Goodbye Eric Holder

Goodbye Eric Holder from the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know Caruba;s Warning Signs

In a nation where there is a scarcity of good news, hearing Eric Holder give a farewell speech upon his announcement that he will be leaving as the Attorney General was surely welcome in some circles.

I was never a fan of his because he was in my opinion always more of a politician than someone with the responsibility to enforce the laws of the nation.

I first took notice of Holder when, in the pre-dawn hours of April 22, 2000, as the deputy attorney general serving under Janet Reno, he oversaw the seizure of Elian Gonzalez, a seven-year-old whose mother had died in an effort to escape Cuba and find sanctuary in the United States.

Holder was doing what he had to do after a court ruled that Gonzalez be returned to his father in Cuba, but I thought then and still do that Gonzalez should have been allowed to remain with his U.S. relatives.

When Barack Obama became President, he selected Holder as his Attorney General. Both had made history being the first blacks to hold either job. Within three weeks or so, Holder was saying that Americans were “cowards” for not addressing issues of race in America.

That told me all I needed to know about him. Whatever would follow would frequently be judged on the basis of race, not justice. I wouldn’t want a white attorney general to act in that fashion, but a black one nursing feelings of victimization despite his personal achievements did not bode well.

I have not been alone in my misgivings. On news of Holder’s announcement, The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, called on some of its advisors for their opinions.

Ronald D. Rotunda, the Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University, had his own memories of Holder:

“Mr. Holder is leaving the office, but he cannot so easily leave the controversies that have surrounded his tenure, including: the scandal surrounding the IRS, the missing emails, and his role in investigating the scandal; the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, which made him the first cabinet member in U.S. history that Congress held in contempt; his decision to drop a prosecution against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, after the Department of Justice successfully secured an injunction; and the unprecedented decision, which Holder personally approved, to subpoena, monitor, and issue a search warrant involving James Rosen, a Fox News Reporter”

“Holder will leave the office, but is unlikely to leave the national stage because these controversies remain,” said Prof. Rotunda.

Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, said:

“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons first got to know Eric Holder when he represented the government in our lawsuit about the illegal operations of the Clinton Task Force on Health Care Reform. The pattern then was stonewalling and obfuscation. Even when task force members finally turned over some documents on court order, many of the floppy disks were blank.

Holder declined to prosecute Ira Magaziner, head of the Task Force Working Group, for perjury.” ‘It seems,” said Dr. Orient, “that some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct,'’ Judge Lamberth added. ‘Most shocking to this court, and deeply disappointing, is that the Department of Justice would participate in such conduct... This type of conduct is reprehensible, and the government must be held accountable for it…The pattern has only worsened with Holder as the highest law enforcement officer in the land. Who will ever hold him and the White House accountable?”

Jesse Hathaway, Managing Editor of Heartland’s Budget and Tax News, said:

“Eric Holder's resignation represents an opportunity for the President to appoint an Attorney General willing to end what some have seen as a witch-hunt against American banks. Under Holder, the Department of Justice shook down Bank of America for billions of dollars, as punishment the bank's alleged crime of complying with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and lending money to individuals unable to repay.

The CRA mandated that banks must make bad loans, the banks complied with the bad policy, but the bank is not at fault for the results of that bad policy.” “Hopefully, said Hathaway, “whomever replaces Holder as ‘top cop’ will understand how causality works, and end the practice of shaking down the finance industry as punishment for following Washington DC's orders.”

Holder’s instincts as Attorney General generated a huge public outcry when he decided to try the September 11 plotters in a New York courthouse within walking distance of the destroyed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Lawmakers, New York City officials, and some of the victim’s families thought that was a very bad idea and Holder reversed the decision and sent the cases to military court. 9/11 was clearly an act of war, but neither the President, nor Holder saw it that way.

Holder made a bit of history when he refused to defend a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He made more history when, refusing to hand over documents regarding Fast and Furious, a scandal involving gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels, Congress voted to hold him in contempt, the first time an attorney general had been censured in that way.

Holder, however, held onto his job because the President had thrown a cloak of “executive privilege” over the scandal, stonewalling Congress.

To be fair, Holder has been lauded for policies that were applauded for reducing crime during his tenure in office and urging a revision to sentences that did not reflect the crimes, reducing the nation’s prison population in the process.

In the end, though, it seems like everything was about race for him and the President. Holder inserted himself into the Ferguson, Missouri, shooting of a black youth by a white police officer and, while the facts are still being investigated, the likelihood is that it was justifiable self-defense.

And the President, speaking at the United Nations last week also mentioned Ferguson as an example of America’s racial bias. What happened in Ferguson was about law enforcement and justice, but neither saw it in that fashion. What America needs now for the remainder of Obama’s term in office is a colorblind Attorney General.

____________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 29

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 29 of 41 part true life serial

Read the Barbara C. Johnson at Amazon.com

No Execution Yet

Available on Amazon

Mathers continued without losing a beat, “Commonwealth’s motion to ask leading questions of a juvenile witness. Well, I will allow the type of questioning that one always expects to use with a child.”

“I object strenuously to that. We are here—”

“Your exception is noted and your rights are saved.”

A real one-note Charlie, aren’t we? Bea thought, but aloud she said, “I do want to put on the record why I object, Your Honor. I notice you haven’t read my opposition, so you’re certainly not giving a fair shot to the defendant. You’re just looking at the Commonwealth and saying Yes or No.

“We are here solely because this child has been led—her entire planned testimony, everything she has said to all the social workers, including the rape-crisis counselor, who wasn’t even a social worker at the time—she was barely out of school herself and had really no educational training, no experience to do what she did, to question the child.

“We are here because of leading questions. Now, to compound it by saying these leading questions can come into court is outrageous.”

“Ms. Archibald—” the judge said.

“I want to go on record, Your Honor. I’m challenging you.”

“You sure are.” Even with this brief acknowledgment of the verbal sparring, Mathers’ voice had a matter-of-fact quality to it.

“I know,” she said. “You told me last time I was, so I’m well aware,” Bea said, recalling the animosity of the motion session before Mathers a few months earlier. “We come from different poles of the Earth.” No one had to wonder where Bea was coming from. She was always out front.

