Page 82 of The Right to Remain

Gupta glanced at the prosecutor but got no help. “I—I don’t know.”

“Huh,” said Jack. “That’s curious. Is it your testimony that the FDLE was never asked to perform a ballistics test on a handgun to determine if the barrel markings matched those on the bullet?”

“No, we were never asked.”

“That kind of standard comparison is something your ballistics team is asked to do quite regularly by local law enforcement agencies all across Florida, is it not?”

“Yes. If both a bullet and a weapon are recovered.”

“Precisely,” said Jack. “Ifboth are recovered.”

Weller rose, keenly aware of how much more difficult it was to prove murder without a murder weapon.

“Your Honor, the State of Florida will stipulate that no handgun was recovered.”

Jack was surprised by the concession. “Thank you,” he said.

“The stipulation will be noted for the record,” said the judge.

“Of course it was never recovered,” the prosecutor muttered, as she settled back into her chair. “The defendant works for a gun destruction company.”

The cheap shot annoyed the judge. “A simple stipulation will do, Ms. Weller.”

Jack moved on. “Deputy Gupta, let’s talk about the only gun that was recovered. The shotgun. I noticed that Ms. Weller didn’t ask you about any fingerprint analysis conducted by FDLE. Did your forensics team conduct a fingerprint analysis?”

Again the witness glanced at the prosecutor, but there was no choice but to answer.

“Yes.”

Ordinarily, Jack would never have asked a question the answer to which could have buried his client, but the prosecutor’s telling decision not to ask about fingerprints gave him comfort.

“Deputy Gupta, did FDLE examiners find the fingerprints of the defendant, Elliott Stafford, anywhere on the shotgun?”

The witness hesitated, but there was no basis for the prosecutor to object and come to her rescue.

“No. We did not find the defendant’s fingerprints.”

Jack could feel the momentum shifting. “Just to make sure I understand. No handgun was recovered. The defendant’s prints were not on the shotgun. It sounds to me like the investigation into the death of Owen Pollard has uncovered no firearm of any sort that is in any way connected to the defendant Elliott Stafford. Is that a fair statement?”

“To the best of my knowledge,” said the witness.

Jack could have taken his seat and left it at that. The biggest mistake a lawyer could make on cross-examination was to score his points and then ask the proverbial “one question too many,” being hoist with his own petard, in Shakespearean terms. The fact that Helena failed to return to the courthouse with her son, however, told Jack that in this situation, the risk was worth taking. He narrowed his gaze, tightening his control over the witness.

“Dr. Gupta, were Helena Pollard’s fingerprints found on the shotgun?”

“Objection,” said Weller, but she was clearly improvising. “There’s no predicate testimony that this witness had anything to do with the fingerprint analysis.”

The judge made a face. “She’s the deputy director of the forensic division. She can answer.”

“Yes,” said Gupta.

Jack felt a rush of adrenaline. “Yes, Helena Pollard’s prints were on the shotgun?”

“That’s correct.”

It was time for Jack to take his winnings and walk away. “Thank you, Deputy Gupta. I have no further questions.”

Jack returned to his seat. The prosecutor was quickly on her feet, unwilling to let Jack savor his moment.