Page 26 of The Right to Remain

“Did you bring anything in writing?” asked Weller.

“I did.”

Jack placed a one-page summary of his client’s testimony on the state attorney’s desk. It laid out everything Elliott had shown him at VanPoll Enterprises. Weller read it first, then Beckham. Neither seemed impressed. Weller was downright incredulous.

“You want complete immunity from prosecution for your client, and all you’re offering isthis?” she asked.

“‘This’ is systematic corporate corruption that defrauded over two hundred law enforcement agencies nationwide. Police officers and federal agents risked their lives to confiscate weapons from criminals, and those firearms were supposed to be destroyed. Instead, it appears they were broken down into parts and sold for profit.”

“All of which we already know,” she said.

“If you know about it, then why is the company still doing it? This has been going on for months.”

The state attorney fielded that question. “Because it’s perfectly legal,” said Beckham. “That’s why.”

Jack was momentarily speechless. “Say that again, please?”

“Jack, I’m not trying to embarrass you. My office was as surprised by this as you are. Owen Pollard spent two decades on task forces thatconfiscated weapons from gangs. He knew the regulations on gun destruction like the back of his hand. He also knew the loopholes.”

“What kind of loopholes?”

“A firearms destruction business is in compliance with the law as long as it follows the guidelines set by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. One way to do that is to cut the entire gun into pieces with an acetylene torch. But if you sort through the maze of regulations, you’ll find that another ‘acceptable method’ is to destroy just the receiver or frame, which is the part that has a serial number on it.”

“So, VanPoll Enterprises did absolutely nothing wrong if it took taxpayer money from law enforcement agencies to destroy guns, destroyed only the frames, and then sold the rest of the parts on the secondary market for additional profit. Is that what you’re saying?”

“There’s no ‘if’ about it, Jack. That’s exactly what they did.”

The last thing Jack wanted was for his “proffer” to turn into a debate over gun destruction. But he needed clarity on where this turn of events left his client.

“Let’s talk about the grand jury,” said Jack.

“Grand jury investigations are secret,” said Beckham. “There’s not a lot we can tell you.”

“In light of what was just said, I think you’ve already told me that the grand jury is not investigating VanPoll’s business practices.”

“That’s a fair assumption,” said Beckham.

“Which leads me to conclude that, for some reason, you think Owen Pollard was murdered, even though the medical examiner ruled it a suicide.”

Neither prosecutor responded, but Jack pushed forward, putting a finer point on his question.

“What did the medical examiner miss?”

Beckham took a deep breath. “Jack, we set aside this time for you to make a proffer. Now you’re launching a fishing expedition into a grand jury proceeding.”

“How do you expect my client to proffer helpful information if you won’t give us any insight into the focus of the investigation?”

Weller interjected, retaking the lead in the conversation. “Jack, let me be frank. We’re not interested in granting your client immunity from prosecution.”

“Are you telling me my client is the target of a grand jury investigation into a homicide?”

“I don’t like to get hung up on terms liketarget,” said Weller.

“I don’t like sending my client into a grand jury room if he’s a target.”

“It’s not like there’s a choice here,” she said. “He’s been subpoenaed.”

“Based on what I’m hearing, I will advise him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right.”