Web of Justice Read online

  “What happened?”

  “Apparently, there was some dispute over money, and so the dealer put two bullets into the victim and took all his cash. Just the sort of shit that happens every day in that neck of the woods.”

  “Do we know the weapon used?”

  “Yeah. Ballistics on the shells indicated the weapon was a Glock.”

  “Just Glock. No model number?”

  “Nope.”

  “Well than narrows it down,” I said. I was kidding. About seven thousand people a year are killed by handguns in the States and Glocks were so popular they could account for more than half of those deaths. So to have a Glock listed without its model number was about as useful as saying the getaway car was a Ford.

  “How did the suspects plead?”

  “Guilty. Both of them.”

  “To murder charges?”

  “In Miami, it was reduced on a plea bargain to manslaughter. The guy’s doing sixteen years. In Mexico, the guy pleaded guilty to arson and manslaughter. Twenty years.”

  “So why is Cassinelli so sure they are linked, besides the victims both being internet bad boys? It hardly sounds like they were both killed by the same moral crusader. How strong was the evidence against them?”

  “In both cases, there were eyewitnesses who saw the perps hanging around the respective premises prior to the deaths.”

  “How quickly did they plea?”

  “Within days.”

  “What about the records of their first interviews? They must have denied it initially.”

  “I’m trying to get transcripts and video from the interviews. But don’t get your hopes up on that front.”

  “Let me know if and when you get something. I can get the Mexican one translated.”

  “I can already tell you what the Mexican perp said, and I don’t even speak Spanish: ‘I had nothing to do with it. Nada.’”

  No doubt that was true. Perhaps there was no great value in pursuing this line of inquiry. I couldn’t let this become too much of a distraction, for one. And I was fast running out of time to find real evidence of an alternative suspect. The fact remained that Demarco’s trial was going ahead. My job was first and foremost to save Demarco from a guilty conviction, not to solve a serial killing.

  “Jack, if there’s nothing in the transcripts, you can drop it. I can’t let it run on and on as a distraction.”

  “Sure thing, boss. I’ll let you know what comes back.”

  As soon as I hung up, a message appeared. I was expecting a quip from Jack. But it wasn’t. It was a message from a blocked number.

  “YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT JUSTICE! YOU’RE A FRAUD!”

  Initially, the words threw me. But then I reminded myself that copping abuse for defending an alleged murderer was just part of my job. It had happened in every homicide case I’d even taken on. A fair trial wasn’t what mattered to some people. To them, Demarco Torrell was obviously guilty—so just lock him up already and throw away the key.

  I closed the message. Then I left the office. I’d resume working on my strategy at home.

  Sometimes it seemed I was the only person in the world who believed I was defending an innocent man. Make that an innocent boy. A boy whose life was literally in my hands. I wasn’t convinced the call he’d made to the Crips would be enough to keep him alive.

  My gut told me that if I didn’t keep him out of prison, he’d be dead before his eighteenth birthday.

  17

  Show me a prosecutor who doesn’t like the sound of their own voice and I’ll show you an empty courtroom. But before Jessica Pope had uttered a word, every member of the jury was transfixed.

  She rose from her seat behind the plaintiff’s table, touched it lightly and then set her gaze upon the jury. The awe, wonder, envy and attraction she instantly aroused wasn’t limited to the jury box—I could almost feel it coming off the public benches behind me.

  Yep, it was always a tough day at the office when going up against Jessica Pope. She could put runs on the board even before her opponent had kitted up. And let’s not pretend Judge Abraham T. Garner was immune to her charms. Don’t get me wrong: this was nothing sexual. Garner simply could not help but enjoy the pleasure of seeing such brilliance in a younger generation. But then again, that admiration wasn’t entirely one-sided: Judge Garner liked me too. During pretrial and jury selection, we’d worked together a lot—the three of us—and throughout the process Judge Garner had exuded a sense of pride at being one of three impressive wheels of justice in action.