She continued, getting back to the law. “I want to say something for the record so the Appeals Court will know. There are two cases the Commonwealth cites to support using leading questions. They were both murder cases. One of them was for a thirteen year old brain-injured child. Because the child was brain-injured, the court allowed leading questions. In the second case, the child was still in shock as a result of having seen her father murder her mother and therefore she was allowed to be led.

“The facts in this case pale, absolutely pale, in comparison with those cases. There is no justification and no support with any of the authorities—”

“Ms. Archibald, I will hear any objection to any question the Commonwealth puts to this child that you want to make and I will rule on that objection.”

“Your Honor, I do not want to be put in the position where I am forced to object to every question. Because the jurors don’t know direct questions from leading questions, it would make us look either like fools or as if we were trying to block a story from coming in to the jury. So I refuse to be put in the position where I have to object to every leading question Ms. Cooke asks.”

“Your rights are saved.”

“Again I move for mistrial and a motion to recuse.”

He ignored her and said, “Commonwealth’s motion for exceptions to any sequestration order. In this motion, the Commonwealth requests the child’s mother be present.”

Cooke said, “I asked the child who she would like to have in the courtroom with her when she testified and she said she would like her grandfather and her mother to be in the courtroom.”

“You object to that?” Mathers asked Bea.

“Absolutely.”

“I will allow the mother’s presence during the child’s testimony but not at any other time.”

“That is the dangerous part,” Bea emphasized, “because the mother in the divorce court was found to intimidate the child. She has set up her own special set of rules that are not those typically used by typical parents and that she’s going to use to intimidate the child.

“There has been a finding, a specific finding, in another court on a different floor in this very courthouse, that, in fact, the mother intimidates the child. I do not want the child to be intimidated by the mother here in the courtroom.

“One other thing not mentioned there is—although they want her not to see the father and the child is supposed to face the jury—where is the mother going to sit during the child’s testimony? Will she sit behind the father? Or is the mother sitting next to the jury box? This is absolutely absurd. The mother should not be there and certainly should not be in visual contact with the child at any time.”

“Your objection is noted. Your rights are saved.”

“Motion to videotape portions of the trial,” Mathers said.

“Objected to as well, Your Honor,” Bea said. Cooke wanted to videotape the testimony of Bill’s experts. Bea believed Cooke and her DA were particularly interested in Toffett because they had never encountered him. They wanted to save his testimony so she could pow-wow with other assistant DAs in her office before having to cross-examine him.

That was the beauty of working in a large office with knowledgeable people: you had ever-present sounding boards. She and her colleagues would attempt to find flaws in his testimony. Then Cooke would cross-examine him extensively.

Should any assistant DA encounter Toffett at some later time, the assistant DA would attempt to impeach him in those later cases with the flaws they found in this one.

“I will deny that motion.”

“You’re denying it. Thank you,” Bea said. She was not overly surprised. One, it would take up a lot of time in his courtroom. Two, he might be planning not to let the experts testify at all.

“Motion in Limine No. 1. That motion is allowed.” That was the Commonwealth’s motion that would keep Bea from questioning Denise about her alleged rape and from alluding to it in the opening statement.

“Again, objection, Your Honor. I move for mistrial and recusal again.”

Looking at still another of the Commonwealth’s motions, Mathers simply said, “Defense counsel to outline or provide any recitation of any intended opening statement prior to commencement of trial. I’m not going to require that.”

Cooke piped up, “I would just ask briefly to be heard. My concern is that whenever this case is discussed by counsel, it is discussed in such a fashion in which the probate court and the probate’s findings are brought out and I’m just concerned the issue is going to be raised in an opening statement.”

“But we’re not even going to open.” Bea interjected. “I’m going to jail instead.”

“No, I’m not going to send you to jail, Ms. Archibald. That’s exactly what you want me to do. I have not the slightest intention of sending you to jail.”

“Well, I’m prepared. I’m not going forward, Your Honor. I’m not going to obey the Court in this particular instance.”

“Then we will have some disciplinary problem. There’s no question about that,” Judge Mathers said.

“There’s no question about that,” Bea concurred.

“But you aren’t going to end up in jail.”

“I don’t care. I don’t imagine they have air-conditioning there, so I’m grateful for that, Your Honor. But I’m not going forward under these conditions.”

“I will not allow Motion in Limine No. 2.”

“Which is?” Bea asked. The judge didn’t respond. Bea didn’t know the motions by number. Bea assumed Mathers was denying Cooke’s motion for a copy of Bea’s opening statement, but it didn’t matter since Bea wasn’t being allowed to put anything of value into it.

Bea expected he wouldn’t rule on her experts now either, which would further limit what she could include in her opening statement. If Bea promised to present evidence at trial and then didn’t do it, Cooke could comment about the omission during her closing argument. So Bea didn’t want to risk telling the jury they’d hear expert testimony if Mathers wasn’t going to allow her to call an expert to the stand.

“Normally I will expect counsel to observe propriety in making an opening statement. In Limine No. 3—I’m taking no action on that one. I’ll deal with it later.”

“Which one?” Cooke asked. It was impossible to know to which motion he was referring.

“The location of the child,” Mathers promptly answered. Look at that—the prosecutor gets an answer when she asks to which motion he is referring, but I don’t.

“I can show the Court what I did with—I think it was Judge McCoy when I tried a two-defendant child case,” Cooke suggested.

“Before the child is brought out, I am going to review it.”

“I’m not going to go forward, Your Honor.”

“Well, we’ll see.”

“Even if you have to go to the Bar, I’m not going to go forward. I’m going to put my license on the line. I really feel very, very strongly about this. So strongly, I can’t—well, I just said it. I’m willing to give up my license. I feel that strongly.”

“That may make it all worthwhile.” Mathers neither grinned nor groaned. His tone was flat and his face unrevealing. “Okay. I’ll take a brief recess and then we’ll call the jurors in and see what happens.”

Dealing with the motions in this nonpublic way gave Cortland A. Mathers considerable opportunity to pull what he had just pulled. Were the case appealed, the secret nature of the proceeding would never come out. An appellate opinion would not reflect that Mathers had conducted a kangaroo session. It would, instead, probably cream Bea for being outspoken.

Bea walked out of the lobby thinking, How the hell am I going to tell Bill what just happened?

Not the Back of Her Head

By the time the judge and his clerk walked into the courtroom at noon, Bea had told Bill much of what happened in the lobby conference. Even though prudence was already out the window, Bea had decided to go forward in order to hear as much of the Commonwealth’s case as possible before the inevitable happened. She would, she knew, continue to challenge Mathers, because she had to make a record for the Appeals Court, but she didn’t expect his heart to have changed during the last thirty minutes or to change throughout the trial.

