Try Fear - By James Scott Bell Page 0,61
know some things, such as his relationship with his brother. He said that he had a fine relationship with his brother and I asked if he had been in any arguments with him lately, and he said he would only talk with a lawyer present.”
“Did you arrest him?”
“Not at that time.”
“When did you arrest him?”
“When we got the blood result. His blood was found on the murder weapon—”
“Objection,” I said. “Assumes facts not in evidence, and assumes this was a murder.”
“Sustained,” Judge Hughes said.
Radavich went right on, smooth as butter. “You did place the defendant under arrest, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Did you question him again?”
“I Mirandized him and he refused to answer questions. He asked for a lawyer.”
“Would that be Mr. Buchanan?”
“Yes.”
Radavich had Zebker detail more of the crime scene investigation, including the collection of the forensics evidence. All according to Hoyle, as they say.
“I have no further questions at this time,” Radavich said.
“Cross-examine,” the judge said.
90
CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE most abused aspect of trial work.
Most lawyers badly mishandle it. They go on fishing expeditions, like drunken businessmen angling for marlin on the weekend. Or, worse, try to act like James Woods in Shark to get witnesses to say things they otherwise wouldn’t, through the sheer ferocity of their questioning.
That dramatic stuff hardly ever happens. You have to know exactly what you’re trying to do, and it’s not usually to break down the witness. Very rarely do you even attempt to do that.
Especially when it’s an experienced cop on the stand.
Eager-beaver trial lawyers may attempt to show up a witness in front of the jury, but that is almost always a bad move. Unless the witness is clearly lying, or is otherwise vulnerable, what you should do is try to elicit testimony that’s favorable to your cause. And if you get it, save it for closing argument.
In other words, shut up.
When lawyers try to win their case right then and there, by hammering a witness, they usually end up slamming themselves on the foot.
Only when the witness gives you a wide door should you try to drive a tank through it. And then, when you do, go for the kill.
Zebker was not the kind of witness who was going to give me any openings. He was professional, and had testified a whole bunch of times. So I gave him the friendly treatment.
“Good morning, Detective,” I said from the lectern.
“Good morning.”
Just a couple guys meeting over coffee.
“In your direct testimony you made a great deal of the fact that you found no signs of struggle, correct?”
“I don’t know that I made a great deal out of it, I just mentioned it.”
“But you did draw a conclusion from it, that you thought the victim must have known the killer, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“Do you think the victim knew himself?”
“I don’t understand the question.”
“There would be no signs of struggle if the victim killed himself, correct?”
“We have ruled out suicide.”
“That’s not what I asked you, Detective. The question is, if someone commits suicide, there would not be a sign of struggle either, isn’t that right?”
“That’s correct.”
“And, as you said, no signs of a struggle in that apartment.”
“No.”
I paused, letting the exchange soak into the jurors’ collective mind, then said, “In your interview of the witnesses, not one of them saw anyone go into, or come out of, the victim’s apartment, isn’t that right?”
“That’s right.”
“My client is kind of a large guy, isn’t he?”
“I suppose.”
“Hard to miss in a crowd.”
“Maybe.”
“Harder to miss in an apartment complex, wouldn’t you say?”
“There are ways for someone to get out without being seen, they—”
“Objection,” I said. “Non-responsive. Move to strike.”
“Sustained,” Hughes said.
“My question,” I said, “is that a large man like Eric Richess would be hard to miss in an apartment complex in the early evening hours, isn’t that right?”
“It all depends. If people are inside, if someone climbs out the back window and goes down the—”
“Objection,” I said again.
Radavich got up and said, “He’s opened the door, Your Honor. He’s asking the witness to speculate about the size of his client, and whether he could be seen at the apartment complex. Mr. Buchanan asked for an opinion, and the witness is offering it.”
Hughes said, “I’m going to issue the same ruling. The witness can answer yes or no to the question. If you want to ask him clarifying questions on re-direct, Mr. Radavich, you can do that.”
Two objections, two wins. The judge admonishing the witness. I decided that was a good place to leave that part of the questioning, and went to