  Now it was time for the fourth wheel, the jury, to come into play. And make no mistake, they were in charge now. It was all about them. Jessica and I would be battling to get them to not just see things our way, but to believe things our way with all their hearts.

  “Last year, July 6, the lives of two young men were callously cut short,” Jessica began. “Their murders were not opportunistic. They were planned. Both were shot at point blank range. Both saw the face of their killer. And that face, the evidence will show, belongs to the man seated there—the defendant Demarco Torrell.

  “Let me state some basic facts. These are not theories or opinion. This is what we know without a shadow of a doubt. The defendant was apprehended standing over the dead body of Luke Jameson after he had been fatally shot. The murder weapon was lying on the ground close by. Gun powder residue was found on the defendant’s right hand. The defendant was seen in an altercation with Mr. Jameson just moments before he died. These are the facts. No one, not the defendant nor his learned attorney, will contest their veracity.

  “Then we have Toby Connors, a young man who, the evidence shows, was fatally shot not long before Mr. Jameson was gunned down. Ballistics testing shows that the weapon used in these two murders was the same. The defendant was the last person seen with Mr. Connors before he died. His DNA was found in Mr. Connors’ car.

  “Another fact: when the defendant was caught, he was in possession of a pass assigned to Mr. Toby Connors. He used the VidCon pass of the first victim to get to the second.

  “I expect you will hear some erudite and impassioned words from the defendant’s attorney. I know he will try and convince you that the same indisputable facts I have just given you do not mean that his client committed two first degree murders.

  “The man behind that desk will ask you to believe that black cannot only be white, but it can be gray, blue, red and every other color in between. But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as this trial proceeds, I urge you to resist being distracted by the power of words—I urge you to always hold firmly onto the power of facts.

  “And the facts show that this defendant embarked on a ruthless plan to kill. A plan so cold and calculating that I think it is entirely fair to call it an assassination. And once armed with all the facts of this case, I’m sure you will overwhelmingly draw the same conclusion. The defendant had the motive, the means and the nature to carry out these two most heinous crimes.

  “The question that needs to be addressed, naturally, is why. What drove the defendant to commit such senseless acts of violence? The short answer is pride, ego and evil.

  “You will hear that the defendant is a member of the Sintown Crips. They are criminal street gang that survives off two fundamental activities: violence and crime. Now the counsel for the defendant will tell you to believe he is a ‘former member’. But we have evidence to indicate he committed these murders in the name of the Sintown Crips and that gang’s most famous member, a man by the name of Ramon X.

  “As you might expect from a gang member, Ramon X has a lengthy criminal history and a stream of violent convictions to his name. He also happens to be a rapper and a YouTube star. He once counted Luke Jameson as a friend. But then they fell out, after which Ramon X made public threats against Mr. Jameson’s life. You will also hear that Ramon X threatened the life of Mr. Connors, who had embarrassed Ramon X on YouTube. So both victims had upset Ramon X so deeply that he wanted them dead.

  “What doe
s this have to do with the defendant? Well, the fact is we have a confession. You will see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears. The defendant here, while being held at Juvenile Hall for these two murders, boasts to a gang member friend about the killings and then seeks assurance that he will enjoy protection from his gang once he is imprisoned.

  “The facts tell us the defendant carried out two cold-blooded murders to restore the dubious—no, non-existent—honor of his gang. There is no honor in that gang, at least not the kind of honor that any decent, self-respecting citizen of Los Angeles holds dear.

  “Now I want to tell you something about the two men killed. You may or may not have heard of Luke Jameson, but he had forged an extremely successful career as a vlogger on YouTube. Every day he posted a video to his channel, and every day millions of people enjoyed watching those videos. His senseless death has left an immense hole in the hearts of all who loved him—mother Helen, father Richard, sister Kate, brother Randy, girlfriend Margot—all are suffering a degree of heartbreak we can barely imagine. They were proud of Luke, they loved him, and now all they have memories.