The clerk intoned, “Your Honor, before the Court is the matter of the Commonwealth v. William A. Abernathy. The defendant is present in the courtroom and represented by Attorney Bea Archibald. For the Commonwealth, Assistant District Attorney Laura Cooke.”

“Why don’t you tell me now what you propose as far as this witness is concerned?” Mathers asked Cooke. It was strange to hear the judge say “witness” when the jury had not yet been impaneled. Which witness?

“Oh certainly, Your Honor,” Cooke said. She appeared to be clued in. “The setup I’ve used in the past is to seat the jury in the jury box.” That’s funny. Where else? Cooke then moved around the courtroom explaining the seating arrangement she had devised in another case. “And Judge McCoy also came down himself from the bench. Judge McCoy sat in a chair right beside the witness stand, but at the end of the jury box.”

No way in hell will Mathers abandon his throne—even for a minute.

Cooke must have seen the judge’s expression as she made that last pitch, because her voice became increasingly softer. When she stopped, she had not demonstrated where she wanted Bill to sit. Her boss may have told her during the break to drop that one. It was overreaching—removing the defendant from his seat in court—something an Appeals Court would scrutinize closely.

“What is your position, Ms. Archibald?”

“I have no problem with the child being seated as long as I’m not looking at the back of her head.” Bea then sought assurance her movement wasn’t restricted between where she’d have to sit in order to see the child’s face and where her briefcase was. Bill, however, would be sitting at counsel table; he was the one who would be denied the opportunity of seeing the child’s face as she spoke.

“Where will Mother be sitting in this?” Bea asked. “The mother, I’d like out during the child’s testimony. I don’t want Mother to be seen. If Father cannot be seen, then I don’t want Mother to be seen, particularly where there is a finding that Mother intimidates the child.”

“I’m going to make an exception for the mother.”

There followed some discussion where Mother would be seated. After all the brouhaha, and Bea’s objections noted, Chloe would not see Denise while she was testifying. The child would only know her mother was there.

“I still object to Mother even being in this courtroom while the child is testifying.”

“I understand that. Your rights are saved. I will prohibit no one from being present in the courtroom who is not going to be a witness. Okay. Bring the jurors.”

He misspoke.

Has He Got That Look?

At 12:20, when around eighty people filed in so jury empanelment could begin, the courtroom was a hotbox: the temperature was somewhere in the 90s. Not a heat person, Bea had already wilted.

As tradition requires, the clerk, a white Irish male in his late thirties, read the indictment and identified Cooke and Bea. He even identified Peter Cuomo as co-counsel. He then told counsel they had the right to challenge twelve jurors—not only six, because there was a potential life sentence for the charge of rape—without having to state a reason for doing so. The lawyers didn’t need to state the reason for challenging them. To object to other potential jurors, they would need to state the cause.

Minutes before the jury venire entered the courtroom, both Cooke and Bea had received a copy of eighty jurors’ forms, which contained all the information the attorneys would learn of a juror unless the person approached the judge’s bench. In Massachusetts, not only are there no juror investigations, an attorney barely has time to read the forms before jury selection begins.

As Cooke and Bea were looking over the forms, the clerk called the names of fourteen people and told them to be seated in the jury box.

Then Mathers began, “Ladies and gentlemen, the case we are about to impanel involves the allegations made against the defendant that on or about February 1st, 1985, and July 28th, 1989, he did assault Chloe Abernathy, a child under sixteen years of age with intent to have sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with and abuse the said Chloe Abernathy and did unlawfully have sexual intercourse or unnatural intercourse with and abuse said child.

“Those are the allegations that appear in this case. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to put a set of questions to you in a moment and ask the court reporter to record a negative response unless I see a juror raise his or her hand. If you do that, would you please be prepared to give your juror number to one of the nearby officers? Then we’ll proceed from that point on.

“Jurors, let me say this. It is my intention to get the jury impaneled in this case today. It would be my plan to try between 8:30 or 9:00 until one o’clock. By that time, this oven heats up, as you will notice, so that it becomes unbearable and nobody can be expected to concentrate on anything. After about one o’clock in the afternoon, the sun gets up around this side of the building.”

While pulling a piece of his black robe into a point, Mathers said, “In case any of you have ever wondered why nomadic Arabs wear white sheets, you ought to put on one of these. I’ve got to be at least as bad off as any of you.”

The judge then began querying the prospective jurors. None of the venire members was related to Bill or to the attorneys, or had any interest in the case. But hands went up in response to the next three questions: Have you formed any opinion of the case? Might you have any bias or prejudice regarding this case? Is there any reason why you cannot remain indifferent as to the outcome of this matter?

He told the people he expected the case to last seven trial days. “It may be shorter than that. I doubt very much longer. If anyone has non-elective surgery or a daughter being married in Palo Alto, California, or non-refundable airplane tickets or some such reason as that, I will entertain requests for deferment.”

He then asked the question Bea had proposed: “Have you or any member of your family been the victims of sexual assault or a rape or served as a juror on a sexual assault or rape case?” Hands went up and the court officer noted the jurors’ numbers.

“The first thing I want to discuss is the presumption of innocence.” He droned on about the concept so many folks ignore: that the presumption of innocence is the bulwark of our criminal justice system.

Mathers went on trying, hypocritically, to make clear, a defendant is under no duty or obligation to prove anything whatsoever. What the potential jurors would not hear is anything revealing that Cortland Mathers loved to hear the kinky parts of rape cases, and had no intention of letting anyone—innocent or guilty—charged with the crime go free.

Because people often jump to conclude a defendant is guilty if indicted, Mathers did say a few more sentences so he’d look fair to the Appeals Court if a defendant appealed: “An indictment does not constitute evidence of anything. The evidence is the testimony the jury will hear from this witness stand and that the jury finds credible and reliable and dependable.”

Then Mathers got down to pressing business. “Now, I need to ask you all two questions. Is there anyone who has failed to follow my law lecture I just gave you?” Mathers asked and looked around the room. “I presume, since I see no hands raised, everyone has understood what I’ve had to say.

“Is there anyone here who for whatever reason would be incapable of applying those principles without reservation of any kind if seated as a juror in this case?”

