Primal Fear (38 page)

But it was a dangerous maneuver. She would have to think more about that.

Otherwise, she had to admit Vail had done well today. He had set out to lower Bascott’s credibility and he had. He had raised a question in the minds of the jury: Could there be something Bascott and his team overlooked?

If there was, Vail would counter with Arrington’s testimony. Venable would be ready for her.

THIRTY-FOUR

For the next three days, Jane Venable led a parade of innocuous witnesses past the jury. Priests, nuns, kids from Savior House, the most powerful businessmen in the city and socialites who headed the major charities all testified that Rushman was a prince among men and was indeed the Saint of Lakeview Drive. Vail responded with a few perfunctory questions and an occasional objection. The character witnesses for the victim were irrelevant—everyone on the jury knew who Rushman was—but Vail had no intention of attacking the credibility of either the Church or the business community. Besides, the jury appeared bored by the procession of “important people”; even Shoat began to relax as the tension in the courtroom eased.

Then Venable called her final witness.

“The state calls Abel Stenner to the stand.”

Vail watched Lieutenant Abel Stenner walk to the witness chair and raise his hand as he took the oath. Stenner, dressed in a dark blue suit with a wine tie, looked more like a broker than a cop, except for those icy eyes behind wire-rim glasses and his aloof, almost patronizing demeanor. He would make a good witness if he did not antagonize the jury with that remote manner. By this time, most of the testimony had been given and Stenner would be reduced to a corroborating witness—the cleanup man. He would put it all in perspective with that cold and wily air of his. A dangerous witness, perhaps the most dangerous of all. Vail leaned his chin in the palm of his hand and listened as Venable ran through the obligatory qualification questions, emphasizing Stenner’s four citations for meritorious service and twenty-three years on the force, ten as a homicide detective.

Stenner described his reaction on first entering the crime scene, his subsequent arrest of Aaron Stampler, and the care which was taken to, as he put it, “preserve the integrity of the homicide area.” He was straightforward and blunt and sounded as formal as a police report. Since the witnesses were not permitted in the courtroom, he was not aware of Vail’s cross-examination of Danielson and Bascott. When he gave his “appraisal”
of what happened it was basically the same story Danielson had told.

“I object to the lieutenant’s so-called appraisal, Your Honor,” Vail said, jumping up and feigning anger. “For the same reason I objected to Mr. Danielson’s description of the events. It’s pure conjecture.”

“And we’ve already gone through this, Mr. Vail,” Shoat said curtly. “These people are qualified as expert witnesses and as such their viewpoint is valid. The jury is intelligent enough to put the proper weight on their remarks. You are overruled.”

“I suppose it would be redundant to except,” Vail said, sitting back down.

“What is your conclusion regarding the defendant’s claim that he saw someone else attack the bishop, blacked out, and does not remember anything after that?” Venable asked.

“I believe the evidence points to a single assailant who premeditated the murder, carried it out, and got caught.”

“Would that be Mr. Stampler?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you, Lieutenant,” Venable said. She turned to Vail. “Your witness,” she said.

Vail stood up slowly, buttoned his jacket and approached the witness stand with his trusty yellow legal pad in hand. He leaned on the railing separating the witness box from the courtroom and smiled.

“Lieutenant,” Vail said softly, “would it be fair to say that your main job is gathering evidence in homicide cases which is then turned over to the D.A. for prosecution?”

“That’s part of it.”

“What else?”

“Well, there’s that somewhat ambiguous area called deduction—or detection, if you will,” Stenner said. His voice, always with an edge to it, made him sound on the verge of anger.

“And that is taking all the evidence and putting it together, then making an educated guess about what it all means, right?”

“Objection to counselor’s use of the word ‘guess,’ Your Honor,” Venable said.

“I qualified it with the word ‘educated,’” Vail said. “If there’s a better way to describe it, I’m open to it.”

Shoat looked down at Stenner and smiled. “Would you object, sir, if the counselor substituted the word ‘appraisal’ for ‘guess’?”

Stenner shook his head.

“Excellent choice, Your Honor, thank you,” Venable said.

“Lieutenant, if you are provided with information which is detrimental to a case you’re developing, how do you deal with it?”

“The same as any other piece of evidence.”