  “Toby Connors, the first to die on that horrible day, was pursuing a passion he wanted to convert into a career. He was twenty-one years old with his whole life ahead of him. He too was loved dearly by his parents and his girlfriend. But their lives have been changed forever. They have had to deal with unbearable grief. But their pain is all the more acute for the sheer senselessness of Toby’s death.

  “Members of the jury, no amount of jail time can bring back the lives of those two young men. The perpetrator of their callous murders, the defendant, deserves to feel the heaviest impact of the law. Anything less than the death penalty would be a slap in the face for all the family and friends who yearn for justice.

  “Thank you for your service to your community. You have a been given a great burden, but it rests on worthy shoulders. I know you will make the right decision. And that is to find the defendant twice guilty of murder in the first degree.

  Throughout Jessica’s statement I scrutinized the faces of the jury. She’d made the perfect start. Delivered a powerful, coherent story. Told it in clear, resonant language. She stuck to the facts, unlike some trial lawyers I know. And, also unlike some lawyers I know, she never talked down to the jury. While she spoke, I’d paid particular attention to four jury members.

  Before the trial we’d spent three weeks on voir dire, conducting interviews to reduce a field of fifty-two potential jurors down to twelve plus four alternates. Within that core dozen were four who, I believed, would be the hardest for me to win over.

  First there was Juror #1: Stacey Callahan. White. Thirty-five-year-old mother of two. She worked as a receptionist for an auto parts chain. During voir dire, she’d responded dutifully to every question, contemplating it earnestly before replying. She’d said she was aware of the case, declared she hadn’t yet formed a judgment on Demarco Torrell’s guilt or innocence, and insisted she’d be able to put everything she’d heard prior to the trial aside and deal only with what was presented in court. I’d have gotten rid of her using a peremptory challenge, but by the time we’d interviewed her I’d used up twenty already. Yes, that’s right—twenty times I’d had to strike out a witness on the grounds I believed they wouldn’t be able to judge this case without bias. That may sound like a lot, but there was a young man’s life at stake, and I was doing all I could to ensure the prosecution didn’t get a head start.

  Then there was Juror #4: Holly Myers. White. Twenty-two. Bright and assertive. I’d actually called a peremptory challenge to remove her, but Judge Garner hadn’t allowed it. My objection was that Ms. Myers had admitted to subscribing to Luke Jameson’s channel. But she said she was subscribed to more than a hundred channels.

  “Just because I subscribed to his channel doesn’t mean I was in love with him,” she said to me. “Are you in love with Alicia Florrick because you like to watch The Good Wife? Or do you necessarily think Charlie Sheen is an okay guy just because you love watching re-runs of Two and a Half Men?”

  “She’s got you there,” Judge Garner said with a wry smile, enjoying every moment.

  I had to concede she did. So she was in. But because of the way she handled herself so confidently, I picked her as a person who’d be quite influential in the jury. I sensed she’d back her conviction and urge others to follow. I also figured once she’d made up her mind, she’d be hard to flip. I believed she could swing the case one way or the other. And my inclination was that she would lean more toward Jessica than me.

  Juror #6 was Mark Carnavan. White. Forty-two. A plumber from Century City with a wife and two teenage boys. My bet was that he’d be biased against Demarco because he’d naturally sympathize with the deaths of two young men and seek justice for their families. But he’d said he had many black friends with sons and he wouldn’t approach the trial on race lines. That said, I remained concerned that I’d have a tough time winning him over.

  Now let’s be honest. The difficulty I faced was not just the perceived leanings or attitudes of any particular jury member. Jessica had a very strong case, and I knew she’d lay it out brilliantly. And while I’d be pulling out all the stops to sink her argument, I simply knew that when people were presented with a convincing story by the authorities or law enforcement or sitting governments, they by and large tended to accept that what was told to them was the truth. And that’s how I saw Mark—someone who was comfortable trusting authority.

