Part 30 (1/2)
I sat there, staring at him, digesting what he had said. Finally, I found my voice.
”You actually thought I knew who killed Jerry and wasn't telling?”
”It was a possibility I had to consider.”
”f.u.c.k you, Bosch.”
Just then the waiter came with our steaks and spaghetti. As the plates were put down, Bosch looked at me with a knowing smile on his face. The waiter asked what else he could get for us and I waved him away without breaking eye contact.
”You're an arrogant son of a b.i.t.c.h,” I said. ”You can just sit there with a smile on your face after accusing me of hiding evidence or knowledge in a murder. A murder of a guy I knew.”
Bosch looked down at his steak, picked up his knife and fork, and cut into it. I noticed he was left-handed. He put a chunk of meat into his mouth and stared at me while he ate it. He rested his fists on either side of his plate, fork and knife in his grips, as if guarding the food from poachers. A lot of my clients who had spent time in prison ate the same way.
”Why don't you take it easy there, Counselor,” he said. ”You have to understand something. I'm not used to being on the same side of the line as the defense lawyer, okay? It has been my experience that defense attorneys have tried to portray me as stupid, corrupt, bigoted, you name it. So with that in mind, yes, I tried to run a game on you in hopes that it would help me solve a murder. I apologize all to h.e.l.l and back. If you want, I will have them wrap up my steak and I'll take it to go.”
I shook my head. Bosch had a talent for trying to make me feel guilty for his transgressions.
”Maybe now you should be the one who takes it easy,” I said. ”All I'm saying is that from the start, I have acted openly and honestly with you. I have stretched the ethical bounds of my profession. And I have told you what I could tell you, when I could tell you. I didn't deserve to have the s.h.i.+t scared out of me tonight. And you're d.a.m.n lucky I didn't put a bullet in your man's chest when he was at the office door. He made a beautiful target.”
”You weren't supposed to have a gun. I checked.”
Bosch started eating again, keeping his head down as he worked on the steak. He took several bites and then moved to the side plate of spaghetti. He wasn't a twirler. He chopped at the pasta with his fork before putting a bite into his mouth. He spoke after he swallowed his food.
”So now that we have that out of the way, will you help me?”
I blew out my breath in a laugh.
”Are you kidding? Have you heard a single thing I've said here?”
”Yeah, I heard it all. And no, I'm not kidding. When all is said and done, I still have a dead lawyer-your colleague-on my hands and I could still use your help.”
I started cutting my first piece of steak. I decided he could wait for me to eat, like I had waited for him.
Dan Tana's was considered by many to serve the best steak in the city. Count me as one of the many. I was not disappointed. I took my time, savoring the first bite, then put my fork down.
”What kind of help?”
”We draw out the killer.”
”Great. How dangerous will it be?”
”Depends on a lot of things. But I'm not going to lie to you. It could get dangerous. I need you to shake some things up, make whoever's out there think there's a loose end, that you might be dangerous to them. Then we see what happens.”
”But you'll be there. I'll be covered.”
”Every step of the way.”
”How do we shake things up?”
”I was thinking a newspaper story. I a.s.sume you've been getting calls from the reporters. We pick one and give them the story, an exclusive, and we plant something in there that gets the killer thinking.”
I thought about this and remembered what Lorna had warned about playing fair with the media.
”There's a guy at the Times, Times,” I said. ”I kind of made a deal with him to get him off my back. I told him that when I was ready to talk, I would talk to him.”
”That's a perfect setup. We'll use him.”
I didn't say anything.
”So, are you in?”
I picked up my fork and knife and remained silent while I cut into the steak again. Blood ran onto the plate. I thought about my daughter getting to the point of asking me the same questions her mother asked and that I could never answer. It's like you're always working for the bad guys It's like you're always working for the bad guys. It wasn't as simple as that but knowing this didn't take away the sting or the look I remembered seeing in her eyes.
I put the knife and fork down without taking a bite. I suddenly was no longer hungry.
”Yeah,” I said. ”I'm in.”
