Special Circumstances (35 page)

“I don’t know.”
“Could you tell us what time Mr. Russo showed up the next morning forthe closing?”
“He didn’t show up.” He pauses.
“He seems to have disappeared.”
“Did he ever call you?”
“No.”
“Leave a message?”
“No.”
“Try to get in touch with you?”
“Objection,” says Skipper.
“We get the idea.”
“Sustained. Move along, Mr. Daley.”
“What time did you leave the building that night, Mr. Frazier?”
“About one thirty-five.”
“And was Mr. Russo still in the building when you left?”
“As far as I know.”
“When was the last time you saw him?”
“Around one o’clock. He was with Mr. Holmes.”
“What were they doing?”
“They were talking.”
“About what?”
“Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.”
“Your Honor, I’m not trying to establish precisely what was said or thetruth of what was said. I’m simply asking Mr. Frazier to report onthe subject that was being discussed.”
“Overruled.”
“They were talking about the deal.”
“Is it possible Mr. Russo told Mr. Holmes that Mr. Russo did notintend to close the deal?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Overruled.”
Frazier holds up his hands.
“It’s possible. I just don’t know.”
“And was that the last time you saw Mr. Russo?”
Yes.
I take a deep breath.
“Isn’t it possible, Mr. Frazier, that Mr. Holmes may have becomedistraught and killed himself if Mr. Russo told him that he didn’twant to close the deal?”
Judge Chen looks at Skipper, who should object. I’ve just asked ahighly speculative question.
“It was just a business deal,” Frazier says.
“It may have been a big deal, but it wasn’t worth committing suicidefor.”
Good point.
“Isn’t it possible that Mr. Russo’s disappearance can be explained bythe fact that he killed Mr. Holmes and Ms. Kennedy, and that he fledafter he committed these terrible acts?”
“Objection,” Skipper shrieks.
“Highly speculative.”
Look who woke up.
“Sustained.”
I turn back to Frazier.
“Isn’t it true that you really didn’t want the deal to close?”
He looks incredulous.
“Of course not.”
“Isn’t it true you figured out that you couldn’t make the profitmargins on the deal that you had originally anticipated?”
“No.” He’s indignant.
“Isn’t it true, Mr. Frazier, that if you killed the deal, you wouldhave had to pay Mr. Russo a fiftymillion-dollar breakup fee?”
“Objection. Relevance.”
“Overruled.”
“Your Honor,” Frazier implores, “the terms of the deal areconfidential.”
She looks right through him.
“Mr. Frazier,” she says, “a moment ago you were trying to impress uswith the enormous size of this deal. You can’t have it both ways.Answer the question.”
His jaws tighten. Another promising corporate career is heading forthe Dumpster.
“The breakup fee was fifty million dollars,” he says. The suits inStamford just got a severe case of indigestion.
I glance at the jury.
“Just so everybody understands this, Mr. Frazier, if you pulled theplug on the deal, your company would have had to pay Mr. Russo fiftymillion dollars. Is that correct?”
His shoulders slump.
“Yes.”
“And if Mr. Russo pulled the plug, you wouldn’t have owed him a penny,right?”
“Right.”
“And you wouldn’t have had to buy a company you really didn’t want.”
“We wanted the company, Mr. Daley.”
“Right. You could have saved your company a fiftymillion-dollarbreakup fee and you could have avoided buying a company you reallydidn’t want if you could have found a way to get Vince Russo to killthe deal. Isn’t that about it, Mr.
Frazier?”
Skipper’s up.
“Objection. I don’t believe there was a question there.”
He’s right. There wasn’t.
“Sustained.”
“No further questions.”
Ed Ehrlich from the city attorney’s office is next.
“Mr. Ehrlich,” Skipper says, “you were representing the city of SanFrancisco in connection with the Russo deal, weren’t you?”
He looks nervously through his thick glasses.
“Yes,” he replies. A member of the board of supervisors is here tomake sure he doesn’t screw up.
“And the city had agreed to provide financing for the deal, right?”
“Yes.” Good answer. Keep it short. Stick to the facts.
“When did you leave the Simpson offices that night?”
“Around ten o’clock.”
“And did you expect the deal to close?”
“Yes. All the papers were signed.”
“And, as far as you knew, everything was on schedule to close?”
“Yes.”
Skipper gets Ehrlich to say that Bob was in a good mood that night andwas looking forward to the closing. Then he sits down.
“Mr. Ehrlich,” I say, “the mayor had some serious issues with thisdeal, didn’t he?”
“There were some concerns about our ability to obtain sufficient fundsto finance the deal.”
“How serious?”
“Not serious,” he says slowly.
“Yet you were prepared to move forward.”
“Yes.”
“And you believe Mr. Russo and Mr. Holmes were prepared to moveforward?”
