The guards had brought Robert Chesterfield over from the jail after letting him change into a hand-tailored suit that Lily had provided. He was waiting at one of the two counsel tables that stood within the bar of the court.
“It’s so good to see you,” Chesterfield said as he reached out to take Lily’s hand.
“No touching,” one of the guards said, and Chesterfield pulled his hand back.
“Sorry,” he apologized.
“Why can’t I touch my husband?” Lily demanded.
“It’s a rule, dearest,” Chesterfield said. “These gentlemen are just performing their sworn duty.”
Peter Ragland sat at the other counsel table. Regina nodded at the deputy district attorney as she passed through the gate that separated the spectators from the attorneys and the judge. After setting out her notes, law books, and statutes, she took a seat next to her client.
“How does it look?” Chesterfield asked.
“We lucked out. Henry Beathard is going to hear our bail motion and motion in limine.”
“Why is that lucky?”
“Beathard taught Evidence before being appointed to the bench, and our motion in limine is based on an interpretation of a rule of evidence. If we win the motion in limine, the judge will probably grant our motion for bail.”
Before Chesterfield could ask another question, a door opened behind the bench, and a barrel-chested man with thinning black hair, old-fashioned horn-rimmed glasses, and a goatee stepped out.
Regina had loved law school. She had been fanatic about preparing for class, and she relished the battle of wits with her professors when they called on her. Henry Beathard conducted motion hearings the way he had conducted his law school classes, and Regina had prepped extra hard for this one.
“Good morning, Mr. Ragland and Miss Barrister,” the judge said. “Miss Barrister, you want me to decide your motion for bail and your motion in limine at this hearing. That’s a bit unusual.”
Regina stood. “It is, Your Honor, but the State can’t hold Mr. Chesterfield without bail under ORS 135.240 unless it convinces you that the proof is evident or the presumption is strong that Mr. Chesterfield is guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment. If we prevail on our motion to exclude evidence of the Gentry case from Mr. Chesterfield’s trial for the murder of Sophie Randall, it will have a major impact on the State’s ability to convince you that Mr. Chesterfield should be denied bail.”
“Very well,” Judge Beathard said. “I’ll hear the motion in limine first. Mr. Ragland, let me see if I understand the facts you hope to establish in our trial, and please correct me if I don’t get this right.
“As I understand it, you intend to present witnesses who will testify that a few months before the new year, Samuel Moser accused the defendant of misconduct at the Westmont Country Club. Mr. Chesterfield was very angry and resigned from the club. Then, two days before the new year, someone sent a box of poisoned chocolates to Mr. Moser. He was on a diet and gave the candy to Sophie Randall, his secretary. Mrs. Randall ate some of the candy and died of cyanide poisoning. You think you can prove that Robert Chesterfield put cyanide in the candy and sent it to Mr. Moser because he was angry at Mr. Moser, and this is the basis for the murder charge involving Mrs. Randall and the attempted murder charge involving Mr. Moser. How am I doing?”
“Just fine, Your Honor,” Ragland said.
“Okay. Now, there is another indictment containing charges our jury will not be asked to decide. In that case, you’re alleging that Mr. Chesterfield and Arthur Gentry were courting a woman named Lily Dowd and that Mr. Chesterfield poisoned his rival for Mrs. Dowd’s affections so he could get rid of him and marry Mrs. Dowd. Am I good so far, Mr. Ragland?”
“Yes.”
“Mr. Ragland, is it your contention that you should be able to tell the jurors about Mr. Gentry’s death when it’s deciding whether Mr. Chesterfield is guilty of killing Mrs. Randall and attempting to kill Mr. Moser?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
Beathard turned to Regina. “You don’t think Mr. Ragland should be allowed to tell the jury about the evidence in the Gentry case, do you, Miss Barrister?”
“No, I don’t.”
“And you want me to rule that the Gentry evidence is inadmissible in this trial?”
“Yes.”
“Since this is your motion, Miss Barrister, you have the burden of convincing me that the State is wrong when Mr. Ragland argues that the Gentry evidence should be heard by our