PART THREE
-To Speak the Truth
Thirty-four
Everybody lies.
Cops lie. Lawyers lie. Clients lie. Even jurors lie.
There is a school of belief in criminal law that says every trial is won or lost in the choosing of the jury. I've never been ready to go all the way to that level but I do know that there is probably no phase in a murder trial more important than the selection of the twelve citizens who will decide your client's fate. It is also the most complex and fleeting part of the trial, reliant on the whims of fate and luck and being able to ask the right question of the right person at the right time.
And yet we begin each trial with it.
Jury selection in the case of California v. Elliot California v. Elliot began on schedule in Judge James P. Stanton's courtroom at ten a.m. Thursday. The courtroom was packed, half filled with the venire-the eighty potential jurors called randomly from the jury pool on the fifth floor of the CCB-and half filled with media, courthouse professionals, well-wishers, and just plain gawkers who had been able to squeeze in. began on schedule in Judge James P. Stanton's courtroom at ten a.m. Thursday. The courtroom was packed, half filled with the venire-the eighty potential jurors called randomly from the jury pool on the fifth floor of the CCB-and half filled with media, courthouse professionals, well-wishers, and just plain gawkers who had been able to squeeze in.
I sat at the defense table alone with my client-fulfilling his wish for a legal team of just one. Spread in front of me was an open but empty manila file, a Post-it pad, and three different markers, red, blue and black. Back at the office, I had prepared the file by using a ruler to draw a grid across it. There were twelve blocks, each the size of a Post-it. Each block was for one of the twelve jurors who would be chosen to sit in judgment of Walter Elliot. Some lawyers use computers to track potential jurors. They even have software that can take information revealed during the selection process, filter it through a sociopolitical patternrecognition program, and spit out instant recommendations on whether to keep or reject a juror. I had been using the old-school grid system since I had been a baby lawyer in the Public Defender's Office. It had always worked well for me and I wasn't changing now. I didn't want to use a computer's instincts when it came to picking a jury. I wanted to use my own. A computer can't hear how someone gives an answer. It can't see someone's eyes when they lie.
The way it works is that the judge has a computer-generated list from which he calls the first twelve citizens from the venire, and they take seats in the jury box. At that point each is a member of the jury. But they get to keep their seats only if they survive voir dire-the questioning of their background and views and understanding of the law. There is a process. The judge asks them a series of basic questions and then the lawyers get the chance to follow up with a more narrow focus.
Jurors can be removed from the box in one of two ways. They can be rejected for cause if they show through their answers or demeanor or even their life's circ.u.mstances that they cannot be fair judges of credibility or hear the case with an open mind. There is no limit to the number of challenges for cause at the disposal of the attorneys. Oftentimes the judge will make a dismissal for cause before the prosecutor or defense attorney even raises an objection. I have always believed that the quickest way off a jury panel is to announce that you are convinced that all cops lie or all cops are always right. Either way, a closed mind is a challenge for cause.
The second method of removal is the peremptory challenge, of which each attorney is given a limited supply, depending on the type of case and charges. Because this trial involved charges of murder, both the prosecution and defense would have up to twenty peremptory challenges each. It is in the judicious and tactful use of these peremptories that strategy and instinct come into play. A skilled attorney can use his challenges to help sculpt the jury into a tool of the prosecution or defense. A peremptory challenge lets the attorney strike a juror for no reason other than his instinctual dislike of the individual. An exception to this would be the obvious use of peremptories to create a bias on the jury. A prosecutor who continually removed black jurors, or a defense attorney who did the same with white jurors, would quickly run afoul of the opposition as well as the judge.
The rules of voir dire are designed to remove bias and deception from the jury. The term itself comes from the French phrase ”to speak the truth.” But this of course is contradictory to each side's cause. The bottom line in any trial is that I want a biased jury. I want them biased against the state and the police. I want them predisposed to be on my side. The truth is that a fair-minded person is the last person I want on my jury. I want somebody who is already on my side or can easily be pushed there. I want twelve lemmings in the box. Jurors who will follow my lead and act as agents for the defense.