“What happened was simple. Amy Dearborn was telling her story to the police. Cooperating fully. She had phoned them, reported a crime, waited for them to arrive, and was in the process of telling them all she knew. At which point she was suddenly confronted with a closed drawer.”
Steve paused, raised one finger in the air. “The fact is, the defendant had no idea how that drawer came to be closed. And yet, the officer was asking her to explain.
“And by asking her to explain, he was doing something else.
“He was suspecting her of a crime.
“He showed her that closed drawer in an attempt to contradict her story. In an attempt to get her to make an admission. He was, at that point in time, suspecting her of a crime. Not only was the defendant under no obligation to explain, but at that point in time, the officer was under obligation to inform her of her constitutional rights, to inform her that she was under no obligation to explain.”
Steve stopped, spread his hands wide. “Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is all the defendant in this case is actually guilty of. Of exercising her constitutional rights. Confronted with this accusation by this police officer, all the defendant said was, I would like to consult a lawyer.”
Winslow pointed again. “The District Attorney would like you to take that as an admission of guilt. It isn’t. It cannot be used in that manner. That’s the law.
“That’s the law, and he knows it. He’s the District Attorney. He knows it, yet he tried to do it anyway. When I heard that, that’s when I realized the man hasn’t got a case.
“Even so, Dirkson’s going to argue, she said the drawer was open, it was closed, she can’t explain it, she must be guilty. If that’s his whole case, let’s dispose of it now.
“The District Attorney has pointed out that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The judge will inform you that in any case involving circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances can be explained by any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the defendant, than you must find the defendant not guilty. That is the doctrine of reasonable doubt.
“The circumstantial evidence in this case is that the defendant said that drawer was open when it was actually shut. Can we come up with any reasonable hypothesis other than the fact that she’s guilty? I should think so. How about this? She arrives at the office, finds the cash drawer robbed. Goes into Fletcher’s office, finds him dead. She runs back into the outer office and calls the police. And where is the phone she calls the cops from? On the same desk where the drawer was robbed. The defendant’s hysterical, she’s just had a huge emotional shock. And while she’s calling the cops, she unconsciously and automatically closes the drawer and doesn’t remember doing that.
“You think that’s farfetched? Remember, this was the defendant’s own desk. The one she used to work at. When making a phone call from her own desk, you think setting that desk in order wouldn’t be automatic, practically a reflex action?
“If you don’t like that, try this. While she’s being questioned in the other room, cops are searching the office. A rookie who doesn’t know any better happens to close the drawer.”
Steve Winslow shrugged, shook his head, pointed again. “Now I’m sure the D. A. will argue, oh no, the cops are pros, they’d never do that. Maybe not. But impossible? I don’t think so. I think it’s entirely possible.
“And if it’s possible, we have to assume it happened. Any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.”
Steve stopped, waved his hand. “I could go on, but I don’t want to take up your time. I have a feeling this is going to be a very long case. You know why? Because it’s so weak. If the prosecutor had a strong, convicting case, he’d put it on bang, bang, bang, and be done with it. If it’s weak they drag it out, try to make the points seem more important by making them take more time.
“Don’t fall for it.
“One more point before I go. The D. A. also sought to emphasize the fact that Amy Dearborn had previously been accused of petty theft. He slipped that in by making it part of the motive, her desire for revenge. Well, that’s well and good. But he also sought to emphasize the fact that the crime was stealing petty cash from this very petty cash drawer. Damning as the District Attorney would like to make that seem, the simple fact is, Amy Dearborn didn’t take that money. For the record, it took a jury of her peers less than fifteen minutes to determine that fact.
“She was innocent of that crime, just as she is innocent of this one.”
Steve smiled. “And I expect to hear you say so.”
31
For his first witness, Dirkson called Marvin Lowery, who gave his name and stated that he was a partner in F. L. Jewelry.
“Now then, Mr. Lowery,” Dirkson said. “Directing your attention to the evening of June tenth, did you have occasion to go to your office at that time?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Was that at someone’s request?”
“Yes. At the request of the police.”
“And for what purpose did they ask you to your office?”
“To identify a body.”
“And were you able to identify this body?”
“Yes, I was.”
“And who was it whose body you identified?”
“The body of my partner, Frank Fletcher.”
“That is your partner in F. L. Jewelry?”
“That’s right.”
“Are you certain of your identification?”
“Absolutely. We’ve been partners for eight years.”
“Thank you. No further questions.”
As Marvin Lowery started to leave the stand, Steve Winslow stood up. “One moment, Mr. Lowery. I have a few questions.”
“Your Honor,” Dirkson said. “I called this witness for a limited purpose. Merely to identify the body. I intend to recall him later on.”
“That may well be,” Judge Wylie said, “but the defense certainly has the right to cross-examine.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” Steve Winslow said. “Mr. Lowery, I believe you said you and the decedent had been business partners for several years?”
“That’s right.”
“Were you partners with him in having the defendant arrested and charged with petty theft?”
“Objection,” Dirkson said. “Not proper cross-examination.”
“Oh no?” Steve said. “I can’t imagine a clearer indication of bias.”
“On that ground it’s allowed,” Judge Wylie said. “The objection is overruled.” He turned to the jury. “I should explain, you are to consider the answer to this question, not as establishing fact, but merely as an indication of this witness’s attitude toward the defendant. You are to take his feelings for the defendant into consideration when evaluating his testimony. The court reporter will please read the question.”
The court reporter pawed through his notes, read back, “Were you partners with him in having the defendant arrested and charged with petty theft?”
“Answer the question,” Judge Wylie said.
“Ah, yes, I was.”
“You were instrumental in having Miss Dearborn arrested for a crime?”
Lowery shifted position on the stand. “I wouldn’t say instrumental. I suppose I was a party to it. But Frank Fletcher was the driving force.”
Dirkson, who had been looking irritated, smiled at that.
“Is that so?” Steve said. “But is it not a fact that you went along? That you joined with him in pressing the complaint? That as a result the defendant was arrested and tried for the crime of petty theft. And that at the time of the trial you appeared in court and gave testimony for the prosecution?”
“Yes, that’s true.”
“Then let me ask you this-do you have any animosity toward the defendant over the fact she was found innocent of that charge?”
“None at all.”
“It doesn’t make you angry to be proved wrong?”
“I don’t consider myself proved wrong.”
“Oh? Then you also thought the defendant was innocent?”