Выбрать главу

inadmissible character evidence.  She was, after all, trying to

establish that Derringer had been keeping his nose clean, which had

nothing to do with the issues in the trial.  But any objection would

invite a bullshit attempt to justify the evidence in front of the jury.

Lisa would probably argue something to the effect that the evidence

contradicted the State's theory that Derringer planned the abduction

ahead of time or was associating with a possible accomplice.  I figured

any minimal benefit she got out of the questioning was a reasonable

price to pay to avoid giving her an opportunity to make a speech for

the jury.

As it turned out, Renshaw was a pro who could diffuse Lisa's points on

cross without my assistance on redirect.  After Lisa had established

that Derringer had reported all address changes, met all appointments,

spoken regularly with Renshaw, and worked full-time on parole, she

asked one question too many: "Isn't it true, Mr.  Renshaw, that Mr.

Derringer complied fully with the conditions of his parole?"  "Sure,

counselor.  I guess you could say he was a model parolee except for the

fact that he kidnapped, raped,

sodomized, and tried to murder a thirteen-year-old girl."  I think I

saw Lesh smile as Lisa leapt to her feet to object.

Her objection was sustained, but the exchange kept Lisa quiet for the

rest of my case-in-chief.

Ten.

I had spent the week presenting my case to the jury, witness by

witness.  Building a prison for Frank Derringer with evidence, each

piece stacking upon the last like bricks.  Now I was ready to sit back

and watch Lisa Lopez struggle to save face.  I wanted it.  I wanted it

bad.  I tried not to look smug and amused, which I was, when she stood

on Thursday afternoon for her mid-trial opening.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my point is a simple one."  She put

her hands on Derringer's shoulders.  "This man, Frank Derringer, is

innocent."  A simple statement, but it caught the jury's attention.

Lopez walked to the front of the jury box and continued.  "Ms.  Kincaid

has done a fine job of presenting evidence the way she wants you to

hear it.  But what I want you to hear, and what you will conclude to be

true, is that Frank Derringer finds himself on trial for a crime he

didn't commit because a troubled and confused young girl who has led a

very sad life mistakenly identified him as she was coming out of a

heroin-induced haze."

Although Lopez conceded that Kendra "may have been subjected to

horrendous acts," she went on to remind the jurors of the presumption

of Derringer's innocence and the oath they had taken to evaluate the

evidence dispassionately.  But she wasn't just arguing that there would

be a reasonable doubt about Derringer's guilt.  She was using the word

innocent repeatedly.  The defense's position wasn't just that Derringer

was not guilty in the legal sense because the State couldn't make its

case, but that he was factually innocent.  Jurors feel better about

acquitting someone they believe is innocent, but Lisa's strategy was

risky.  It's harder to prove innocence than to establish reasonable

doubt.

Lisa's quiet, contemplative tone became more urgent as she talked to

the jurors about Derringer's alibi.  Then she shifted her theme.  "By

the end of this trial, you will realize that Kendra Martin is a victim,

but my client is as well.  In fact, I believe that we will prove to you

that both Mr.  Derringer and Miss Martin are victims of the same

wrongdoing."

I tried to maintain my typical trial composure, looking as bored as

possible while the defense presents its case.  But for the life of me,

I couldn't figure out where Lisa was going with her statement.

"The wrongdoing that has brought Kendra Martin, Frank Derringer, and

all of us together began about four years ago.  Four years ago,

Portland police officers found the body of another troubled young girl

named Jamie Zimmerman in the Columbia Gorge.  Jamie wasn't as lucky as

Kendra.  She was murdered strangled after being raped and beaten.  Like

Miss Martin, Jamie was a drug addict who supported her habit through

occasional prostitution.  Like Ms.  Martin, she was raped and

sodomized.  Police found Jamie's badly decomposed body less than a mile

from where Kendra Martin was located.  Ms.  Kincaid mentioned that

whoever committed this crime took Kendra's purse.  Well, guess what,

ladies and gentlemen?  Whoever killed Jamie Zimmerman took her purse

too, and it was never recovered.

"Those are enough similarities that you're probably thinking to

yourself right now that the two crimes might be connected.  You'd

certainly think our police would at least look into it, especially when

you learn that the same detectives who testified in this case

investigated Jamie Zimmerman's murder."

I was seething.  How the hell did Lopez think she was going to get away

with blind siding me this way?  I didn't know every detail of the Jamie

Zimmerman investigation, but I knew enough to recognize that Lopez was

trying to take advantage of that case's recent revival in the media to

confuse the jury.  I also knew that she had never bothered to mention

to me that her defense had anything to do with the Zimmerman case.

There was nothing I could do, though, without playing into Lisa's hand.

Any outburst from me would only add dramatic emphasis to her opening

statement.  So I sat there quietly while Lisa told the jurors about

Margaret Landry and Jesse Taylor and their protestations of innocence,

the recent letter to the Oregonian confessing to Jamie Zimmerman's

murder, and a supposed conspiracy among Portland police to conceal the

truth.

"Because a jury didn't hear the truth about that case three years ago,

innocent people were convicted.  I don't want you to make the same

mistake.  I don't want you to convict an innocent person.  So I'm going

to make sure you get all the evidence.  You're going to hear not only

how the police messed up the Zimmerman case, but also how those same

detectives have bungled this investigation.  They don't want to admit

that they missed a killer four years ago, and they don't want to admit

that they've got the wrong person again now.

"Let me make something clear to you.  I'm not required to prove who

killed Jamie Zimmerman.  That's supposed to be up to the police and the

district attorney.  But I think it's important that you at least know

about that case, because it sure looks a lot like this one, and it's

sure starting to look like whoever did it is still out there.

"In the end, the evidence in this case may present more questions than

answers.  We may never know who killed Jamie Zimmerman, but I have a

feeling you're going to suspect that it's not Margaret Landry or Jesse

Taylor.  I also have a feeling that you're going to suspect that

whoever killed Jamie Zimmerman assaulted Kendra Martin.  But one answer