As court broke up, Mark Taylor and Tracy Garvin pushed their way through the crowd to meet Steve coming down the aisle.
“Real good,” Taylor said. “You really did it.”
“Oh yeah?” Steve said.
“Yeah,” Tracy said. “Look, Steve, I still don’t like this case much, and I don’t really approve of what you did, but I have to tell you, I felt like cheering. I mean, it was really brilliant.”
“What was?”
“Turning the tables on Dirkson. I didn’t think there was any way you could cross-examine Bissel without coming across as the bad guy. But you did it. You turned it around. Dirkson’s the bad guy and you’re Mr. Clean.”
Steve sighed. ‘Yeah. Right.”
“What’s the matter?” Taylor said. “You shook the identification. Dirkson’s going bananas and you came out smelling like a rose.”
“Except for one thing,” Steve said.
“Oh yeah? What’s that?”
Steve grimaced. “Bissel’s a good witness. Defense Exhibit A-2 happens to be a picture of Jeremy Dawson.
36
“It was all downhill from there. From the confidence in Dirkson’s manner when he returned from lunch, it was clear that he had finally figured out just who it was that Joseph Bissel had identified. Having gotten over that hurdle gave Dirkson new confidence, and he plunged ahead with a vengeance, building up his case.
He started off with Rose Tindel, who identified a glossy eight-by-ten as being a blowup of a picture she herself had taken of Jack Walsh. With that in evidence, Dirkson, in rapid succession, called three Teaneck High students, all of whom identified the man in the photograph as the man they had seen hanging around the corridors of the high school on February 26th.
Dirkson then called Officer Hambrick of the Jersey police, who testified to being one of the officers who arrested Jeremy Dawson at his high school on February 27th.
“Now,” Dirkson said, “aside from the arrest warrant, did you have any other warrant with you at that time?”
“Yes, I did.”
“What was that?”
“I had a search warrant for Jeremy Dawson’s locker.”
“Did you serve that warrant?”
“Yes, I did.”
“On whom did you serve it?”
“The principal of the school.”
“And did he open the locker?”
“Yes, he did.”
“Were you present when the locker was opened?”
“Yes, I was.”
“And what did you find?”
“I found a gun.”
“What kind of gun?”
“A thirty-two-caliber automatic.”
“And would you know that gun if you saw it again?”
“Yes, I would.”
“How would you identify it?”
“I copied down the serial number.”
In short order, the gun was produced, marked for identification, and introduced into evidence.
When that was completed, Dirkson said, “And did you find anything else in the locker?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And what was that?”
Officer Hambrick raised his voice. “I found seventeen vials of crack.”
Dirkson expected an objection at that point. Officer Hambrick couldn’t know that the vials contained crack. That was purely a conclusion on his part. At best, he could testify that they contained a white, crystalline substance. Dirkson was of course prepared with a lab analysis to prove that it was indeed crack, but expected Winslow would fight to keep that testimony from getting in.
Steve didn’t, however. Even though he could see the jurors’ faces growing hard at the mention of drugs, Steve knew better than to make a fight at this point. Just let it pass.
The lack of an objection threw Dirkson’s timing off. He had not prepared his next question, since he had not expected to be given a chance to ask it. There was a pause, and Judge Grimes had to say, “Are you finished with the witness, Mr. Dirkson?”
“No, Your Honor,” Dirkson said. “Now, Officer Hambrick, were you present when Jeremy Dawson was taken into custody?”
“Yes, I was.”
“And were you present when he surrendered his personal belongings?”
“Yes, I was.”
“At the time, did Jeremy Dawson have anything in his possession which you considered significant?”
“Yes, he did.”
“And what was that?”
“It was a folded sheet of paper, purporting to be the last will and testament of Jack Walsh.”
“And would you recognize that document if you saw it again?”
“Yes, I would.”
“And how would you recognize it?”
“I wrote my initials on the back.”
After the will had been produced, marked for identification and introduced into evidence, Dirkson said, “Your witness.”
Steve rose. “Officer Hambrick, can you identify the young man that you arrested on February 27th?”
“Yes, of course.”
“Is he in the courtroom today?”
“Yes, sir. He is the defendant, Jeremy Dawson.”
“I see,” Steve said. “Tell me something. When you arrested him, did he look the same as he does today?”
Officer Hambrick smiled. “He most certainly did not.”
“Oh? And how was he different?”
“He had green hair.”
“Green hair?”
“Yes, sir. His hair was cut in a green mohawk.”
“Thank you. No further questions.”
When Steve sat down, Jeremy Dawson leaned in. “I don’t get it. You’re trying to mix him up, right? You’re trying to make him think it wasn’t me?”
“Not at all,” Steve said.
After that Dirkson picked up speed. He called a handwriting expert who testified that the will was indeed in the handwriting of Jack Walsh. He called the ballistics expert who testified that test bullets fired from the gun found in Jeremy Dawson’s locker matched absolutely with the fatal bullet taken from the body of the decedent. He called an expert from the crime lab, who testified that a series of tests performed on samples of the charred remains of the clothing found in the subway station indicated that they had indeed been drenched with gasoline and then set on fire.
Steve Winslow did not cross-examine any of these witnesses.
And the faces of the jurors became grimmer and grimmer.
At that point, Dirkson recalled Carl Jenson to the stand.
Once Judge Grimes had reminded Jenson that he was still under oath, Dirkson rose and said, “Now, Mr. Jenson. Referring to the date, February 26th, the day of the murder, did you see the defendant, Jeremy Dawson, at any time on that day?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And when was that?”
“It was approximately five-thirty in the afternoon.”
“And where did you see him?”
“At home. At our house, in Teaneck.”
“You and the defendant both live there?”
“That’s right.”
“And what happened on this occasion?”
“Well, I was in the kitchen making myself a sandwich. I heard the front door open. I went out to see who it was and it was him.”
“By him, you mean …?”
“The defendant. Jeremy Dawson.”
“What was he doing?”
“He was coming in the front door.”
“Did you talk with him at that time?”
“Yes, I did.”
“What did you talk about?”
“I asked him where he’d been.”
“Did you have a reason for asking that?”
“Yes, I did.”
Dirkson nodded. “Fine, Mr. Jenson. Now listen carefully, because we are getting into an area where we have to be careful about the rules regarding hearsay evidence. So try to answer my questions carefully, and answer only what is asked, and try to avoid telling us what some other person, other than the defendant, may have told you. Do you understand?”
“Yes.”
“Fine. With that in mind, let me ask you this. During the course of the afternoon, were you in communication with anyone from Jeremy Dawson’s high school?”
“Yes, I was.”
“Good. Now, you say you asked Jeremy Dawson where he’d been?”
“That’s right.”
“And what did he say?”
“He shrugged, and said, ‘Out.’”