Death's Witness (7 page)

“Why don’t you look at the second page of that letter, sir?

Toward the bottom.”

Vincent Sorrentino paused. He walked away from the podium where he had been standing and moved toward the middle of the rail of the jury box. He was in profile to the jurors. He held a copy of the letter.

P A U L B A T I S T A

“Take a look at the paragraph at the bottom, sir, the paragraph numbered four. Read it out loud. And then tell me this: doesn’t it mean that Mr. Steinman and his friends can decide that if
they
don’t think you perform well, if
they
think you’ve been anything less than terrific here,
they
can urge the judge to send you to jail for the tax evasion and mail fraud you’ve pleaded guilty to?”

Leaning backward in his chair as Hutchinson stared at the document, Neil Steinman glanced at Sorrentino—slim and lithe—and wondered if Hutchinson would remember the careful way Steinman had rehearsed him for this scene.

48

Hutchinson didn’t. Instead, he said, “I don’t have to read it out loud, Mr. Sorrentino. It does say what you say it does, not in those words exactly, but yes, it does say that.”

Sorrentino turned his back on Hutchinson, faced the jury briefly, and then walked to the podium. “You have difficulty with the truth, don’t you, sir?”

“Objection,” Steinman shouted.

“Sustained.”

Sorrentino didn’t care that Judge Feigley had rejected the question. His face and his gestures showed no disappointment.

“You testified just a few minutes ago that you lied to the Grand Jury to protect the Congressman, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“By the way, it wasn’t your idea to say that, was it?”

“That was my testimony.”

“But over the last year, you’ve met with Mr. Steinman and his friends twenty times, twenty-five times, after you decided to turn on the Congressman?”

“Objection.”

“Overruled. It’s cross-examination, Mr. Steinman. I’ll permit it.”

Steinman persisted, “But, Judge, it’s irrelevant how many times the witness met with us.”

“Mr. Steinman, didn’t you hear me? Overruled.”

Hutchinson, who had been looking up at the judge as if waiting for a sign from heaven, realized he had to answer. “Many D E AT H ’ S W I T N E S S

times. I met with them many times. Those numbers are probably right.”

“And you rehearsed your testimony for this trial with Mr.

Steinman before you appeared here three days ago?”

“I have had many conversations with Mr. Steinman recently.”

“And he told you to say that you were trying to protect Congressman Fonseca when you lied to the Grand Jury. Didn’t he put those words into your mouth?”

“I can’t recall.”

“You can’t recall? It just came to you right now, is that it? You
49

needed an explanation as to why you were lying then and under oath why you’re not lying now. You needed that kind of explanation, didn’t you?”

“Objection.”

“Overruled.”

Steinman was standing now. Judge Feigley’s grand bench was so elevated and the prosecution table so close to the bench that Steinman had to tilt his head back at a steep angle, like Dorothy looking up at the Wizard of Oz. “The question is compound, Judge, not intelligible.”

“I just overruled the objection, Mr. Steinman. I think the witness can answer it. I’ll ask the court reporter to read it back.”

The reporter leaned forward, pulling the folded paper from a small basket attached to his machine. He reread the question in a precise, falsetto voice.

Hutchinson answered, “Yes, I did.”

“And Mr. Steinman told you to say you lied to protect my client, didn’t he?”

“Yes.” Hutchinson glanced at Neil Steinman, who appeared to be reading notes on the table in front of him, feigning unconcern, just as if he were concentrating on a newspaper in a crowded subway car. Hutchinson then filled the pause that Sorrentino deliberately prolonged. “But it was true, I wanted to protect the Congressman.”

“I didn’t ask you that, did I, Mr. Hutchinson?”

P A U L B A T I S T A

Steinman was relieved when Judge Feigley spoke into her microphone, “You’re here just to ask questions, Mr. Sorrentino, not to make comments. I’m the judge. This is my courtroom.”

Steinman was even more relieved when he saw that Sorrentino couldn’t conceal a quick, angry look at Judge Feigley.

She had interfered with him and Sorrentino plainly didn’t like that. Yet Steinman also knew Sorrentino had made his points.

Hutchinson’s Midwestern patina of earnest honesty, carefully cultivated over three days of direct examination, had been cracked, irrevocably.

50

* * *

By the afternoon of the next day Hutchinson looked ashen. He was visibly sagging, slumped back in the witness chair, and giving mumbled, monosyllabic answers to Sorrentino’s questions, or answering, “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” about subjects he should have known or should have recalled.

