Shadow of Power

The prosecutor pushes this thought out in front of the judge to see if he might start a test drive for a new theory-that is, if the wheels don’t fall off-one that might carry him to the end of his case.

“The only problem, Mr. Tuchio, is that I don’t remember you talking about any assailants other than the defendant in your opening statement, or for that matter presenting any evidence in that direction,” says Qui

Tuchio could reopen his case and try to bring some in, but the fact that this evidence would be at such stark odds with what he has already presented does not allow this as a real and viable option.

“That’s not entirely true, Your Honor.” He argues that there’s evidence of possible conspiracy in the state’s case, or at least that efforts were made by the defendant to enlist the assistance of others in the commission of violence against Scarborough.

Tuchio reminds the judge of the testimony from Charlie Gross, about the bravado by Carl in the bar about kidnapping Scarborough from the hotel, and the fact that Carl’s words, according to the witness, were all cast in the plural-that “we” could kidnap the victim, that “we” could haul him out of the hotel, that “we” could take him out into the desert and shoot him.

Qui

Tuchio had better hope not, because if he is, he has just rung the bell for a mistrial, in which case we can all go home, including Carl, at least until Tuchio charges him again.

“No, no, not at all.” Tuchio’s hand is up like a traffic cop’s. “Not at all. I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there is evidence already in the state’s case that the defendant himself spoke in ways that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that others may have joined him in the commission of the crime. That’s all I’m saying.”

This is the seam, as narrow as it is, that Tuchio wants to crawl through.

You can bet that this sudden parsing of the language off the tripping tongue of Charlie Gross is not something that has sprung from the cortex of Tuchio’s nimble mind as we sit here. He has probably been up all night praying that the letter and the hairs in the envelope are a hoax, while periodically measuring the depth of the crater he’s in if they’re not. He is testing the judge to see if Qui

He explains to the judge that this could make sense-that is, if he can just pound all the little parts that are sticking out into place, so that they fit into his own case, the goal being the continued march toward the death house for Carl.

“Don’t you see, Your Honor? The defendant’s blond confederate was probably the one who slipped the envelope under their office door,” he says.

This is, of course, more polite than suggesting that we opened the door and that Blondie handed it to us, along with a lengthy explanation of what it was.

But as Qui

The prosecutor pounces on a word. “I would agree that it is missing from most of our evidence,” says Tuchio. “But not from all of it.”

What he wants to know is whether the judge will allow him to venture into the realm of multiple killers before the jury in his closing argument.

Harry and I are looking at each other wondering if Tuchio has been smoking something. But given the ways in which he has burned us so far, I’m not willing to take any more bets.

“Fine, you want to argue on that narrow basis, be my guest,” says Qui

Tuchio has his answer.

Just before noon, with the jury in a holding pattern, we get the answer regarding the Jefferson Letter. Forensics experts, employees of the police crime lab, together with our own expert, agree. There is no question that this letter, the four pages from the manila envelope, is the item that was resting on the shadowed leather portfolio at the moment Scarborough was killed.

We end up in Qui

All morning the prosecutor has been closeted with his assistant, Janice Harmen, and Detrick, the lead homicide detective.

The judge seems surprised when Tuchio says no, they’re prepared to go on as is.

Qui

The judge excuses the jury and tells me to be ready with my opening statement first thing in the morning.

Just after four o’clock in the afternoon, Harry and I are secluded in the conference room at the office going over notes to make sure that I hit all the high points in my opening, when the news arrives by telephone.

It is Robert Stepro, our expert on hair and blood-spatter evidence. Harry puts him on the speakerphone.

Stepro tells us that when Dewey Prichert, the state’s expert on hair and fiber, opened the tiny plastic bag from the manila envelope at the police crime lab, he extracted and counted five blond hairs. Microscopic examination revealed that all five had been cleanly clipped from their owner’s head, probably with a pair of scissors. All five samples from the baggie belong to the same person.

And then the clincher, based on examination and findings, by both Prichert and Stepro: The characteristics of the five blond hair samples from the baggie are a positive match to the two blond hairs found lying free, under the toe kick in the bathroom of Scarborough’s hotel room. In addition, they match the one bloodstained blond strand of hair lifted from the crevice between the cushions in the chair where Scarborough was murdered.

It is just shy of 9:20 Wednesday morning when I find myself standing in front of the jury box in Plato Qui

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is Paul Madriani. As you already know, my partner, Harry Hinds, and I represent the defendant, Carl Arnsberg.” I point to Harry, who nods and smiles, and then to Carl, who nods and waves one hand.

“You have heard and seen a good deal of evidence to this point in the trial. But you have not heard or seen all the evidence in this case. When all the evidence is before you, you will be instructed by the judge regarding the law that you must apply in evaluating that evidence.

“Among the items of instruction that you will be given by the judge are two fundamental and important rules. First is that the defendant is to be presumed i

“The second fundamental rule is that the defendant in this case bears no burden of proof. He is not required by law to offer or to produce a single item of evidence establishing his own i