Page 70
“HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED at a murder trial before, Mr. Salzman?” I begin by asking.
“No, ma’am.”
I turn to the jury and open my eyes wide. “ Ma’am ? I heard you call Ms. Welsh that. You can’t possibly think I’m as old as she is, can you?”
I see some of the women in the box laugh.
I’m here all week.
And just getting started.
Now I’m facing Steve Salzman again.
“I am going to make the assumption that in preparation for your testimony here, you studied the use of DNA as it has applied to other murder trials,” I say. “Am I correct about that?”
“As a matter of fact, you are.”
“And in those studies, in what was effectively your own trial prep, did you find a single case where DNA was the single determining result or conclusion or fact in proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”
He hesitates.
“I’m not sure what you’re asking,” he says.
“Let me see if I can make it clearer for you,” I say.
“Wouldn’t even a cursory Google check tell you that often the opposite is true, that DNA—sometimes years after the fact—has often been used to prove the innocence of someone falsely convicted of murder by noble lawyers from places like the Innocence Project? ”
“Objection,” Welsh says, jumping to her feet. “Now who’s giving speeches, Your Honor?”
“Overruled,” Judge Horton says. “But Ms. Smith, let’s move on from you sounding like an unpaid spokesperson for the Innocence Project.”
“My pleasure, Your Honor.”
I walk toward the witness stand now, stopping only a few feet away. Jimmy Cunniff has always said that in moments like these I remind him of a boxer cutting off the ring. Even a girl boxer.
“Can a person’s DNA be harvested?” I ask Salzman.
“Harvested?”
“You see, Mr. Salzman, I did some forensic trial prep of my own. So what I’m asking is if someone who knew what he, or she, was doing, could they recover DNA off someone’s toothbrush, for example, and then—again, knowing what they were doing—preserve that DNA along with a few drops of water in a test tube for future use? ”
“I guess that would be possible, yes.”
“Objection!” Katherine Welsh says, much louder than before. “Your Honor, it’s also possible that Ms. Smith could become an astronaut if she trained for it. But as far as I know, she hasn’t.”
I’ve never been able to help myself in moments like these, no matter how many times I’ve been warned by judges.
“I’m starting to feel a little weightless right now, to tell you the truth,” I say.
“The objection is overruled,” Horton says. But then to me he says, “Ms. Smith, please let it be noted for the record that you’re not as amusing as you clearly think you are.”
Am too, I think.
But what I say is this: “If it pleases the court, what I’m trying to establish with this witness, in a scientific way I’m hopeful he will appreciate, is that there are a lot of ways why and how my client’s DNA could have ended up in that house, and near those victims, without him being the one to leave it there.
So what I’m really asking the witness is if he thinks it’s entirely possible that someone other than my client committed these crimes? ”
“It would be extremely difficult to plant that much evidence,” he says, “even for someone who did know what they were doing.”
I grin at him. “But possible,” I say, before adding, “like becoming an astronaut.”
“Yes,” he says. “Possible.”
“And on the subject of hair follicles,” I continue, “isn’t it true that someone whose intention is an elaborate and creative frame-up would only need access to someone’s hat, or even hairbrush?”
“Objection,” Welsh says. “Your Honor, that isn’t a serious question. It’s just more of Ms. Smith’s fever dream about this murder being a setup.”
“Sustained,” Horton says.
“Your Honor,” I say, “I’m just attempting to make the jury aware that this trial isn’t over just because of DNA samples that Mr. Salzman collected at the murder scene, but is rather just beginning.”
“We can all see what you’re attempting to do,” Judge Horton says. “You’re telling a story. And I’m telling you that this story needs to come to an end now.”
“Understood,” I say.
I know I can call Salzman back to the stand later if I think I need him. But I don’t think that I will—once I’ve got my own expert on the stand.
“Mr. Salzman, let’s approach this from another direction. Is there any way for the science you’re here talking about to know how long DNA has been present, whether on a hard surface or any article of clothing or on a rug?”
“No,” he says, “there’s not.”
“One more question: Is it possible that DNA, even belonging to the same person, can alter slightly over time, so that while it’s still clearly a match, it’s not an exact match?”
“Yes,” he answers, “it is possible, but it would require a longer explanation.”
“One I’m sure you could give this court, in both chapter and verse,” I say. “But for now, a simple yes or no will do.”
“Yes,” he says. “It can alter.”
“No further questions,” I say, “at least not at this time.”
Katherine Welsh is back on her feet before I’m back in my chair.
“Redirect please, Your Honor,” she says.
“To be clear, Mr. Salzman,” she says, “the defendant’s DNA was only found in close proximity to the three bodies, when it wasn’t in fact on the bodies, right?”
“That’s right.”
“What a coincidence.”
“It would be some coincidence.”
Welsh says, “And there was that one drop of blood on the nightstand in the main bedroom, right?”
“Yes,” Salzman answers.
“And we both know that the Carsons’ housekeeper has testified that she took a scrub brush to all the hard surfaces in that house on the day in question, don’t we?”
“I heard the same testimony you did, Ms. Welsh.”
“So sometime after Ms. Morales thoroughly cleaned that house and before you arrived at the house, somehow a drop of Rob Jacobson’s blood ended up on that table,” Welsh says. “Not something from a test tube, or a toothbrush, or a hairbrush, or a ball cap. Mr. Jacobson’s own blood.”
“Yes.”
“And with blood, you can tell that it’s fresh, can’t you?”
“Without a doubt.”
“Without a reasonable doubt,” Welsh says.
Not a question, not intended to be.
“No further questions,” she says.
In that moment, I do feel a little bit like a boxer.
One who just got cut.
Table of Contents
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6
- Page 7
- Page 8
- Page 9
- Page 10
- Page 11
- Page 12
- Page 13
- Page 14
- Page 15
- Page 16
- Page 17
- Page 18
- Page 19
- Page 20
- Page 21
- Page 22
- Page 23
- Page 24
- Page 25
- Page 26
- Page 27
- Page 28
- Page 29
- Page 30
- Page 31
- Page 32
- Page 33
- Page 34
- Page 35
- Page 36
- Page 37
- Page 38
- Page 39
- Page 40
- Page 41
- Page 42
- Page 43
- Page 44
- Page 45
- Page 46
- Page 47
- Page 48
- Page 49
- Page 50
- Page 51
- Page 52
- Page 53
- Page 54
- Page 55
- Page 56
- Page 57
- Page 58
- Page 59
- Page 60
- Page 61
- Page 62
- Page 63
- Page 64
- Page 65
- Page 66
- Page 67
- Page 68
- Page 69
- Page 70 (Reading here)
- Page 71
- Page 72
- Page 73
- Page 74
- Page 75
- Page 76
- Page 77
- Page 78
- Page 79
- Page 80
- Page 81
- Page 82
- Page 83
- Page 84
- Page 85
- Page 86
- Page 87
- Page 88
- Page 89
- Page 90
- Page 91
- Page 92
- Page 93
- Page 94
- Page 95
- Page 96
- Page 97
- Page 98
- Page 99
- Page 100
- Page 101
- Page 102
- Page 103
- Page 104
- Page 105
- Page 106
- Page 107
- Page 108
- Page 109
- Page 110
- Page 111
- Page 112
- Page 113
- Page 114
- Page 115
- Page 116
- Page 117
- Page 118
- Page 119
- Page 120
- Page 121
- Page 122
- Page 123