“In other words, you are not selective about the information you provide to the district attorney?”

“Of course not.”

“So if you arrest someone and he has an alibi, do you check it out or do you expect him to provide the proof?”

“We would check it out.”

“That’s part of the investigative process, right?”

“Yes it is.”

“Lieutenant, when did you first see Aaron Stampler?”

“He was cowering in a confessional at the cathedral.”

“This was when he was arrested?”

“Yes.”

“And did he say anything?”

“He said, ‘Didn’t do it, Mama. Mama, didn’t do it.’”

“Did he appear frightened?”

“Yes, he was terrified.”

“And did you read him his rights at that time?”

“Yes I did.”

“Now Lieutenant, did you conduct three interrogations with the defendant—”

“Objection, Your Honor,” Venable interjected. “That’s inadmissable. Mr. Vail had it excluded himself!”

“I’m not introducing testimony concerning the content of the interrogations, Judge, just that they occurred.”

“See that you don’t,” Shoat snapped.

“Prior to your first interrogation, in the car on the way to the station, did you have a conversation with Mr. Stampler?”

“We chatted,” Stenner answered. “I asked him the usual. What his name was, where he lived, worked, that kind of thing.”

“In fact, didn’t you ask Aaron, and I use your exact words, ‘Why did you kill the archbishop, what did he ever do to you?’”

“I object, Your Honor. Counselor’s trying to get parts of the interrogation into the record without admitting the entire Q and A.”

“On the contrary, I am asking the lieutenant about what he himself characterized as a chat he had with the defendant on the
way to the police station. I’m not referring to the three taped interviews which have been excluded from testimony.”

“Objection overruled.”

“How about it, Lieutenant, did you ask Stampler that question?”

“Something to that effect.”

“Isn’t that kind of a ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ question? The fact is, you assumed he was guilty, did you not?”

“I suppose so.”

“How did he answer the question?”

“He said he didn’t remember what happened.”

“In fact, didn’t he say he blacked out?”

“Yes, he used those words.”

“And did he also say there was someone else in the room besides the bishop?”

“Yes.”

“Did he tell you who it was?”

“No. He just said he was afraid of him.”

“Just like that?”

“I don’t understand …”

“Let me suggest what was said. He refused to tell you who else was in the room. You said, ‘Are you afraid to?’ and he answered, ‘Yes.’ Is that about the way it went?”

“I guess so. Like I said, it was two months ago.”

“My reason … why I bring this up, Lieutenant, is that I think you misinterpreted what the defendant meant. He did not say he was afraid of the other person, he said he was afraid to tell you. He was exercising his Miranda rights, which you had just given him.”

“What’s the point, Counselor?” Shoat said.

“The point is, I believe Lieutenant Stenner misinterpreted the remark. And since the lieutenant interprets the comments of witnesses in preparing the appraisal to the D.A., which is the evidence for the prosecution, and if his appraisal is based on a misinterpretation of remarks made by witnesses, I suggest that this is a perfect example of the fallacy in the appraisal and therefore it is fair game for challenge.”

Shoat seemed confused by the explanation. “Are you objecting to something here?” he asked.

“Your Honor,” Vail said, “I just want to make sure that the line is clear here and that this so-called appraisal is not carved
in stone and that we are not confusing fact with faulty guesswork.”

“Your Honor, please. Counselor has already been admonished for using the term ‘guesswork’ …”

“Yes, yes, Miss Venable, I’m ahead of you on this. Mr. Vail, I think we all agreed that the word ‘appraisal’ is better suited here.”

“I didn’t agree with it.”

“Noted!” Shoat blurted. “Now get on with it.”

“Okay, but if it please the court, I want to make sure the jury understands that when Lieutenant Stenner makes a statement such as saying Aaron said he was afraid of the other person in the room, that is not true. It is a supposition and an erroneous one and the record needs to show that.”

“Who says so?” Venable demanded.

“Your own witness. Page twelve of the interview submitted by Dr. Bascott that was taken March third by Dr. Ciaffo:

“Ciaffo: And you say you were afraid of this other person in the room.

“Stampler. No, ma’am.

“Ciaffo: I’m sorry, what did you mean?

“Stampler: I don’t want to say any more about it.

