Mickey Haller 4 - The Fifth Witness

thousand seven. This means that this document was created to falsely convey the mortgage note on the Trammel property to WestLand National.”
    I stepped back to the lectern to check my notes and let Aronson’s testimony float in front of the jury a little longer. I stole a quick glance at the box and noticed several of the jurors were still staring up at the screens. This was good.
    “So what did this tell you when you discovered this fraud?”
    “That we could challenge WestLand’s right to foreclose on the Trammel property. WestLand was not the legitimate holder of the mortgage. It still remained with CityPro.”
    “Did you inform Lisa Trammel of this discovery?”
    “On December seventeenth of last year we had a client meeting which was attended by Lisa, you and myself. She was informed then that we had clear and convincing evidence of fraud in the foreclosure filing. We also told her that we would use the evidence as leverage to negotiate a positive outcome to her situation.”
    “How did she react to this?”
    Freeman objected, saying I was asking a question requiring a hearsay answer. I argued that I was allowed to establish the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the murder. The judge agreed and Aronson was allowed to answer.
    “She was very happy and positive. She said it was an early Christmas present, knowing that she wasn’t going to lose her house anytime soon.”
    “Thank you. Now did there come a time when you wrote a letter to WestLand National for my signature?”
    “Yes, I wrote a letter for your signature that outlined these findings of fraud. It was addressed to Mitchell Bondurant.”
    “And what was the purpose of this letter?”
    “This was part of the negotiation we told Lisa Trammel about. The idea was to inform Mr. Bondurant of what ALOFT was doing in the bank’s name. We believed that if Mr. Bondurant was concerned about the bank’s exposure on this, it would help facilitate a negotiation beneficial to our client.”
    “When you wrote that letter for my signature, did you know or intend that Mr. Bondurant would forward it to Louis Opparizio at ALOFT?”
    “No, I did not.”
    “Thank you, Ms. Aronson. I have no further questions.”
    The judge called for the morning break and Aronson took the defendant’s seat when Lisa and Herb Dahl left to stretch their legs in the hallway.
    “Finally, I get to sit here,” she said.
    “Don’t worry, after today, you’re there. You did great, Bullocks. Now comes the hard part.”
    I glanced over at Freeman, who was staying at the prosecution table during the break, finishing her plan for the cross-examination.
    “Just remember, you are entitled to take your time. When she asks the tough ones, you just take a breath, compose yourself and then answer if you know the answer.”
    She looked at me as if questioning whether I really meant it: You mean tell the truth?
    I nodded.
    “You’ll do fine.”
    After the break, Freeman went to the lectern and spread open a file containing notes and her written questions. It was just a show for the most part. She did what she could but it is always a challenge to cross-examine an attorney, even a new one. For nearly an hour she tried to shake Aronson on her direct testimony but to no avail.
    Eventually, she went in a different direction, using sarcasm whenever possible. A sure sign that she was frustrated.
    “So, after that wonderful, happy client conference you had before Christmas, when was the next time you saw your client?”
    Aronson had to think for a long moment before answering.
    “It would have been after she was arrested.”
    “Well, what about phone calls? After the client conference, when was the next time you talked to her on the phone?”
    “I am pretty sure she spoke to Mr. Haller a number of times but I did not speak to her again until after her arrest.”
    “So during the time between the meeting and the murder, you would have no idea what sort of state of mind your client was in?”
    As instructed, my young associate took her time before answering.
    “If there had been a change in her view of the case and how it was going I think I would have been informed of it by her directly or through Mr. Haller. But nothing like that occurred.”
    “I’m sorry but I didn’t ask what you think. I asked what you directly know. Are you telling this jury that based on your meeting in December, you know what your client’s state of mind was a whole month later?”
    “No, I’m