“Yes, it did.”
“What did you find?”
“Well, in one incidence, it was what we didn’t find.”
“Can you explain what you mean by that?”
“Yes. There was a tool bench that ran along the back wall of the garage. It appeared to be fully stocked with tools. Most of them were hanging on hooks attached to a pegboard installed above the bench and along the wall. The different locations for hanging the tools were marked with the name of the tool. Everything had its place on the board.”
“Okay, can you show us?”
The video was restarted and soon it came to a head-on view of the workbench. At this point Freeman froze the image on the overhead screens.
“Okay, so this is the workbench, correct?”
“Yes.”
“We see the tools hanging on the pegboard. Is there anything missing?”
“Yes, the hammer is missing.”
Freeman asked the judge for permission for Longstreth to step down and use a laser pointer to show on the screens where the spot for the hammer was on the pegboard. The judge allowed it. Longstreth pointed it out on both screens and then returned to the witness stand.
“Now, Detective, was that spot specifically marked as being for a hammer?”
“Yes, it was.”
“So the hammer was missing.”
“It was not found anywhere in the garage or the house.”
“And did there come a time when you identified the make and model of the tools that were on the pegboard?”
“Yes, by using the tools that were still there we were able to determine that the Trammels had a set of Craftsman tools that came in a specific package. It was a two-hundred-thirty-nine-piece set called the Carpenter’s Tool Package.”
“And was the hammer from this package available outside of this set?”
“No, it was not. There was a specific hammer that came from this particular set of tools.”
“And it was missing from the tool set in Lisa Trammel’s garage.”
“That is correct.”
“Now, did there come a time during the investigation that a hammer was turned in to police that had been found near the scene of the murder of Mitchell Bondurant?”
“Yes, a hammer was found by a gardener in some bushes a block and a half from the garage where the murder took place.”
“Did you examine this hammer?”
“I examined it briefly before turning it over to the Scientific Investigation Division for analysis.”
“What kind of hammer was it?”
“It was a claw hammer.”
“And do you know who manufactured the hammer?”
“It was produced by Sears Craftsman.”
Freeman paused as though she was expecting the jury to collectively gasp at the revelation when everybody in the courtroom had known exactly what was coming. She then stepped over to the prosecution table and opened a brown evidence bag. From it she pulled out a hammer that was encased in a clear plastic bag. Holding the hammer aloft she returned to the lectern.
“Your Honor, may I approach the witness with an exhibit?”
“You may.”
She walked the hammer to Longstreth and handed it to her.
“Detective, I ask you to identify the hammer you are holding.”
“This is the hammer that was found and turned over to me. My initials and badge number are on this evidence bag.”
Freeman retrieved the hammer from her and asked that it be marked as state’s evidence. Judge Perry gave his approval. After returning the hammer to the prosecution table, Freeman went back to the lectern and proceeded with her examination.
“You testified that the hammer was turned over to SID for forensic examination, correct?”
“Yes, correct.”
“And subsequent to that did you get a forensics report on the tool?”
“Yes, and I have it here.”
“What were their findings?”
“Two things of note. One was that they identified the hammer as being made exclusively for the Craftsman Carpenter’s Tool Package.”
“The same set that was found in the defendant’s garage?”
“Yes.”
“But minus the hammer?”
“Correct.”
“And the other forensic finding of note was what?”
“They found blood on the hammer’s handle.”
“Even though it had been found in the bushes and been there for several weeks?”
I stood and objected, arguing that no testimony or evidence established how long the hammer had been in the bushes.
“Your Honor,” Freeman responded. “The hammer was found several weeks after the murder occurred. It only stands to reason that it was in the bushes during that time.”
Before the judge could make a ruling I quickly countered.
“Again, Judge, the state has introduced nothing in the way of evidence or testimony that concludes the hammer was in that bush for that long a time. In fact, the man who found it testified he had worked in and around those bushes at least twelve times since the murder and didn’t see it until the morning he actually found it. The hammer could have easily been planted the night before it was-”
“Objection, Your Honor!” Freeman shouted. “Counsel is using his objection to put forth the defense’s case because he knows it will-”
“Enough!” the judge bellowed. “From both of you. The objection is sustained. Ms. Freeman, you need to reword your question so that it does not assume facts not in evidence.”
Freeman looked down at her notes, calming herself.
“Detective, did you see blood on the hammer when it was turned in to you?”
“No, I did not.”
“Then how much blood was actually on the hammer?”
“It is described in the report as trace blood. A minute amount that was beneath the upper part of the rubber grip that encases the wood handle.”
“Okay, so what did you do after receiving the report?”
“I arranged for the blood from the hammer to be tested at a private DNA lab in Santa Monica.”
“Why didn’t you use the regional crime lab at Cal State? Isn’t that normal procedure?”
“It is normal procedure but we wanted to put a rush on this. We had the money in the budget so we thought we should move quickly with it. I had the results reviewed by our lab.”
Freeman paused there and asked the judge to include the forensic report on the hammer as a prosecution exhibit. I didn’t object and the judge approved. Freeman then changed course, leaving the DNA revelation for the DNA expert who would come in at the end of the prosecution’s case.
“Let’s go back to the garage now, Detective. Were there any other significant findings?”
I objected again, this time to the form of the question, which assumed that there had been a significant finding when in fact none had been testified to. It was a cheap shot but I took it because the last skirmish over an objection had knocked down Freeman’s momentum. I wanted to keep trying to do that. The judge told her to rephrase the question and she did.
“Detective, you have testified about what you didn’t find in the garage. The hammer. What can you tell us that you did find?”
Freeman turned to me after asking it as if to get my approval. I nodded at her and smiled. The fact that she would even acknowledge me was a sign I had gotten to her with the last two objections.
“We found a pair of gardening shoes and got a positive reaction for blood when we conducted a Luminol test.”
“Luminol being one of the agents that reacts to blood under ultraviolet lighting, correct?”
“That’s correct. It is used to detect locations where blood has been cleaned or wiped away.”
“Where was the blood found here?”
“On the shoelace of the left shoe.”
“Why were these particular shoes tested with Luminol?”
“First of all, it is routine to test all shoes and clothing when you are looking for the possibility of blood evidence. There was blood at the scene of the crime so you work under the assumption that some must have gotten on the assailant. Secondly, we had noticed in the backyard that the garden had been recently worked. The soil had been overturned and yet these shoes were very clean.”