“I see. In your opinion, Mr. Addison, is Anthony Aposto capable of committing an act which requires premeditation?”
“No. If I may qualify that. We must assume that a person capable of planning something is a person with a sound grasp of reality. I am speaking now of a real plan, you understand.”
“A long-range plan? A plan for a career? A savings plan? Is that what you mean?”
“Yes.”
“Or a shorter-range plan? A plan for tomorrow?”
“Well, that’s not exactly what I had in mind. That might be extending the word ‘plan’ somewhat.”
“Did you hear the testimony of Aposto a few moments ago?”
“I did.”
“When I asked him what he would do tomorrow, he couldn’t seem to decide.”
“Well, that may have been due to the excitement of being questioned by a district attorney.”
“Are you excited now?”
“Not terribly.”
“Then what makes you think Anthony Aposto was excited?”
“Anthony Aposto is a disturbed personality with an intelligence quotient of sixty-seven. My I.Q. is one hundred fifty-two, and to the best of my knowledge I am not disturbed.”
“In spite of his excitement,” Hank said, “shouldn’t he have been able to decide what he wanted to do tomorrow?”
“I think Anthony Aposto is perfectly capable of making a plan for tomorrow. Because of his low I.Q., he may execute the plan badly, but he could certainly make a short-range plan such as that.”
“I see,” Hank said. He seemed suddenly troubled. “Would he be capable of planning the murder of Rafael Morrez?”
“Objection,” the defense screamed.
“Your Honor, a boy was killed,” Hank said, “and I am trying to find out whether or not one of the defendants was, in the opinion of a practicing psychologist, capable of planning that boy’s death. Since premeditation is an integral part of the crime of first-degree murder, and since we are prosecuting for first-degree—”
“Objection overruled,” Samalson said. “Proceed.”
“Would you answer the question, please. Mr. Addison?”
“I do not believe he would be capable of formulating an advance plan of murder,” Addison said.
“But he would be capable, would he not, of stabbing another boy on the impulse of—”
“Objection!”
“Sustained. Rephrase it, Mr. Bell.”
“Could he kill on impulse?”
“Yes.”
“At the height of passion?”
“Yes.”
“Would he know that he was killing?”
The courtroom was suddenly very silent.
“Yes,” Addison said. “He would know that he was killing.”
Sitting at the back of the room, Karin saw Hank’s back stiffen and knew instantly that this was not the answer he had expected.
“Now, just a minute, Mr. Addison,” Hank said quickly. “In your report, you said this boy was functioning at close to his endowment level. What does that mean?”
“The endowment level is a theoretical concept. It simply means the intelligence he was born with. A boy functioning at close to his endowment level has come as far intellectually as he is ever going to.”
“The intelligence he was born with? Do you mean that Aposto is functioning with the intelligence of a newborn baby?”
“No, I...”
“Can a newborn baby tell the difference between right and wrong, Mr. Addison?”
“I didn’t mean to imply that Aposto has the intelligence of a newborn baby. Surely you know that. When we’re dealing with intelligence we’re usually dealing with averages. We try to establish a norm, an intelligence level for an age level. In psychological terms, intelligence is intelligence only when we—”
“How long have you worked for Bellevue?” Hank asked quickly.
“Twelve years.”
“And all you can say is that intelligence is intelligence is intelligence? Doesn’t that sound a bit like Gertrude Stein?”
At the back of the room, Karin immediately recognized Hank’s change of tactics. He had initially built up Addison as an expert, and he was now trying to make him appear the fool. She put her hand to her mouth, wondering what he was trying to accomplish by this sudden switch.
“This is a little difficult to explain to a layman,” Addison said aloofly. “When we say that someone has the intelligence of a ten-year-old, we don’t actually mean that. There are a great many qualitative differences.”
“And when you say someone who is a mental deficient, who has an I.Q. of sixty-seven, who has poor sense of reality, judgment and emotional control, who is functioning at close to his endowment level — when you say this person would know that he was committing an act of murder, what do you mean then, Mr. Addison? Is it the same intelligence-is-intelligence double talk? Do you know what you mean, Mr. Addison?”
“I know exactly what I mean. Emotionally, Aposto may not have known what he was doing. But he knew what he was doing intellectually. He knew that if he stabbed a boy, he was committing a crime.”
“Are you aware of the legalistic concept of insanity?”
“I am. Aposto is not insane. Either legalistically or medically. He is a mental deficient, but he was capable of understanding the consequences of a stabbing.”
“And how do you know that?” Hank said angrily. “How can you possibly know what was in this boy’s mind when, and if, he stabbed another boy?”
“I can’t know. But neither can I testify that he did not know what he was doing. That’s what you want me to say, isn’t it?”
“I want you to say whatever you want to say,” Hank answered. He turned away from Addison. “Your witness,” he said to the defense table.
Aposto’s attorney rose. “No questions, Your Honor,” he said.
Samalson looked first at the defense table, and then at Hank. “The court will recess for ten minutes,” he said briskly. “Would Mr. Bell please join me in my chambers?”
“The court will recess for ten minutes,” the court clerk announced. “All rise.”
The spectators, the witnesses, the reporters, the defendants, the lawyers all rose as Samalson walked out of the room, his robes trailing behind him.
“Why does he want to see Daddy?” Jennie asked.
“I don’t know,” Karin said.
“Is he allowed to do that? Without having the defense attorneys present?”
“It may be considered prejudicial, but it’s Abe’s courtroom, and he can do whatever he wants in it.”
“I wonder why he wants to see Daddy,” Jennie said.
“Sit down, Hank,” Samalson said.
“Thank you.”
“No more judge and district attorney. For now, just friends. That okay with you?”
“That’s fine with me.”
“All right, answer one question for me, will you?”
“Shoot.”
“Are you trying to lose your job?”
“I don’t know what you mean.”
“Now, Hank, you know damn well what I mean. You just questioned that witness with the objective of getting him to say Aposto was not responsible for his actions. Obviously, that was what the psychiatric report indicated to you. When Addison refused to go along with you, you tried to discredit his testimony.”
“I suppose I...”
“I’m going to tell you something, Hank. The defense attorneys are not boobs. They were appointed by the court, and they probably accepted the case because they knew there’d be a lot of newspaper publicity, but they are not boobs. They are sharp criminal lawyers. And they damn well know that the state will accept the testimony of either two psychiatrists or one psychiatrist and one psychologist as evidence that a defendant had no knowledge of the consequences of a crime while committing it. And you can damn well bet they’ve got those two psychiatrists in their pocket, ready to testify that Aposto wouldn’t even know the consequences of a game of checkers! Which is why they waived cross-examination of your witness. They’ve got their own men waiting. So your move was a dumb one because you were trying to do their job for them when they’re prepared to do it better themselves. But what I want to know is this. Why are you trying to do their job? Suppose you tell me.”