For his part, Sorrentino grew in strength and range as Hutchinson wilted. His questions probed everywhere, from the core of the case—what Hutchinson really knew about the government’s claims that Congressman Fonseca accepted paid-for vacations to the Caribbean, stock, and cash in exchange for placing telephone calls and writing letters to help Selig Klein’s companies and other trucking and waterfront businesses—to issues that simply and tellingly related to Hutchinson’s own credibility, such as claims made by his former wife in year-old divorce papers that he had twice beaten her in their apartment in the Watergate and lied to the police about the beatings.

Hutchinson, as Steinman knew, was now almost incapable of anticipating and dealing with Sorrentino’s shifting subject areas.

Toward the end of the second afternoon, with the day’s recess not far off ( Judge Feigley was not a hard worker, holding court from ten in the morning to noon, with a two-hour break for lunch, and then limiting the afternoon session to two hours), Vincent Sorrentino asked, “Now, sir, I want to ask you something about why D E AT H ’ S W I T N E S S

you decided to deal Congressman Fonseca away, to turn on him.

You recall you testified that you didn’t talk with a lawyer before you were called to the Grand Jury the first time?”

“I remember that.”

“Good. It’s nice when you remember something.” There was a relieved sarcasm in Sorrentino’s voice that one or two people in the anonymous jury noticed; they giggled, quickly and sardonically. It concerned Steinman that Sorrentino had built such a rap-port with the jurors that some of them appreciated the blatant sarcasm. And then Sorrentino continued: “And after that, because
51

you were disturbed by the way your day went, you decided to talk to a lawyer, isn’t that right, sir?”

“Yes.”

“And you finally hired Mr. Cerf as your lawyer, didn’t you, and he was the man who helped you do your deal with the government, right?”

“Right. Mr. Cerf.”

“And Mr. Cerf knows his way around Mr. Steinman’s office and he had no problem delivering a deal for you, right?”

“I wanted a man with experience.”

“In fact, Mr. Cerf used to work in exactly the same office as Mr. Steinman, didn’t he?”

“I was told that.”

“And he managed to tie you up in a package and deliver you here, didn’t he?”

“Objection.” Neil Steinman tried to sound exasperated.

Judge Feigley, quiet for a long time, now roused herself. “I don’t know where you’re going with this, Mr. Sorrentino, I truly don’t. I want to give you all the leeway in the world but I don’t know where you’re going.”

“I’ll withdraw that question, Judge. But let me just ask one other question before I leave this area—”

“When
you
leave this area,” Judge Feigley said with a broad smile, “
we
leave for the day.” She liked to feel she entertained the jurors, and they in fact laughed. “So make it fast, Mr. Sorrentino.”

P A U L B A T I S T A

Sorrentino had sense enough to laugh as the jurors laughed before he asked, almost casually, “Between the time you left the Grand Jury room and you hired Mr. Cerf, how much time was that? What was the interval?”

“Almost six weeks. I don’t know for sure.”

“Did you see any other lawyer in that time?”

Judge Feigley said, “Now, Mr. Sorrentino, you’ve just proved again what I always say about lawyers. Never believe them when they say just one more question.”

The jurors laughed, and again so did Sorrentino before he
52

repeated the question: “What other lawyer did you see?”

“I saw Tom Perini.”

In the many weeks since Tom Perini died, his name hadn’t been mentioned once in the jury’s presence in the courtroom.

Even Sorrentino was visibly startled by the answer. The jury was alert, focused.

“How often did you see Mr. Perini?”

“Four, five times.”

“Did you hire him?”

“No.”

“Was there a reason for that?”

“Nothing in particular.”

“Did he do anything for you?”

“Look, Mr. Sorrentino, I really can’t remember. It was more than a year ago. I needed a lawyer. Someone brought up Mr.

Perini’s name. I recognized the name. I called him. I took the train up from Washington. We talked. And then I talked to other people. I decided to go with Mr. Cerf.”

“What did you talk to Mr. Perini about?”

Steinman rose to his feet. “Objection. Attorney-client privilege.”

Alert as a jaguar, Sorrentino responded, “But the witness said he never hired Perini.”