The juror in seat 2 had a question. Mathers rose and walked to the side of the bench, where he was joined by Cooke and Bea and the juror, who told them what her problem was.

“I just don’t know if I could be involved in this type of case,” the woman said. “It upsets me and I just—”

“Well, life is real. It’s necessary that citizens do these jobs,” Mathers said, pumping more adrenaline in order to convince her to change her mind about serving. “The issue here is the issue of guilt or innocence. I’m sure you would have no desire to see an innocent man convicted of what you probably feel is a horrendous crime.”

“I do, Your Honor. But it upsets me. I have children of my own and it just upsets me.”

“It upsets me. I’ve got six.”

“I’m sorry. Those are my feelings, Your Honor.”

“Do you feel you would be incapable of making fair judgments based on the evidence you heard in this case as to whether this man is guilty or innocent?”

“I don’t know, Your Honor.”

“What does that mean?”

“I don’t know whether I could or not.”

“Well, would you be affected if this were a murder in the first degree, extreme atrocity?”

“I don’t know, Your Honor. I’m not familiar with this. I’ve never done this before.”

“You don’t want to do it this time, is that what you’re telling me?”

“I’d like not to, please.”

“All right. I’ll excuse you.”

The clerk called out the name of the next person having a problem.

“I’m a secondary school teacher and a child advocate, number one. Number two, we’re planning a move next Tuesday. Three, during this summer as a schoolteacher, I push a paintbrush with a colleague of mine to subsidize my wife’s unemployment for the past two years. So a seven-day stretch would really cause some hardship to the family because it would mean my wife would have to do all the preparations for the move.”

“I’ll excuse you.”

The clerk called the next juror. “Your Honor, my father is a Salem Woods Police officer. He has worked throughout the years and I would not be impartial. I would believe what the child says.”

“All right. I’ll excuse you.”

The clerk motioned to the next juror to approach the bench.

“My brother-in-law is being charged with rape and a good friend was convicted of child rape. I don’t think he did it, but he’s in jail.”

“What I need to have you tell me is, Would those experiences or would that relationship interfere with your ability to make fair judgments in this case as to whether or not this defendant is guilty or innocent?”

“I don’t think so.”

“Can you put those things out of your mind and decide this case on the basis of what you hear from the witnesses in this case?”

“I think so.”

“All right. I’ll ask you to remain.”

In quick succession, six women between twenty and forty, each of a different ethnicity, approached the bench and were excused: Half of them had day-care problems or paid-vacation plans. One said, “I can’t do this case. I was raped when I was twelve and I just can’t do it.” A second said, “I was sexually assaulted at the age of nine. I don’t think I can.” A third said, “My sister-in-law and my husband were sexually abused as children. I don’t know if I could maintain impartiality in this case. I also have a situation where I’ve been unemployed since Christmas and I’ve been offered a job to start tomorrow.”

Of the fourteen potential jurors in the box, ten had approached the bench, and of the ten, nine had been excused.

The clerk called the next nine names. The first, Paul Ferreira, who had not raised his hand at the beginning of the empanelment, was told to take a seat in the box. But the second, Sally McElroy, approached. “I’m not sure I can remain impartial in this case because I was molested as a young girl,” she said.

“What we would ask of you here is that you sit and listen carefully to the evidence in this case and make a determination whether the evidence as presented is something you find reliable and dependable and credible and whether or not it established these proofs beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“I feel I can do that.”

“You feel you can do that?”

“Yes.”

“You think that your past experience would interfere with your ability to do that in any way?”

“No, not at this age,” McElroy said.

Bea would challenge her.

“Okay. Then please be seated.” The sidebar ended and the clerk needed only seven more people to fill the box this time.

When the box was full, Cooke and Bea told the clerk whom they were challenging, and the clerk excused each one. Now, four replacements were needed.

“Panel No. 3, Juror No. 15, Joanne Pearl.”

She approached. “I work in a day care and I work with a child who was sexually abused. We had no reason to believe this had happened, because the parents wouldn’t have ever thought—and they were found guilty. It was very difficult. And I know everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I don’t know.”

“I don’t understand what you’re saying. What you are being asked to do here is to listen carefully to the evidence and make a determination whether—”

“I just wanted to let you know.”

“Let me finish,” Mathers admonished her. “After you’ve heard all the evidence, I will instruct you as to the elements that make up the crime alleged by the government and it will be up to you to decide whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, you have had experience or contact with another case of this nature apparently.”

“Right. With the family.”

“You weren’t a juror in that case.”

“No.”
“You didn’t hear the evidence. You don’t really know what the evidence was.”

“Right.”

“You know there was a conviction, but that really has nothing to do with what we’re asking of you here.”

“Right.”

“But you’re the only one who can answer this question. Would you be able to put that other matter out of your mind and decide this case on the witnesses and the evidence presented in this case? Or would it affect your ability to decide these issues fairly?”

“That’s fine. That’s what I wanted to tell you. I know he’s innocent until proven guilty, but when you asked about family, it wasn’t a family matter, but I was involved. I wanted you to know I was a teacher involved.”

“Do you think you could sit and make fair judgments in this case?”

“If I listen carefully, yes, I can do that. But I just wanted to let you know.”

“Fine. I’m going to ask you to be seated.”

“Panel No. 3, Juror No. 15, Joanne Pearl, is now in seat 5 in the jury box,” the clerk intoned.

Bea liked Pearl, who at least was willing to keep an open mind. Would Cooke challenge her?

The clerk told the court, “One of the sitting jurors would like to approach the bench.” George Jones had learned only the night before that his daughter was working for the DA’s office. His form didn’t show the affiliation: he had filled it out before reporting for duty. Telling Mathers that would not interfere with his ability to be fair, Jones was seated. Believing either Jones wasn’t close to his daughter or he would overcompensate, Bea decided not to challenge him. He was honest enough to come clean.

Thomas Goehring, a 45 year old white male who was an air-conditioning customer service engineer, was called. He tried to get out of jury duty because of a business meeting, but Mathers didn’t buy it.

Given that Mathers would empanel only two alternate jurors, he was counting on no more than two emergencies arising midtrial.

Then there was a pathetically funny one. “I just can’t help thinking that he’s guilty,” the man said. “The minute

I saw him I thought that he did it.”

“Has he got that look?”

“Well, maybe the fact I was molested myself as a child.”

