For the moment the high court is hobbled, unable to take up a number of controversial cases in its current term. This is because, according to Court watchers, it is Ginnis who is seen as the pivotal swing vote in many of these cases. According to these observers, decisions as to whether to take up these cases will simply have to wait for his return.
I have a letter out to Ginnis’s chambers at the Supreme Court and have left a telephone message. I’ve asked him to contact me and introduced myself as defense counsel in the Scarborough murder case. I have not mentioned the Jefferson Letter or asked any specific questions, only made a request that we speak. So far I have received no reply. I turn back to the article.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to comprehend the significance of the moment, that a change of epic proportions in the ideological makeup of the high court may be just over the horizon, a change that could dictate social and legal policy in the country for much of this century.
As for the question of who will control the Court, leaders in both political parties see the current skirmish over nominations to the D.C. circuit court as the opening salvo in a looming war.
To quote one lawyer who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, “Given the number of imponderables, the fact that it is impossible to anticipate what momentous issues will be presented to the Court in the future, stocking the Supreme Court with your believers is now the biggest political endgame in America.”
I close up the paper and put it to the side. There is no rocket science in this. The federal courts are untouchable. The framers of the Constitution made them that way. Where else could a beverage company take your house for a new bottling plant and have the elevated minds of the high court define this as a public purpose under the eminent-domain powers of the Constitution?
One federal appellate circuit occasionally goes off on a wobble so erratic and out of conformity, not only with precedent but with strictures of ordinary reason, that at times it has been referred to quietly by some who practice before it as the “Ninth Circus.”
12
Monday morning, and Quinn’s courtroom is like a pool filled with gasoline. Now that there is no longer any doubt that the state’s case will be racially charged, we’re all swimming in it, and the air is electric.
First up into the witness box are two patrol officers, the first to arrive on the scene immediately after the crime was called in. They each testify that they took one look and concluded that the victim was dead. They did a quick search of the entire suite to determine there was no one else inside and then sealed the area, making sure that no one else entered. One of them took a statement from the hotel maid who’d opened the door and found the body slumped on the floor in front of a chair in the living room.
This is all preliminary and sets the stage for Brant Detrick, the lead homicide detective. If you’re looking to settle a jury down and get them into the rhythm of your case, Detrick is a good opening witness.
According to his testimony and based on notes he made at the time, Detrick was on the scene within forty minutes of the initial call to 911.
The D.A. then takes a few minutes to qualify the witness not only as an experienced homicide detective but as an expert in crime-scene reconstruction, for which Detrick has taken courses both locally and with the FBI.
Tuchio then has him lead us on a verbal and visual tour of what the cops found at the scene. He has Detrick stand in front of an easel with a mockup of the floor plan of Scarborough’s hotel room. This shows furniture drawn to scale and situated where it was on that day.
In the process, the detective offers testimony, a partial re-creation of the events at the scene and how according to the police they unfolded. He identifies the chair, the one the cops believe Scarborough was seated in when he was murdered.
“There was a considerable amount of blood on the headrest at the upper back of this chair, leading us to conclude that the victim was seated in this chair when he was struck from behind,” says Detrick.
He moves on to the area where the body came to rest, on the floor, in front of the chair, and off to the right as you look into the room.
“We believe that the victim either toppled or slid from the chair, as a result of one or more of the impacts from the murder weapon as it struck him or because lividity caused the body to slide out of the chair and onto the floor at some point after he died.”
Tuchio and the witness get into a discussion explaining to the jury the hydraulics of lividity, the movement of blood in the body after death by the force of gravity, and that this can sometimes move a body, especially if it’s propped in a chair or leaning toward the edge of a bed.
“When you arrived that morning, what else did you see?” asks Tuchio.
“There was a lot of blood and spatter evidence,” says Detrick. “The floor around the chair in the living room near where the body was found was pretty much covered in blood, as was the tile floor in the entry.”
“What do you mean by ‘spatter evidence’?” asks Tuchio.
“I’m talking about droplets and spray that are usually flung out in an arc of some kind when a weapon, a blunt instrument, or a knife has become covered with blood and is repeatedly swung. This tends to throw out a spray of blood, sometimes tissue, that ends up on other surfaces-a wall or the ceiling, for example.”
“And you saw evidence of such blood spatter in this case in the victim’s hotel room?”
“I did.”
“Where?”
“There were patterns on the ceiling, directly above and to the front, and behind the chair near where the body was found.”
Tuchio has him draw a dotted line on the room diagram in the direction and location where the spatter evidence was found. “There was also some evidence of spatter on the television screen, here.” He marks the location of the television directly in front and several feet away from the chair. “And on a small table, here, and a light briefcase, a leather portfolio that was on that table. And farther off to the right, we found some traces on the surface of a small table, underneath a tablecloth and tray with food on it.”
“But not on top of the tablecloth or tray?” Tuchio makes this very clear.
“No.”
Harry and I have been wondering how they’re going to deal with this. Blood under the cloth and tray but not on top means Arnsberg would have had to kill Scarborough while juggling a tray full of food and a tablecloth in one hand while he hit him with the hammer in the other.
“Did you find anything else?”
“We found a carpenter’s framing hammer.”
“When you say framing hammer, can you describe the hammer for the jury?”
“It was a typical hammer, the kind you might find in any hardware store. A metal hammer with claws for pulling nails or prying wood apart.”
“Was there anything peculiar about this hammer that brought it to your attention?”
“Yes. It had a considerable amount of blood on it, along with traces of tissue and hair stuck to the hammer in the area of the claws.”
“Okay. In relation to the other items in the room-the area where the victim lay, the chair, the television-where did you find this hammer?”
“It was on the tile floor a few feet off the carpet in the entry.”
Tuchio has him mark the diagram with the location where the hammer was found.
“When you saw this hammer, did you form any conclusions based on its location and the fact that it bore signs of blood and tissue?”
“The obvious one,” says Detrick.