Judge Feigley commented, “But, Mr. Sorrentino, this man plainly spoke to Mr. Perini to get legal advice—”

D E AT H ’ S W I T N E S S

“We don’t know that, Judge, until we know what the witness discussed with Perini. This is all news to me. And it’s news, as far as I know, to everyone involved in this case—”

“Mr. Sorrentino, there you go cutting me off again.” She hit the bench with the palm of her hand. Sorrentino despised her. He waited for her next words, as he gripped both edges of the podium. She said into her microphone, “But I’m not going to rule on your question or the objection now, Mr. Sorrentino. And I’m not going to have discussions like this in the presence of the jury.

If any of you hardworking ladies and gentlemen would like to
53

write a brief on this subject tonight, have it delivered by eight tomorrow morning to my law clerk. It’s not my business how you spend your nights.”

Then she swiveled in her high-backed chair and smiled benignly at the jurors. “I told these ladies and gentlemen of the jury that the day was almost over, and here we are sixty-four questions later. We’ll reconvene at ten-thirty tomorrow morning.”

7.

Julie had taken Stan Wasserman’s invitation and started working again five weeks after Tom’s burial. She began with only two or three hours a day, trying to adjust Kim and herself to what would have to become longer absences. During her pregnancy, she and Tom had tacitly expected she’d return to work full-time at some point after Kim’s birth. At thirty-six, she was, after all, a career woman. Journalism was her career.

But they soon developed another tacit understanding after Kim was born. They both fell in love with the new, unexpected depth of their life together. They agreed Julie would stay at home indefinitely, only filling in occasional half-days (the most tenuous of links, making the newsroom like the recurrent dream of a house where she no longer lived), even if that meant that NBC

might ultimately just let her go entirely. In Julie’s mind, the business world’s glass ceiling was the smile on her child’s face. For both Julie and Tom, Kim was more important than either his work or hers. Almost every day there was an unexpected deepening of the texture which the child’s new presence in their lives brought them.

In any event, Julie’s feelings about the work she did had always been complex and ambivalent. She started in journalism after she graduated from Wellesley, working first for a moderate-sized newspaper in dreary Manchester, New Hampshire, and then moving to New York a few years later to work for AP. Fluent, well-read, D E AT H ’ S W I T N E S S

interested in a variety of subjects (but not arts and leisure, cooking, or wine), she had become extremely proficient in weaving together disparate dispatches from multiple sources. She produced seamless copy. Writing in that way never brought her a byline, a name recognition she no longer really desired. By the time she married Tom, she had already joined the newswriting staff at NBC where her job was to prepare words that were ultimately broadcast by the onscreen announcers. The only recognition she received—and it was the only recognition she wanted—was that her name appeared every Friday night at 6:59 on the television screen, rolling quickly
55

in bright graphics with the fifty-five other names of writers, staffers, and photographers who worked for the station. It was the weekly bouquet to the unseen staff from the egomaniacs on the screen.

She fell back easily into the ability to turn out short copy that was never altered when it was printed into the black box—called

“the hole”—from which it was read aloud by the anchors. They were able to give the millions of viewers the impression that they spoke flawlessly, without prompting, the words Julie wrote. Suc-cinct, no embellishment, simple. But, within hours of her return to the high-tech newsroom, with its modern odor of new plastic computers, she felt the encroachment of the old problems that had concerned her before Kim’s birth: the sense that she was not a doer but instead only an anonymous writer; that news organizations and the people who worked in them had an exaggerated sense of their own importance; and that her ability to splice diverse pieces of information into news stories that could be read in twenty seconds or less was not an important talent and not in any acceptable sense a valuable life’s work.

And now she felt the encroachment of other old demons from her childhood and early adult years: the station paid reasonably well, but Tom’s death had plunged her back into that recurring sense of precariousness about money she had felt as a bookish girl in Southern California, where her father, who owned a series of car dealerships in the sixties and seventies, passed from bankruptcy to bankruptcy, surfacing in small city after small city with names such
P A U L B A T I S T A

as Mr. Al’s Dodge, Kensington Buick, Suburban Datsun.

As for Tom, he had always produced enough money so that, as a couple with no extravagant tastes, they lived well. Tom, however, born to working-class Italian parents, had not accumulated a fortune. His four years in professional football were not long and he had been under a contract worth about $1 million for each of the years. Although taxes consumed almost half of those payments, and his agent’s fees another fifteen percent, it had been sufficient for him in those years. And what remained of it was enough to put him through Columbia Law School and to buy the
56