about robbery and the motive for the murder in the jurors' minds, but I didn't want to leave it at that. I decided to try a bluff.

"Sergeant, after you arrived in response to the nine-one-one call and surveyed the crime scene, did you call for investigators and medical examiners and crime scene experts?"

"Yes, I contacted the com center, confirming that we had a homicide and requesting the usual response of investigators from Van Nuys Division."

"And you maintained control of the crime scene until those people arrived?"

"Yes, that is how it works. I transferred custody of the scene to the investigators. Detective Kurlen to be exact."

"Okay, and at any time during this process, did you discuss with Kurlen or any other law enforcement officer the possibility that the murder had come out of a robbery attempt?"

"No, I did not."

"Are you sure, Sergeant?"

"Quite sure."

I wrote something on my legal pad. It was a meaningless scribble done for the jury.

"I have no further questions."

Covington was excused and one of the paramedics who had responded to the nine-one-one call testified about confirming that the victim was dead at the scene. He was on and off the stand in five minutes, as Freeman was interested only in confirming death and I had nothing to gain from cross-examination.

Next up was the victim's brother, Nathan Bondurant. He was used to confirm identification of the victim, another requirement for conviction. Freeman also used him much as she did the crime scene photos, to stir emotions in the jury. He tearfully described being taken by detectives to the medical examiner's office where he identified his younger brother's body. Freeman asked him when he had last seen his brother alive and his answer brought another torrent of tears as he described attending a Lakers basketball game together just a week before the murder.

It's a rule of thumb to leave a crying man alone. There usually isn't anything to be gained from cross-examining a victim's loved one, but Freeman had opened a door and I decided to step through it. The risk I ran was that jurors might view me as cruel if I went too far in questioning the bereaved family member.

"Mr. Bondurant, I am sorry for your family's loss. I have only a few quick questions. You mentioned that you and your brother went to the Lakers game a week before this horrible crime occurred. What did you talk about during that outing?"

"Uh, we talked about a lot of things. It would be hard to remember everything right now."

"Only sports and Lakers?"

"No, of course not. We were brothers. We talked about a lot of things. He asked about my kids. I asked if he was seeing anyone. Things like that."

"Was he seeing anyone?"

"No, not at the time. He said he was too busy with work."

"What else did he say about work?"

"He just said it was busy. He was in charge of home loans and it was a bad time. A lot of foreclosures and all of that sort of stuff. He didn't really get into it."

"Did he talk about his own real estate holdings and what was happening with them?"

Freeman objected on relevance. I asked for a sidebar and it was granted. At the bench I argued that I had already put the jury on notice that I would not only be debunking the state's case but putting forward a defense case that included evidence of an alternate theory of the crime.

"This is that alternate theory, Judge. That Bondurant was in trouble financially and his efforts to get out of the hole brought about his demise. I should be given the lat.i.tude to pursue this with any witness the prosecution puts before the jury."

"Judge," Freeman countered, "just because counsel says something is relevant doesn't mean it is. The victim's brother has no direct knowledge of Mitch.e.l.l Bondurant's financial or investment situation."

"If that's the case, Judge, Nathan Bondurant can say so and I'll move on."

"Very well, overruled. Ask your question, Mr. Haller."

Back at the lectern I asked the witness the question again.

"He spoke very briefly and without going into detail about it," the witness replied.

"What exactly did he say?"

"He just said that he was upside-down on his investment properties. He didn't say how many that was or how much was involved. That was all he said."

"What did that mean to you when he said he was upside-down?"

"That he owed more on his properties than they were worth."

"Did he say he was trying to sell them?"

"He said he couldn't sell them without taking a bath."

"Thank you, Mr. Bondurant. I have no further questions."

Freeman completed her tour of minor players by calling a witness named Gladys Pickett, who identified herself on the stand as the head teller at WestLand National's main branch in Sherman Oaks. After eliciting from Pickett what her duties were at the bank Freeman got right down to the salient testimony.

"As the person in charge of the tellers at the bank, you have how many people reporting to you, Mrs. Pickett?"

"About forty altogether."

"Is one of those people a teller named Margo Schafer?"

"Yes, Margo is one of my tellers."

"I would like to draw your attention back to the morning of Mitch.e.l.l Bondurant's murder. Did Margo Schafer come to you with a particular concern?"

"Yes, she did."

"Can you please tell the jury what Ms. Schafer was concerned about?"

"She came to me and reported that she had seen Lisa Trammel just a half block from the bank, walking down the sidewalk and moving in a direction away from the bank."

"Why was this a concern?"

"Well, we have Lisa Trammel's photograph up in the employees' lounge and inside our vault and we have been instructed to report any sighting of Lisa Trammel to our supervisors."

"Do you know why this instruction was put in place?"

"Yes, the bank has a restraining order keeping her away from the property."

"Can you tell the jury what time it was when Margo Schafer told you about seeing Ms. Trammel near the bank?"