“I’ll excuse you.”

With the box full once again, Cooke and Bea made their challenges. More venire members were called, seated, and excused. Finally only one more was needed. That was Robert Eliasen.

“Ms. Archibald, have you any further challenges?”

Bea looked carefully at the jury forms. “Yes, I do, Your Honor.”

“Well, let’s have them.”

Bea challenged Sally McElroy “for cause” because the juror said that although she was raped as a child, she thought it wouldn’t affect her, but she didn’t know.

Mathers summarily denied Bea the challenge.

“Do you want to use a peremptory on that?” the clerk asked, helpfully.

Bea didn’t want to waste her peremptory challenges, free challenges without any reason required, if she could get one off the panel for cause.

“Yes.” Bea also challenged another woman.

Jury selection continued until three men took the last seats, 3, 8, and 14.

“Your Honor,” the clerk said, “let the record show that the attorneys for the defense and Commonwealth are content with the jury.”

The final jury was composed of 3 white women and 11 men, of whom 10 were white and one was black. The women were 24, 46, and 61 years of age. Four of the males, including the lone black, were in their 20s, three in their 30s, two in their 40s. The others were 59 and 62. All could have been vulnerable to false allegations of rape. Until they were sent to deliberate, no one would know which jurors would be the alternates.

Bea told Peter to list their occupations and watch their reactions throughout the trial. Peter was swift. He was young but he knew instinctively what to watch for.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I very much appreciate your patience in these conditions. It is almost unbelievable in the year 1993 that we would be expected to conduct public business under these circumstances. The record ought to disclose that this courtroom has been somewhere in the vicinity of 95 degrees, I would guess, for the past two hours during this empanelment process. I thank you for your kindness in this regard.

“I’m going to excuse you now. We will adjourn now till 8:30 tomorrow morning and we will begin with the opening statements of counsel at that time. I’ll then have a little more to say to you ladies and gentlemen.”

Back on the tug, Bea made a clean copy of her jury diagram. She thought Joanne Pearl was her best bet. 

But Peter believed the young men felt vulnerable to date rape and false allegations because so little was needed to convict. And Bea hoped the married men around Bill’s age with kids would put themselves in Bill’s shoes and consider how vulnerable they’d be if animosity arose in their families.

It was still early evening. Hugh was busy elsewhere. Fifteen minutes, she thought. A nap. A quick nap. She fell asleep wondering what Chloe would say. She had told a different story to each social worker. Leavitt, at least the fifth person to talk to Chloe, Detective Cooper, and Heather—all of whom Bea had deposed—were not on Cooke’s last-minute witness list. So Tracy, the rape counselor, was the only possible fresh-complaint or corroborative witness.

Look for part 30 of 41 parts to this real life serial on the weekend

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson - Part 28

Accused? Guilty by Barbara C. Johnson Part 28 of a 41 part true-to-life serial

Check Out the Amazing Bio of Barbara C. Johnson at Amazon.com

We’ll See Where You Get Off This Train

Available on Amazon

Bill and Bea met early in the second-floor Attorneys’ Conference Room on the day the criminal trial was scheduled to begin. It was a room with armchairs, ashtrays, a long table, a wall full of tall dirty windows, and a door to a small but clean loo. Bill looked so unlike the everyday defendant that no one ever commented about his presence. This day, Peter, too, was with them.

Bea was playing Earth Mother to Bill’s controlled cool exterior when the court officer came in and summoned Bea into Judge Cortland A. Mathers’ lobby. She was surprised. Bill rose to accompany her.

“Counsel only,” the court officer said. Bill sat back down. Bea gave him and Peter an I-don’t-know-what’s-up shrug, grabbed her briefcase, and followed the court officer into the judge’s lobby. There was barely enough space for her, ADA Laura Jane Cooke, the clerk, the judge, one court reporter, and one stenographic machine to fit.

She had expected to see Mathers with some sort of sling. A week earlier a court officer had told Bea and Bill that Mathers had broken his shoulder while on vacation at the Cape and that maybe Bill wouldn’t pull him for a trial judge. Obviously, Mathers had dragged himself in for this special occasion. He was known to insist on hearing all the rape cases in this court. They were his favorite.

She was surprised when the judge began with hearing pending motions: eight by Cooke and four by Bea. Given that hearings are generally heard in a public courtroom, Mathers’ obvious intention to deny Bill his right to hear the arguments and the judge’s decisions caused Bea a few more-than-anxious tingles.

In each motion, Cooke wanted something special: to allow Denise to be in the courtroom during Chloe’s testimony, to ask leading questions of Chloe, to ban the public from the trial, to set up the courtroom so that it’d be impossible for Chloe to see her father or for him to look at her while she testified, to prevent Bill from offering evidence of Denise’s rape story and her subsequent obsession on it, to review Bea’s opening statement, to preclude Bill’s experts from testifying, and to videotape the direct and cross-examination of the experts if they did testify.

Outrageous, all of them. Cooke also wanted to add one of Denise’s sisters as a witness, but the Commonwealth still hadn’t given Bea a complete list of its witnesses.

With hackles silent but raised, Bea handed her oppositions to both Cooke and Mathers. “I received those eight or nine motions from the ADA on Friday night after five o’clock and these are my responses.” It had taken her the whole weekend to research and write them. She had filed her own motions four and a half months earlier, in advance of a previously scheduled trial date.

“Briefly, Judge, if I could just give the Court some factual background,” Cooke began, and then continued with her explanation to the judge that the victim, who was then nine years old, had disclosed on two occasions—when she was around five and a half—that she was raped by her father when she was between the ages of almost two and five years old.

Mathers showed interest in the date of the secret.

“It was perhaps around July 24th or thereabouts,” Cooke replied. “The two witnesses the Commonwealth will be offering as fresh complaint are Carol Tracy, who is literally the first person the child told, and—”

“That’s the psychiatrist or psychologist?” Mathers asked.

“No, she’s not a psychologist, Judge. She works with the rape-crisis center. She has a bachelor’s background and now has a master’s. She was working on her master’s at that time,” Cooke asserted without a blink.

This was information Bill had been deprived of by not allowing Bea to depose Tracy. Dick Fast had reported the very recent master’s degree, but he had no information revealing that she was attending school in 1989. Bea’s stomach muscles tightened. It was a wonder she didn’t have ulcers.

