Mickey Haller 4 - The Fifth Witness

his entire career working patrol. He is not a detective. He has never investigated a robbery.”
    The judge nodded.
    “I tend to agree with Ms. Freeman, Mr. Haller.”
    “Your Honor, Sergeant Covington may not have ever been a detective but I think it is safe to say he has responded to robbery calls and conducted preliminary investigations. I think he can certainly answer a question about his initial impressions of the crime scene.”
    “I’m still going to sustain the objection. Ask your next question.”
    Defeated on that point, I looked down at the notes I had previously worked up for Covington. I felt confident that I had firmly planted the question about robbery and the motive for the murder in the jurors’ minds, but I didn’t want to leave it at that. I decided to try a bluff.
    “Sergeant, after you arrived in response to the nine-one-one call and surveyed the crime scene, did you call for investigators and medical examiners and crime scene experts?”
    “Yes, I contacted the com center, confirming that we had a homicide and requesting the usual response of investigators from Van Nuys Division.”
    “And you maintained control of the crime scene until those people arrived?”
    “Yes, that is how it works. I transferred custody of the scene to the investigators. Detective Kurlen to be exact.”
    “Okay, and at any time during this process, did you discuss with Kurlen or any other law enforcement officer the possibility that the murder had come out of a robbery attempt?”
    “No, I did not.”
    “Are you sure, Sergeant?”
    “Quite sure.”
    I wrote something on my legal pad. It was a meaningless scribble done for the jury.
    “I have no further questions.”
    Covington was excused and one of the paramedics who had responded to the nine-one-one call testified about confirming that the victim was dead at the scene. He was on and off the stand in five minutes, as Freeman was interested only in confirming death and I had nothing to gain from cross-examination.
    Next up was the victim’s brother, Nathan Bondurant. He was used to confirm identification of the victim, another requirement for conviction. Freeman also used him much as she did the crime scene photos, to stir emotions in the jury. He tearfully described being taken by detectives to the medical examiner’s office where he identified his younger brother’s body. Freeman asked him when he had last seen his brother alive and his answer brought another torrent of tears as he described attending a Lakers basketball game together just a week before the murder.
    It’s a rule of thumb to leave a crying man alone. There usually isn’t anything to be gained from cross-examining a victim’s loved one, but Freeman had opened a door and I decided to step through it. The risk I ran was that jurors might view me as cruel if I went too far in questioning the bereaved family member.
    “Mr. Bondurant, I am sorry for your family’s loss. I have only a few quick questions. You mentioned that you and your brother went to the Lakers game a week before this horrible crime occurred. What did you talk about during that outing?”
    “Uh, we talked about a lot of things. It would be hard to remember everything right now.”
    “Only sports and Lakers?”
    “No, of course not. We were brothers. We talked about a lot of things. He asked about my kids. I asked if he was seeing anyone. Things like that.”
    “Was he seeing anyone?”
    “No, not at the time. He said he was too busy with work.”
    “What else did he say about work?”
    “He just said it was busy. He was in charge of home loans and it was a bad time. A lot of foreclosures and all of that sort of stuff. He didn’t really get into it.”
    “Did he talk about his own real estate holdings and what was happening with them?”
    Freeman objected on relevance. I asked for a sidebar and it was granted. At the bench I argued that I had already put the jury on notice that I would not only be debunking the state’s case but putting forward a defense case that included evidence of an alternate theory of the crime.
    “This is that alternate theory, Judge. That Bondurant was in trouble financially and his efforts to get out of the hole brought about his demise. I should be given the latitude to pursue this with any witness the prosecution puts before the jury.”
    “Judge,” Freeman countered, “just because counsel says something is relevant doesn’t mean it is. The victim’s brother has no direct