“Yes.”
“And you were aware that Mr. Russo had serious reservations aboutproceeding with the deal?”
“I knew he had some issues.”
“Isn’t it true, Mr. Ehrlich, that the mayor had instructed you to doeverything in your power to terminate the deal?”
He looks at the mayor’s henchman from the board of supervisors.
“No.”
“Isn’t it true that the mayor determined that the city didn’t havesufficient funds to conclude the deal on the original terms?”
“There were cash-flow issues. But we wanted to close the deal and keepthe jobs in the city.”
I may have him cornered.
“Mr. Ehrlich, where was the city going to get the money to concludethe financing of the deal?”
“From sources within the San Francisco banking community.”
“What was the interest rate?”
“Prime plus four.”
“And what rate were you charging the buyer?”
“Prime plus one.”
“So the spread was three percent?”
“Right.”
“And how big was the loan?”
“A hundred million dollars.”
“I see. The spread at three percent is three million dollars a year,right?”
“That’s right.”
“And how many jobs would you have saved for the city?”
“About three thousand.”
“By my math, that’s about a thousand dollars a job.”
He nods.
“I guess you could look at it that way.”
“And you’re sure this was okay with the mayor?”
Skipper’s up.
“Asked and answered, Your Honor.”
“Sustained.”
“And it’s your testimony that throughout all of this, Bob Holmes was ina great mood.”
Ehrlich takes off his glasses and rubs his eyes.
“He did not appear upset to me.”
Add the city to the list of parties that look like idiots.
“No further questions.”
The parade continues a few minutes later when Clan Morris takes thestand and smiles confidently.
“I was present that evening,” he replies to Skipper’s first question.
“The mayor asked me to assist with the closing. He wanted to be sureit got done. A lot was riding on it.”
“What time did you leave the office, Mr. Morris?”
“Around one-thirty-five.” Skipper gets him to say that Russo andHolmes were ready to close the deal. According to Morris, everybodywas in a great mood.
“Did you have any indications from Mr. Holmes or Mr. Russo that theywould not proceed with the closing?”
“None.”
“No further questions.”
I stand.
“Mr. Morris, isn’t it true that the city couldn’t afford the deal?”
He shrugs.
“I’m not sure I understand the question.”
“Isn’t it true that the city didn’t have enough money to fund the deal?And isn’t it true that the mayor sent you and Mr. Ehrlich to theSimpson and Gates offices to try to torpedo it?”
“That’s ridiculous. It was a good deal for both parties.”
“If it was such a good deal for Vince Russo, why did he disappear?”
“Objection. Argumentative. Speculative. Foundation.”
“Sustained.”
“Did Mr. Russo appear agitated to you that night, Mr. Morris?”
He’s smug.
“He always appeared agitated.”
“Do you have any idea why Bob Holmes committed suicide?”
“Objection,” Skipper says.
“Move to strike the suggestion that Mr. Holmes committed suicide.”
“Sustained.”
“I’ll rephrase.” I look him right in the eye.
“Come on, Mr. Morris. Level with us. Two people are dead and anotherperson disappeared. Why did it happen? Why were so many peopleunhappy about this deal?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
“Certainly, you must have a theory, Mr. Morris?”
“Objection. Speculative.”
“Sustained.”
There’s nothing else I can do. I’ve planted the seed with the jury.
“No further questions.”
CHAPTER 40
I’VE BEN A HOMICIDE INSPECTOR FOR THIRTY SEVEN YEARS
“They’ve finished the preliminaries. Gates is going to bring in hiscleanup hitter. Inspector Roosevelt Johnson.”
—news center 4 LEGAL ANALYST morgan henderson. friday, march 27.
The next morning is Friday, and Skipper goes to his strength. Rooseveltlooks directly at Skipper.
“My name is Roosevelt Johnson. I’ve been a homicide inspector forthirty-seven years.”
Joel tenses. Naomi scowls. Rosie eyes Roosevelt. Mort studies thejury.
“Inspector Johnson,” Skipper begins, “could you tell us what time youarrived at the Simpson and Gates offices on the morning of Decemberthirty-first of last year?”
“Eight-thirty-seven.” His tone is authoritative. The courtroom issilent.
“Would you please describe what you found at the scene?” Skipper’sapproach is textbook. You lob open-ended questions to strong witnesseslike Roosevelt. This will allow him to tell his story the way he’srehearsed it. I’m going to have to try to figure out ways to break uphis flow.
Roosevelt clears his throat. He turns slightly toward the jury. He’snot just going to tell his story. He’s going to tell his story tothem.
“The office was in a state of chaos and shock. Word had spreadthroughout the firm of the homicides.”
I stand and interrupt. I try to sound respectful.
