gun is to the body when it’s discharged, along with things like angle of the muzzle, barrel length, caliber of weapon, and so forth. But here there was no pattern at all. That tells me someone else fired the shot.”
“In this case, a gunshot to the mouth, would you expect to find soot inside the mouth?”
“Absolutely.”
“And was there soot inside the mouth?”
“None.”
“Outside the mouth?”
“None.”
“What about the blood that was found on the gun?” Radavich asked.
Dorsini shook his head. “Deposition of high-velocity blood droplets on the back of the hand used to fire a handgun is fairly rare. Five percent. But where it is found, it is in droplets, not in streaks and patches as in this case.”
The suicide theory was sinking slowly in the west, but I didn’t let my face show it. Eric sat perfectly still through the whole thing.
“Does the fact that a latent print on the trigger of the gun was from the victim’s index finger have significance?” Radavich asked.
“It does, but not for suicide.”
“Why is that?”
“Because that is not how gunshot to the mouth would be self-administered.”
“How would it be self-administered?”
“With the thumb.”
Radavich took up the gun and handed it to the witness. “Would you demonstrate what you mean?”
“Certainly.” Dorsini held the gun with both hands and pointed the barrel at himself. “It would look like this,” he said. “This thing’s not loaded, is it?”
The jury and most everybody else laughed.
“I can assure you it’s not,” Radavich said. “We like expert witnesses to be perfectly safe. Now, for the record, you placed the pad of your right thumb on the trigger, is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“What is your opinion about the gunshot in this case?”
“It appears to me someone wanted to make it look like suicide, but got careless with the fingerprints.”
“No more questions.”
I went to the lectern. “Doctor, it’s not impossible to shoot yourself in the mouth, using your index finger on the trigger, is it?”
“It is not likely.”
“That’s not what I asked you.”
“It’s not impossible, no. Just highly unlikely.”
“If someone is planning and deliberating about it, then using the thumb as you just demonstrated, that would be the likely method?”
“Yes.”
“But if the act was not planned. Say it was done on impulse. It’s reasonable that the victim might just suddenly pick up the gun, point it in his mouth, and fire, correct?”
“That can happen, yes, but as—”
“Thank you, Doctor. Oh, by the way, if a person is drunk, is he more or less likely to be deliberate?”
Dorsini scowled. “I suppose it depends on the person.”
“Doctor, what is more likely?”
“I cannot say one way or the other.”
I liked that answer. It defied common sense. And juries don’t like that, especially when it comes from an expert. I decided to save this for closing argument, too. I was storing up a couple of nice nuts.
“Now, Doctor, assuming you are correct about this not being a suicide, there is nothing you can tell us about who may have shot the victim, is there?”
“Of course not.”
“Anybody with a grudge against Carl Richess could have done it, isn’t that right?”
“Objection,” Radavich said. “Speculation, exceeds the scope of direct.”
“Sustained.”
No big deal. I got the question out. I had to at least plant the idea that somebody besides Eric could have killed Carl. The flower would bloom if Nick agreed to testify. If he didn’t, I’d have to find another flower.
111
NEXT, RADAVICH CALLED Freeman Jenks, the tech who had testified about blood at the prelim. Now he was here to talk DNA.
He did, in a concise thirty minutes of testimony. He was pretty good. Went over some of the basics of DNA sampling and matching. As he did, the jurors’ eyes lit up. There it was. The CSI effect.
Even though I’d prepped the jury on this in the opening, those were still magic letters—DNA.
Especially when Jenks estimated that there was only a one-in-eleven-million chance that the sample was not a match for Eric Richess.
I felt like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. “So there is a chance!”
Instead, I was ready with something else.
“Good morning, Doctor.”
“Good morning.”
“You performed the DNA test on the sample provided by the prosecution, is that correct?”
“That is correct.”
“Did you provide the sample to the defense so that we could also test it?”
“No, the sample was too small. It was used up in the test I performed.”
“Seems a tad unfair, wouldn’t you say?”
“Objection.”
“Sustained.”
I said, “And you used the polymerase chain reaction test, or PCR for short?”
“Yes.”
“You don’t know how the sample got on the gun, do you?”
“I assume it