“She’s a mandated reporter?” Mathers asked.

“Mandated reporter.” Cooke confirmed. “Then the father was removed from the home, and mother got a restraining order. When DSS interviewed the child on August 3rd, the child made additional disclosures.”

“And it’s just those two dates that you intend to offer?”

“Fresh complaint,” Cooke said elliptically. “As to the defendant’s motion to preclude fresh complaint, I would say it is somewhat premature. We haven’t heard the child testify. We anticipate she’ll relate what she has related always to everyone. But I think this motion is a little bit premature because it’s asking for the testimony of the fresh-complaint witness to be limited to what the child testifies.”

Sure, Bea thought, what anyone else adds to the alleged details is unimportant.

“I probably have no problem with that,” Mathers said, “but we need to see what the child says. Beyond that, the case law is clear: you can’t offer evidence as substantive proof through a fresh-complaint witness.”

Damn right!

“But I don’t see that as being something you can decide at this point in time,” Cooke added.

Why not? Your Honor,” Bea said, “May I give my version of the facts, which are skewed from the Commonwealth’s version of the facts?”

“Yes.”

Bea emphasized that Denise had obsessed for six years on Bill having raped her, and as a result of that obsession, Denise had brought Chloe to the rape-crisis center. To show that Tracy was not the first person with whom the child spoke about the abuse—that is, she was not the fresh-complaint witness—Bea said, “The very first question Carol Tracy asked the child was ‘Do you know why you are here?’ The child responded ‘Yes.’ There had to have been a conversation between the child—”

Now Mathers interrupted. “Ms. Archibald, I’m not the jury in this case. I don’t want you to argue your case to me.”

Damn him coming on this way. She was angry also because he was so wrong. He was the one to decide the issue of whether the complaint was fresh.

“I haven’t heard anything I can consider relevant to the motion before me.”

Damn him. Cooke just said Tracy and some DSS person were the fresh-complaint witnesses. They weren’t. If the incidents did happen, then Denise had to be the fresh-complaint witness. If they didn’t, Denise gaslighted the child.

“The facts are not quite as reiterated by the Commonwealth.”

“How do you know what the Commonwealth is going to present here?”

“I have all the work by Carol Tracy and Rachel Gidseg and all the other social workers. It’s written and I’ve read it all and have deposed many of them.”

“Are you saying that what the district attorney has alleged will be introduced in evidence will not be introduced in evidence?”

“No, I’m saying what they’ll try to introduce into evidence and what they are alleging to you now is not true.”

“Well, what in the world has that got to do with this motion?” Mathers said in a condescending tone.

What the shit is this? Bea thought. Drop it. You’ve got a dozen motions to go. Better to have him reserve judgment and not anger him right off the bat. “Fine,” she said, “I filed it ahead of time simply to have it here.”

“I’ll reserve judgment on that motion.” Mathers said. “I suggest that when you have an objection, let me hear about it.”

“I think the appropriate time to do that motion is after Chloe testifies,” Bea said. “Thank you very much, Your Honor.”

“Sequester witnesses? Anybody have a problem with that?” he asked.

“I have one exception, Judge, that I filed,” Cooke said.

“I’ll deal with that. But generally I will sequester the witnesses.

“Pretrial instructions to the jury. I will give essentially probably what you’ve got here, Ms. Archibald. If there’s anything omitted that you think should be added, tell me when I get done.”

“Thank you, Your Honor.”

Mathers then told counsel he’d ask the prospective jurors the questions judges are required to ask. The primary one being one Bea had requested: Have you or any member of your family or relative been the victim of a sexual assault or rape or been accused as the perpetrator of a sexual assault or rape?

He omitted the word “friend” from my instruction. Well, two-thirds of a loaf is better than none. Bea had used the cluster of words—you, family or relative, and friend. If the judge asked if the prospective jurors were abused, they might hesitate, out of embarrassment, to raise their hands. By asking if anyone in the cluster was abused, they’d be more likely to raise their hands and say someone else was abused. The personal abuse would be private until they got to the bench.

He refused to ask the remaining questions Bea had requested, but said he would save Bill’s rights. That was standard fare: if Bill were convicted, he could appeal Mathers’ refusal while sitting in jail.

“Do you have any further motions, Ms. Archibald?” Mathers asked.

“Yes, I do.” She had motions asking the court not to allow Leavitt and Detective Cooper to testify as corroborative witnesses. She also wanted the Commonwealth to identify the witnesses it was calling.

“I’ll defer any action on those motions until I hear this case.”

You bastard. It would be nice to know who the Commonwealth’s witnesses are going to be before I open.

Tying Bea’s Hands and Mouth

“There’s also the motion on the mother,” Bea said to the judge. “You’ve dealt with it once, but I’m renewing it now, at time of trial, which is what you originally suggested. Ms. Cooke also made a motion on Friday that deals with the same issue: whether I can introduce evidence as to Mother’s story of the rape, because our theory is that she unduly influenced the child. Evidence of proof that she spoke to the child prior to the child speaking to Carol Tracy is in the first question I mentioned earlier: ‘Do you know why you’re here?’ We want to explore that and—”

“I’m not going to try a rape case on this mother, Ms. Archibald. The issue here is, Did he or did he not digitally or orally rape this child?”

“And the only way to get a proper answer to that, Your Honor, is to bring in the evidence of the mother’s obsession and her undue influence on the child. The mother had access to the child for six years. She said, If I can’t get him for rape, I will get him through the child. That is our theory.”

“Who did she say that to? You said she said that. Who did she say that to?” he asked with confrontation dripping from his voice.

“I think to herself, Your Honor. It’s clear that if a woman obsesses about the rape for six years—”

“My ruling at this time, Ms. Archibald, is there is to be offered in evidence not one whit of anything having to do with a rape of the mother until I see some reason to change that ruling. So, going into this trial, I’m not going to allow a peep about any claims the mother has about being raped by this guy.” Listen to that: “this guy.” Listen to that condescension: Bill is presumed guilty! So much for “innocent until proven guilty.”

“Your Honor, may I ask, then, for clarification. This is quite important. What I hear you say is if it comes out that the child was brought to the rape-crisis center—”

“I’m not going to get myself cornered in this ruling. My ruling at this time is, that evidence is excluded. I’m not suggesting you may not renew your request as the trial proceeds.”

“What about during the opening?”