“Your Honor, there’s no foundation for Mr. Johnson’s characterizationof the events that day as ‘homicides.” We must move to strike.”
She turns to Roosevelt.
“Inspector, please limit your testimony to factual matters. We’lldetermine whether the deaths of Mr. Holmes and Ms. Kennedy should becharacterized as homicides.”
“Yes, Your Honor,” Roosevelt says.
She tells the jury to disregard his characterization of the deaths ashomicides. She looks at me with a pained expression, as if to say,“Are you happy now?”
“Inspector,” Skipper continues, “you were telling us what happened whenyou arrived.”
He describes his interviews with the police on the scene and hisdiscussions with the paramedics and the technicians from the coroner’soffice. He confirms that Bob and Diana were pronounced dead at 8:22.He describes the all-hands meeting in the reception area. After twentyminutes, he concludes by saying, “We knew this was an important case.We wanted to make sure we got everything right.”
“Inspector Johnson,” Skipper says, “what happened next in yourinvestigation?”
“We interviewed witnesses and gathered evidence.” He says the policeobtained statements from everyone who was present that night. Theytalked to building security and impounded the security videos.
“Did you interview the defendant?”
He takes off his glasses.
“Yes. He confirmed he was at the office that night.”
“Was he a suspect on December thirty-first?”
“No. Originally, we thought this case was a murder-suicide. It wasn’tuntil later that we began to focus more closely on the defendant.” Henever mentions Joel by name.
“Inspector, when did you first begin to suspect the defendant may havebeen involved?”
Roosevelt says they became suspicious of Joel when they received thecoroner’s report and began to examine the physical evidence.
Skipper picks up the cue. He signals to McNulty.
“This would probably be a good time to turn to the physicalevidence.”
Rosie whispers in my ear, “We’re going to take a pounding for a while.”She’s right.
Skipper picks up the gun and hands it to Roosevelt.
“Do you recognize this weapon?”
“Yes. It’s the weapon that fired the bullets that killed the victims,Robert Holmes and Diana Kennedy.”
Time moves slowly for the next two hours. Skipper has Rooseveltdescribe every piece of physical evidence in detail. Ten minutes onballistics. Fifteen minutes on fingerprints. Fifteen minutes on themessage on Diana’s answering machine.
Ten minutes on the voicemail message to Bob. Ten minutes on thefingerprints on the computer keyboard. I object frequently,ferociously and, for the most part, futilely. We have a fundamentalproblem with the physical evidence. It all points toward Joel.
At eleven o’clock, they’re still going strong. Skipper’s on today.Roosevelt and the jury seem like old friends. Rita Roberts sitsquietly in the gallery. Rabbi Friedman stares straight ahead. Naomiis stoic. At eleven-forty-five, Skipper asks Roosevelt to summarizehis views on the physical evidence.
“We concluded the defendant fired the shots that killed the victims. Ina clumsy attempt to cover up his crime, he typed a bogus suicidemessage on Mr.
Holmes’s computer.”
Judge Chen looks at her watch and says, “This is a good time to breakfor lunch.”
Joel ignores his sandwich.
“We’re getting killed, Mike,” he says. We’re sitting in the crampedconsultation room behind Judge Chen’s courtroom. Mort eats a cornedbeef sandwich. Rosie drinks a Diet Coke. I hold a can of Diet Dr.Pepper.
There won’t be much fine dining until the trial is over.
Mort takes a fatherly tone.
“You take some lumps when the prosecution presents its case.”
I add, “We haven’t had a chance to crossexamine Roosevelt yet.” Joelis unconvinced. Without a word, he puts his uneaten sandwich into thewhite paper bag and drops it into the wastebasket.
The afternoon session doesn’t start any better.
“Inspector Johnson,” Skipper begins, “this morning, we spent a greatdeal of time discussing how Robert Holmes and Diana Kennedy werekilled. We talked about the murder weapon. We listened toincriminating tapes. The defendant’s fingerprints were found on acomputer keyboard that was used to type a bogus suicide message.”
Enough.
“Objection. Mr. Gates is making his closing argument a littleearly.”
“Sustained. Mr. Gates, do you think you can find a question to askInspector Johnson?”
“Yes, Your Honor.” He continues to lecture.
“This afternoon,” he says to nobody in particular, “we need to discusswhy the defendant killed Mr. Holmes and Ms.
Kennedy.”
I interrupt again.
“Your Honor,” I say sarcastically, “is there a question in theresomewhere?”
“Let’s get to it, Mr. Gates,” she says sharply.
“Yes, Your Honor.” Then he turns back to Roosevelt.
“Inspector Johnson, do you have any reason to believe the defendant wasangry at Mr. Holmes and Ms.
Kennedy?”
“Yes.”
“Angry enough to kill them?”