in the past with his skillful and ethical behavior.”
“Thank you, your Honor, that is very kind of the Court to say.” Andersen spoke with absolute ease, without defensiveness of any kind.
“Now, Mr. Andersen,” the Judge asked “Did Steele tell you the story he’s been telling all these years?”
“Yes, it was substantially the same as what’s been recounted here.”
“And you never spoke to Matt Bishop?”
“No, your Honor. I did not.”
“And you never spoke to Matt’s family or his friends?”
“No, your Honor.”
Judge Atkinson squinted and shook his head, obviously confused. “But why? Why didn’t you?”
“First of all,” Andersen began, “I simply didn’t believe him. I’d never met him before. All I had to go on was the fact that his story just didn’t seem to make sense. Then, when I got the police report, it was clear that the entire Bishop family was going to say that Matt was home all night.”
“But what about others who might say that he was not at home?”
“Your honor, I couldn’t just go around to everyone in Los Angeles and ask if they saw Matt Bishop that night. There are limited resources in an investigation. You can only do so much. As the Court knows, it’s easy to dissect an investigation after the fact. I agree with Mr. Carver that the evidence the State put on was weak and I chose to attack that weakness rather than chase an alibi that I thought no one would believe.”
“But in letting Steele testify, without any corroborating evidence, he sounded like a liar.”
“Your Honor, a criminal defendant has a right to testify in his own defense. I advised him against it.”
“Well, I suppose that’s correct.” Judge Atkinson paused. I could hear the sounds of scratching pens as the reporters took their notes. “Thank you Mr. Andersen, that’s all I have.”
“Thank you, your Honor.” Andersen turned and went back through the gate to his seat wearing the same smile as before.
“Mr. Carver.” The Judge called out. “Anything else?”
“No, your honor. I have nothing more.”
“Mr. Griggs.”
Griggs stood and walked to the podium. He took a thick three ring binder with him. There was a lengthy pause as he flipped through the binder and arranged a stack of papers in front of him.
“Your Honor, as Mr. Andersen just said, it’s easy to dissect a case years after the fact and find faults or flaws. But we have to remember that the Constitution accepts certain levels of mistake and error. The State submits that there were no errors made in this case, and, to the extent the Court is inclined to find that there were, we would argue that any errors the Court does find are harmless and do not rise to the level required to overturn a conviction.” Griggs flipped through some more papers. He appeared unorganized.
“Mr. Steele, who was a United States senator at the time of his trial and conviction, had one of the finest trial lawyers in the country. To claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is simply ludicrous. Petitioner’s entire case rests on the statements of a single individual who is himself a criminal with a lengthy record and who should not be trusted to tell the truth. Furthermore, Mr. Kelly, on who Mr. Steele’s argument relies, is able to recall a level of detail that, frankly, I find completely unbelievable. I would bet that most people in this room couldn’t describe an evening that took place last month, let alone twelve years ago.”
“Well, yes, counsel,” Judge Atkinson said. “That’s certainly true. But I think everyone of our generation can remember where they were when they heard Kennedy was shot. We may not be able to tell you what we had for dinner three weeks ago, but we remember big, traumatic events. Wouldn’t you agree that going to the scene of a gruesome murder would be something you would remember?”
“Perhaps. But there’s no reason to think that Mr. Kelly remembers the exact times that these events occurred. If his memory is off by as little as fifteen or twenty minutes, then petitioner’s case crumbles.”
“I would agree with that,” the Judge said, pointing his finger at Griggs. “But, whether or not Mr. Kelly’s memory is accurate, whether or not his memory is credible, aren’t these the kinds of questions normally reserved for juries?”
“Certainly the weight to be given to evidence is a traditional jury function,” Griggs conceded.
“Then why not give a jury a chance to hear this evidence?”
“Because the evidence is inherently unreliable your Honor. It simply