  Juror #12 was Don Gretler. White. Sixty-four. There was nothing specific I feared about Don. He just seemed to be someone whose life was so far removed from Demarco’s that I feared he might lack empathy.

  But despite my reservations about these four, I didn’t want any of the alternates riding the pine to be subbed in. My feeling was that the insertion of any of one of them would weaken my chances. So beyond the challenge of winning the argument on the evidence at hand, I also had to hope like hell that none of the standing twelve jurors would have to excuse themselves.

  When I stood to make my opening statement, I adopted a relaxed posture. It was a fine line between projecting overconfidence and honesty. Obviously, I was going for the latter. Given the voir dire process, the jurors and I were, if not familiar with each other, at least acquainted. In the interviews, I’d taken care to never be pushy, argumentative or ingratiating, something Judge Garner would have jumped on in an instant. Any attempt to get overly familiar with a juror—probing for mutual friends, common interests, or shared humor—was also out of line. And don’t think I didn’t practice my tone of voice, my posture, facial expressions, and the movement of my hands in the mirror at home. It might sound vain, but I don’t care—everything I did had to work in my client’s favor. Everything. Every breath, every movement, every small action or reaction. My client was the one on trial, but I was too—or at least under constant review.

  The start of a trial. My client against the odds. If I lost, he’d go to a prison where men were waiting to kill him. No pressure.

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m going to make this very clear from the outset. You should acquit Demarco Torrell. Why? Because although the prosecution will no doubt make a convincing argument, it’s an argument built on the misrepresentation of the facts at hand.

  “The prosecution told you the facts point to Demarco Torrell’s guilt. But that’s true only if you line up certain facts and look at them in a certain way—that is, the exact way the prosecution wants you to.

  “The question you must ask is why on earth would my client commit these murders? The prosecution has rather luridly portrayed Demarco as an assassin. They say he was avenging some slight against a gang member Ramon X.

  “But the fact is that the defendant had left the gang life behind. That took courage. He reached out for help. That took courage. He conceived of an honorable future for himself by joining the military. That took courage.

  “Out of the gang life. Out to shape a
better future for himself. Out to do his late father proud and join the military. That’s what Demarco Torrell had achieved. So you will have to ask yourselves, why would he throw all that away by killing two men in broad daylight?

  “The prosecution will have you believe that because Demarco Torrell’s DNA was found in the car of Toby Connors, he must have killed him. And that because he was the last to speak with Luke Jameson, he must have killed him.

  “But I’m here to tell you someone else committed these murders. I wish I could stand here and tell you who, that person is, but I can’t. My client happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Twice. They say lightening doesn’t strike twice, but I’m sorry to say it has for my client.

  “Believe me, I know what the sum of evidence looks like when pieced together by the prosecution, and I can see the appeal of buying into their theory. But you have to remember that their story is only a theory.

  “They say Demarco shot those men, but no one saw my client holding a gun. That’s a fact. No one saw my client shoot Mr. Jameson. That’s a fact. Demarco made no attempt to flee the scene of the Jameson murder. That’s a fact. He was observed crouching over the dying man. That’s a fact.

  “As for my client’s DNA being found in Mr. Connors’ car, he has never denied being in the vehicle. He had a very good reason to be in that car. Then there is the fact that my client was found wearing a pass registered to Mr. Connors. Now the prosecution has put two and two together to say my client killed Mr. Connors. But I will show you that this is not what those facts actually add up to.

  “Let’s get to the heart of this—for my client to be guilty, he would have had to be hell bent on murdering two individuals come what may. This would have to be the work of a fanatical madman, a cold-blooded killer on a suicide mission. Demarco Torrell is no such thing. I will show you he is a young man of honor. A young man who had the sense and self-discipline to make profound changes in his life for the better. Who among us can say we did the same at such a young age?