“Objection, Your Honor.”
“Overruled. Witness may answer.”
“No, I did not.”
“You didn’t think the defendant was innocent at the time?”
“No, I did not.”
“And you still don’t?”
“No, I do not.”
“Then what do you mean when you say you don’t feel you were proved wrong?”
“The jury brought back a verdict of innocent. That doesn’t mean the defendant was.”
Dirkson turned to the jury, let them see his broad smile.
“Do you disagree with the verdict?” Steve said.
“I certainly do.”
“You feel it was incorrect?”
“Yes, I do.”
“In your opinion the jury made a mistake?”
“Yes, they did.”
“How clear was it in your own mind the defendant was guilty?”
“Perfectly clear.”
“On what do you base that evaluation?”
“On the evidence.”
“The same evidence the jury heard?”
“That’s right.”
“How do you account for the fact the jury brought back a verdict of not guilty?”
“I don’t know. It’s hard to get twelve people to agree.”
“Wasn’t the verdict for acquittal unanimous?”
“I don’t know.”
“You don’t? Didn’t the prosecutor poll the jury after the verdict?”
“I believe he did.”
“Did any of the jurors say guilty?”
“I don’t believe so.”
“You don’t believe so?”
“No, they didn’t.”
“Do you understand the meaning of the word unanimous?”
“Objection.”
“Sustained.”
“Was the vote to acquit the defendant unanimous?”
Marvin Lowery didn’t answer, glared at Steve Winslow.
“I’d like an answer to that, Your Honor.”
“Objection,” Dirkson put in.
“Overruled. Witness will answer.”
“Was the verdict unanimous?”
Lowery took a breath. “Yes, it was.”
“Thank you, Mr. Lowery,” Steve said. “So when you said earlier that you didn’t know if it was unanimous, that wasn’t right, now was it?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Oh? But you’re saying now you did know.”
“I said I didn’t know, and I didn’t. Then you refreshed my recollection by talking about polling the jury. And I realized I did know.”
“You’re saying you just didn’t remember?”
“That’s right.”
“You didn’t say you didn’t remember, you said you didn’t know.”
“If I didn’t remember, I didn’t know.”
“Very good, Mr. Lowery. But the fact is, the verdict was unanimous. And my question to you was, how was it possible the jury acquitted the defendant, when the evidence against her was so clear. Your explanation was that it’s hard to get twelve people to agree. On the one hand, that’s a generalization. And on the other hand, it makes no sense in this case. So I ask you again, if the evidence was so clear that you were certain of the guilt of the defendant, how is it that a jury that heard that same evidence would set her free?”
“They made a mistake. Juries often do. They’re dealing with complicated points of law that are difficult to understand. Of course, they’re going to make mistakes.”
Dirkson was no longer smiling.
But Steve Winslow was. “Thank you, Mr. Lowery,” he said. “As I understand it, you have a certain contempt for the American judicial system?”
“Objection!” Dirkson cried. “The witness never said anything of the kind.”
“He certainly did,” Steve Winslow said.
Judge Wylie banged the gavel. “That will do. We will argue the objection at the sidebar.”
“There’s no need, Your Honor,” Steve said. “I’ll withdraw the question and ask another. Mr. Lowery, whatever you may feel about juries in general, in that particular case you felt the jury was wrong, is that right?”
“Yes, it is.”
“You felt Miss Dearborn was guilty of the crime?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Wasn’t that rather frustrating?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Make you angry?”
“I wouldn’t say angry.”
“Would you say annoyed?”
“I suppose you could say annoyed.”
“You resented the verdict?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Mr. Lowery, you recall at the beginning I asked if you resented the defendant for being found innocent of the crime. Is that right?”
“Yes, it is.”
“What answer did you give me.”
“I told you I didn’t.”
“You didn’t resent her for being found innocent?”
“No, I did not.”
“Was that answer true?”
“Yes, it was.”
“But you say you resented the verdict? The verdict of innocent. So if you didn’t resent the defendant for being found innocent, you must have resented the jury for finding her so. Is that right?”
Lowery blinked twice. Did not answer.
“Objection, Your Honor,” Dirkson said.
“Overruled.”
Lowery took a breath. “No, I did not resent the jury. I resented the situation. The fact that she had been found innocent.”
“What about me?” Steve said.
Lowery looked at him. “I beg your pardon?”
“Did you resent me?”
“Objection?” Dirkson said.
Steve smiled. “Surely the bias of the witness towards the defense is relevant.”
“Overruled.”
“Do you resent me?” Steve said.
Lowery glared at him. “Yes, I resent you,” he blurted.
“There we have it,” Steve said with a smile. “Finally, we come to the root of the problem. And why do you resent me?”
“For what you’re doing now,” Lowery said, angrily. “Mixing things up, twisting what I say.”
“Is that what I did in the petty cash trial?”
“You certainly did.”
“Is that what I’m doing now?”
“Yes, it is.”
“And you resent that?”
“Of course, I do.”
“What exactly is it that I’m doing that you resent?”
“I told you. You’re misquoting me. Misinterpreting everything I say. Mixing everything up so it comes out backwards.” Lowery paused, took a breath. Said angrily, “You’re making me look like a total jackass.”
“Is that so?” Steve said. He smiled broadly at the jury. “Thank you. No further questions.”
32
Next up, Dirkson called Dr. Andrew Stanton, a crisp, efficient looking young man with a no nonsense air about him. He took the stand and recited his qualifications as medical examiner, which included twelve years’ experience in that position, a rather surprising and impressive statistic in one so young.
“Now, then,” Dirkson said, “directing your attention to the evening of Thursday, June tenth, were you called upon to examine a body at that time?”
“Yes, I was.”
“Can you tell us when and where that was?”
“Yes. I was summoned to the office of F. L. Jewelry on West 47th. I arrived there at approximately ten twenty-five.”
“Approximately?”
Stanton smiled. “That was approximately when I arrived. I began my examination at ten twenty-nine.”
Dirkson smiled back. “Thank you, doctor. And what can you tell us about the body you examined?”
“He was a young man, say in his mid-thirties, of medium height and build. He was lying face down in the middle of the floor, with a pool of blood emanating from his chest.”
“You examined the body at that time?”
“Yes, I did.”
“What did you do?”
“First I determined that the man was dead. Of this, there was little doubt. Still, I verified the fact. I then conducted a preliminary examination of the body to determine the apparent cause of death.”
“And what was that?”
“Blood had come from a wound where something had penetrated the chest. From the location of the wound and the extent of the blood, it was likely this object had also penetrated the heart.”
“Could you tell what this object was?”