Try Fear - By James Scott Bell Page 0,49

Prakash said.

Jenks took the oath and stated his name for the record.

The prosecutor asked, “By whom are you employed, sir?”

“I’m a criminalist with the Los Angeles Police Department, Scientific Investigation Division, working out of the Hertzberg-Davis Center at Cal State L.A.”

“How long have you been so employed?”

“Seven years. Previous to that I was with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, for a period of ten years.”

Radavich picked up Carl’s gun from the counsel table. It had been tagged as an exhibit. “Showing you now the weapon used to kill Carl Richess, can you tell me if you conducted any tests?”

“I did.”

“And what did you find?”

Jenks opened up a notebook he’d brought to the stand. “I found a small amount of blood on the barrel of the gun, which I tested, and determined was O positive. This is the blood type of the victim, Carl Richess. I also found a trace amount of blood, a small dot if you will, on the butt of the gun, and the intersection of the slide area.”

“And by that, do you mean where the slide, when chambering a round in this semi-automatic pistol, comes back, at that intersection?”

“That’s right.”

“What was significant to you about that bloodstain?”

“Well, I thought it in an odd spot if the theory is suicide. I particularly wanted to test that, and the test came out O negative.”

“What is the defendant’s blood type?”

“According to the report, it’s O negative.”

“What portion of the population is O negative, sir?”

“A little under eight percent.”

“Has this sample been tested for DNA?”

“It has, and we are awaiting results.”

“Thank you. Nothing further.”

I stood and said, “Your Honor, to this point, the prosecution has not made any blood sample available, so that I can have my own expert analyze it. I would ask the court to direct Mr. Radavich to turn over all samples to us before we proceed any further.”

Radavich said, “Unfortunately, Your Honor, the sample we submitted for DNA analysis was too small to preserve.”

“Then I move that evidence not be admitted,” I said.

“On what grounds?” the judge said.

“On the grounds of reciprocity. How can I possibly challenge the validity of the sample?”

“Do you have any law you can cite me?”

I didn’t, because there wasn’t any. “It’s plain fairness,” I said. “And moral law transcends opinion.”

The judge blinked a couple of times. “What was that?”

“I was just talking about the overall spirit of the law,” I said.

Prakash said, “Be that as it may, and it seldom is, the law is that the prosecution may test and if it’s used up, that’s just the breaks.”

“Hardly seems sporting,” I said.

“Sporting is not a proper objection,” the judge said. “Which means, overruled.”

Eric’s blood on the gun. Terrific. Wonderful. A jury would love it. They think blood is the be-all and end-all of evidence.

It’s called the “CSI effect.” With all the TV shows that have a case wrapped up in an hour, because of advanced—and sometimes fictional—forensics, juries are primed to respond to things like blood and DNA evidence.

Prosecutors don’t like it, because juries are starting to think that without a slam-dunk match, there’s too much reasonable doubt.

But when you have do have a match, the defense has to find a way to limit the relevance.

I had to think of a way to limit this. Not much I could do, but when it was my turn to cross-examine, I asked the good doctor, “There is no way of telling how the sample got there, is there?”

“I believe it was when the gun was fired,” Jenks said.

“You don’t know that.”

“It seems most likely.”

“Seems. Believes. You do not know,do you?”

“There could be alternate explanations, but I would find them highly unlikely.”

I said, “No further questions,” and sat down.

70

RADAVICH’S FINAL WITNESS was Detective Lonnie Zebker. In clipped, professional style, Zebker summarized his investigation, questioning of witnesses and, finally, Eric himself.

Establishing, most importantly, that Eric could not prove that he was anywhere else at the time of the shooting.

I asked a few questions, to commit Zebker to a few facts, but made no dents in his story.

Radavich announced he was through, and submitted the matter to the judge.

I made the typical defense argument that there was not enough evidence to bind Eric over for trial. Judge Prakash made the typical ruling—yes there was.

I asked for a reduction in bail, and Prakash denied it.

Another turn of the wheel in the system. When next we met, it would be to pick a jury to decide the fate of Eric Richess.

71

I MET WITH Eric in the lockup, before