“Now I contend that Stampler never said he was afraid of the other person in the room.
He didn’t want to talk any more about it.
It supports my earlier contention that this is not a scientific evaluation, it includes human error and should be regarded lightly by the jury.”

“Mr. Vail, I will instruct the jury, if you don’t mind. You are out of order. Save your remarks for summation and get back on track.”

Vail walked back to his desk, picked up a file folder, leafed through it for a minute, then turned and interrogated Stenner from across the room.

“Lieutenant, did Aaron Stampler tell you he blacked out and didn’t remember anything until he was outside, running away?”

“Or words to that effect.”

“And what did you think when he told you that?”

“I thought it was a pretty feeble excuse for murder.”

“You didn’t believe him?”

“No, I didn’t.”

“Are you familiar with the medical term ‘fugue state’ or hysterical amnesia?”

“Yes, I discussed it with Dr. Bascott.”

“As a matter of fact, you don’t believe in the fugue theory, do you, Lieutenant Stenner?”

“I have no firm opinion.”

“It is a scientific fact, Lieutenant.”

“As I said, I have no firm opinion.”

“Do you believe that two plus two equals four?”

“Of course.”

“Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun?”

“Yes.”

“Are you a Christian, Lieutenant?”

“Yes.”

“Go to church every Sunday?”

“Yes.”

“Do you believe in the Resurrection?”

“Yes I do.”

“Is the Resurrection a matter of fact or a theory?”

“Objection, Your Honor. Lieutenant’s Stenner’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with this case.”

“On the contrary, Your Honor. If I may proceed, I think I can show the relevance.”

“Overruled. Read the last question, please, Ms. Blanchard.”

“‘Is the Resurrection a matter of fact or a theory?’”

“Lieutenant?”

“It is a matter of faith, sir.”

“So you believe in scientific fact and you believe in religious faith, but you question the scientific reality of a psychiatric disorder which all psychologists agree exists and which is included in DSM3, which is the standard by which all psychiatric disturbances are identified, isn’t that a fact, sir?”

“It can be faked. You can’t fake two plus two, but you could sure fake a fugue state.”

“I see. And how many people do you know for a certainty have faked a fugue state?”

Stenner paused for a moment, then said, “None.”

“How many people do you know who have had experiences with faked fugue states?”

“None.”

“Read a lot of examples of faking a fugue state?”

“No.”

“So you’re guessing, right?”

“It’s logical. If there is such a thing, it could certainly be faked.”

“Have you asked a psychiatrist if it’s possible?”

“No.”

“So you’re guessing, Lieutenant, yes or no?”

“Yes.”

“Ah, so your reason for doubting Aaron Stampler’s statement is that you guessed he was faking—or lying, right?”

“That is correct.”

“You didn’t believe him?”

“No I did not.”

“So you assumed that Aaron was lying and that he killed Bishop Rushman, correct?”

“It was a very logical assumption.”

“I’m not questioning the logic of your assumption, just that it existed. You assumed Stampler was guilty, right?”

“Yes.”

“When did you ascertain that Aaron was alone in the room with the bishop at the time of the murder?”

“I don’t understand…”

“At what point, Lieutenant, were you positive from reviewing the evidence that Aaron Stampler acted alone?”

“From the very beginning.”

“And what evidence did you gather to prove he was alone in the room?”

“Forensics evidence. Uh …”

“Let me put it another way. Aaron Stampler tells you that he blacked out when he entered the bishop’s room, correct?”

“Yes.”

“What did you do to disprove his allegation? In other words, sir, what evidence or witnesses can you produce that will verify your contention that he was alone in the room and that he acted alone?”

“Forensics evidence, physical evidence, just plain logic …”

“You believe in the Resurrection, yet it defies logic, does it not?”

“Not to a good Christian.”

“So you believe in an act of faith, but deny the existence of a fugue state, which is a scientifically proven fact. Isn’t that true?”

“I said I don’t trust Stampler.”

“Because you think it is logical that he was faking, right?”

“I suppose so.”

“Do you recall a case involving a man named John Robinson Jeffries?”

“Objection, Your Honor. Immaterial and irrelevant.”

“I intend to prove it’s very material, Your Honor.”