“Don’t say a word about it on opening.” Mathers’ face spoke an ominous message.

“But that’s the whole theory of the case, Your Honor.” Bea hoped her voice didn’t sound whiny.

“Well, it may be your theory of the case. It’s not my theory of the case.”

Damn, it’s Bill’s theory that counts, not the court’s theory. The court cannot possibly have an independent theory of the case after a few minutes. Courts are supposed to gain an understanding of the case as they hear the evidence.

“There are special—”

“I don’t want to hear anything about the rape of the mother in this case in an opening statement and I don’t want any questions bearing on that issue in this trial unless and until something occurs that would give me pause to reconsider the ruling.”

“But Your Honor, may I please say for the record, the defendant has the right to demonstrate special circumstances are here. I don’t think you can deny there are special circumstances. Because under the Bohannon Rule—”

“What are the special circumstances?”

“The special circumstances are that the mother obsessed for six years she was raped by this man.”

“Why do you say she obsesses about that?”

“Well, I’ve heard twice from her own lips, once at deposition and once in the divorce trial, the story of this rape, and there was no rape. Even Judge Goldblatt in the divorce court made the finding this was an obsession.”

“Did she say there was no rape?”

“She says there was absolutely rape.”

“Who says there was no rape?”

“Everybody else who heard it, including the judge downstairs. Actually everyone just called it ‘obsession.’ If you heard the story you would know—”

“You feel she should have gotten over it by then?”

“Yes. That’s why it’s important for the jury to hear the story. If you hear it, you’ll know this is evidence of a sick woman—a really sick woman. Let me just say this for the record, please, Your Honor. The jury has the right to determine whether Denise Abernathy is obsessed and if it finds she is obsessed, it has the right to decide whether her obsession on the so-called rape was enough to make her bring undue influence upon the child to get even with him.”

“Did she ever seek an indictment for rape?”

“She certainly came into this court and got a restraining order alleging he raped her. I have the RO if you’d like to see it.”

“No. Did she ever seek an indictment? Did she go to the police?”

“We do not know.”

“We do not know?” Mathers asked, perplexed.

“That’s right.”

“I think we know,” Mathers said.

Bea thought, That’s curious. How?

“Well, we know he wasn’t indicted, but we don’t know whether she tried. I have no idea. I do know she said, at trial and at deposition, that she became an alcoholic. She became depressed. She never went to a psychiatrist for an official diagnosis, but that was her own description of her behavior. She lost all interest in life. She didn’t enjoy anything, going outside, or playing with the child. She just became totally uninterested in life. We’ve got an extensive story that her own attorney brought out on direct in the divorce trial. And under the special circumstances of this, she had five years to bring it to the child. We know the child has said one statement when she was almost seven, during the divorce trial. We know that because, downstairs, in the judge’s lobby with a stenographer present, the child, when asked when this all occurred, said it happened six years ago, which put her in diapers and in the crib. The question is whether she could remember, in fact, being raped when she was one year old. So there is even a question as to supposedly when all this began. According to the child it happened when she was one year old. Now she’s nine. She’s been trained to testify. We have that in writing as well. She was prepared to testify in court and—”

“You are arguing to me,” Mathers commented.

Of course, Bea thought, that’s what attorneys do at motion hearings: argue the law, argue the facts. But rather than be facetious, Bea said, “I know, because I feel it’s so important that I be able to give the jury a theme of this case in opening, Your Honor. Otherwise, why are we here?”

“We’re here because your client is falsely accused. I presume that’s your position.”

At least he caught that. “Yes, but we’ve got to be able to show it. And if you’re going to tie our hands so that we can’t show why we believe—”

“I’m going to tie your hands to the extent that you’re not going to try another case within this case.”

“We’re not trying— Your Honor, my client has to be able to demonstrate the bias of the mother. We know the child was very young when she made this alleged disclosure at the age of five. And we have to show the mother had access to the child and had motive, a plan, a design, a state of mind, an intent to bias this child, to unduly influence this child. And it was a result of the motive, plan, design, state of mind, vulnerability—everything that is included in the rules—that she then taught the child that the child was raped. You don’t bring a five year old child generally to a rape-crisis center. I’d say that would qualify under the Bohannon Rule as special circumstances.

“The defendant is entitled to show evidence of bias. In this case, the child herself has come to believe these allegations are true. She’s been told by everyone who has spoken to her that her daddy did this and her daddy did that. We believe that the child has absolutely no independent memory of these acts.

“If you tie our hands, he will absolutely not have a fair trial. And I’ve got to be able to present to the jury on the opening what I expect them to hear. If you’re telling me I can’t tell them they’ll hear anything, then you’re essentially putting a gag order on me and then I’d have to move for mistrial.”

Cooke and the Power of the Crown

“What do you say about this?” Mathers asked Cooke, his voice filled with consideration for her.

“Judge, my understanding is that there have been numerous depositions and a master’s hearing, but there’s been no evidence by anyone that this mother coached this child,” Cooke responded in a we’re-on-the-same-team voice. “The child, in fact, denies the mother ever told her anything.” This is a first! Bea had seen no document declaring that the child denied Denise telling her anything.

Cooke continued. “The mother denies it. What she says is the child said, ‘I have a secret and Daddy won’t let me tell.’ There was a discussion in the father’s presence in which the child says something about a hitting game, but would not tell the mother.

“The mother was involved with a rape-crisis counselor and said ‘Maybe if I bring her to a professional, I can get to the bottom of what the problem is here.’ In fact, according to the defendant’s testimony at the probate hearing, the mother had really nothing to do with this child, and he was really the sole caretaker of this child. But in any event, the fact she was raped— I’m not even certain this child knows the mother was raped.

“The mother certainly has never made any statements to the effect that if she can’t prosecute—because she probably could prosecute him—but she’s never made these statements that if she can’t get him for a rape of her, she would then have her child go through this. There just is no basis for it in this case.

“I think to have defense counsel go into that area is absolutely not within the realm of bias. Bias may be that she doesn’t like the man, but there’s got to be some nexus between the child’s allegation and testimony and this woman’s bias.

“This mother will testify—only briefly by the Commonwealth—just to simply let the jury know when they lived at a particular home—because the child being at an age where she can’t really quite frankly tell you whether a year is six years or ten years. This child can’t say anything other than I remember it was happening when we lived in this house on Howes Way. And she can describe it as occurring in particular areas in the house, but she can’t say ‘it was when I was two’ or ‘It was when I was three’ or ‘It was when I was four.’ She can say it was happening until she told and it stopped.

“So, I would say, unless counsel can demonstrate where the nexus is, it is not an area that should be gone into. And I have not seen any testimony or evidence that would in any way ever connect this mother’s alleged abuse to this child.”

Bea jumped in after Cooke’s nonstop monologue, to address the nexus between Chloe’s statement and Denise’s obsession. But she got into nothing but an argument with the judge.

“But it still doesn’t have anything to do with the mother’s alleged rape,” Mathers said.

“It does,” Bea said with determination.

“It’s got nothing to do with the mother’s rape. It’s got nothing to do with the mother’s treatment,” Mathers sternly added.

“Well, then I move for a mistrial, Your Honor.”

“Your motion is denied. The defendant’s rights are saved.”

Martyrdom or Not

Still in the small, overcrowded chamber, Bea said, “I cannot go forward, Your Honor. I’m willing to be put in contempt. I cannot go forward without putting in evidence of the wife’s bias. If I have to go to jail, I will. I am not going to go forward.”

“I’m going to impanel this case, Ms. Archibald. You’re here. You have an obligation to defend this—”

“I cannot do that. You’re absolutely hamstringing me. I cannot. It’s simply impossible to go forward if I can’t show all the facts in this case and how they led up to an accusation being made six years later. Then I cannot go forward. There is no way this man can get a fair trial and I have to most strenuously object. And if a mistrial on that basis won’t do it, then I ask Your Honor to recuse yourself.”

“That motion is denied. The defendant’s rights are saved.”

“I believe you’ve shown your prejudice and you should recuse yourself. There’s no way this man is going to get a fair trial under your interpretation. I think you’re making decisions for the jury, for things that really belong as ppof their role. You’re usurping their function.

“This defendant has a right to show evidence of bias. He has a right to demonstrate that these are false allegations. He has a right to delve as much as possible and we know exactly what the statements are. This is not a fishing expedition. We’ve been through this in the divorce court. Even since then, we’ve gotten full copies of notes that weren’t made available to us before then, and we know there are alternative reasons for this child saying certain things at certain times.

“If I cannot go into that evidence, this man will not get a fair trial. I believe strongly and I absolutely cannot go forward in trial. If you’re going to put a gag order and hamstring me and put me in handcuffs on that issue, I absolutely can’t.”

“Why don’t I take up the Commonwealth’s motions?” the court said, ignoring Bea’s protestations. “Motion for a special courtroom setup. Are you asking that the child be seated in front of the witness box?”

“I am, Judge,” Cooke said. “I would ask that she be able to be seated in a chair next to the stenographer’s table; that the attorneys, myself and Attorney Archibald, be seated when we question the child; that the defendant and counsel sit at the table to the right of the prosecutor’s table behind. Also, the child would like to have a stuffed animal with her if she could.”

Bea said, “Your Honor, I am not going to have the child only face the jury,” Bea was addressing the seating arrangement as described in the Commonwealth’s motion. “In order for me to ask questions, I’d have to ask them to the back of her head and frankly I think that’s a very frivolous motion on the part of the Commonwealth.

“I have no problem with the child sitting during her testimony. I have no problem with the child having a table in front of her during her testimony. I have no problem with her having a security blanket or a teddy bear or Roseberry or any kind of security object. I have no problem with those things.

“You do have to remember, though, the child is not four or five. She is a nine year old and she is about to learn long division. So although we are dealing with a younger child, we’re not dealing with an infant or a toddler. I am not going to have to question her speaking to the back of her head. I want to see her face. I want to see her eyes.”

“I will see to it that you do not have to question her talking to the back of her head.”

“Ms. Cooke also put in her motion that she wants the defendant to sit way in the back— The whole thing is stacked to guarantee this man has absolutely no fair trial rights at all. Your Honor, I’m serious. I’m willing to go to jail in standing for the proposition that I am absolutely not going forward today if I cannot bring that evidence. It’s as simple as that. You can put me in jail and take my license. That’s it. I’ll write about it and put it on a talk show when I get out of jail. But I am not going forward without being able to do it. I can’t be any stronger than that, Your Honor.

“There is no way I am going forward on this case today without being able to get into the mother. The rest of these motions amount to nothing because I’m not going forward.” Through all that, Bea had not once raised her voice.

Nor did Mathers. In fact, he said nothing.

“Judge,” Cooke added, “my proposal is to simply use the same setup I’ve used in this courtroom before. Counsel doesn’t have to sit with their back—a chair can be put sideways so everybody is right there.”

Bea’s response was immediate. “I want to be able to see the child. I want the child to be able to see the defendant. I don’t want the mother in the room when the child is testifying. The idea the child needs safety from the father in the courtroom is absurd. This man is in the medical profession. This is absurd. This is the most manipulating— It is making a sham of the system, some of the Commonwealth’s requests in this motion. I simply repeat, I am not going forward without being able to produce evidence of the mother. I don’t know whether this is a waste of court resources of time and all our time in hearing the rest of these motions at this time. I suppose we can resolve—”

“There’s not much doubt that a lot of this time is a waste of court resources,” the judge said.

“Yes, I’m not going forward. You can do anything you want to me, Your Honor. I’m not going forward.” In this small chamber, Bea was acutely aware she had to restrain both her normally deep, resonant voice and her emotion, at least the outward vestiges of them. Inside she was boiling, but her words were not mincing. Even were they said quietly, they were, she was sure, having a memorable impact.

“All right. We’ll see where you get off this train, Ms. Archibald.” Mathers remained calm and totally in control. Bea suspected he was accustomed to inner rage. She surely could not have been the first lawyer to challenge him. She was sure his villainous reputation had been well-earned. And given his flagrance, Mathers was, in fact, probably relishing every minute of her impotence.

“I believe I’m already on the train to the end and that’s fine. I’m willing to risk it.”

Mathers ignored her comment. “Motion for closure of the courtroom during testimony. Do you object to that?”

“Yes. It should be a public trial,” Bea said. Shit, Cooke wants a secret kangaroo court.

“I will allow it to be public.”

Listen to that presumptuous language, Bea thought. He will “allow” it to be public! He has no basis for closing it.

Part 29 of 41 is scheduled to post on Thursday, September 18th