A Hole In One Paul Weininger (list of ebook readers .TXT) 📖

Straub.” As Straub rose from the defendant’s table and took the witness stand, Stanford looked at the judge and asked, “Your Honor, may I approach the bench?”

“You may.”

At this point Garnett also called defense counsel up to the bench. He switched off his mic to prevent the jury from hearing their conversation. The D.A. asked for judge’s permission to declare this man a hostile witness, but defense attorney Jaxson objected, saying that it would unfairly influence the jury to disbelieve anything his witness has to say.

The judge informally sustained the objection at the bench and directed D.A. Stanford to repeat her request on the record. He then turned his mic back on.

“Your Honor,” Stanford said, “the people now wish to identify this defendant as a hostile witness.”

The judge in turn addressed the jury somberly. “What the prosecution is saying by declaring the defendant a hostile witness is that she expects some lies from the witness to occur. But if they do, that still does not necessarily prove him to be guilty.”

“Mr. Straub,” the D.A. requested, “would you please lower the collar on your shirt and show the jury the birthmark on your neck?”

“Objection. The prosecution is asking the defendant to incriminate himself.”

“Let me remind you, Mr. Jaxson,” said the judge, “your client waived that right when he himself insisted on testifying. He was reminded at that time that he was forfeiting his Fifth Amendment rights in doing so, and stated that he understood. Your objection is overruled! Mr. Straub, show the jury your neck.”

Straub did as he was told and showed the jury the birthmark on his neck, which he had tried to hide by raising his collar.

Stanford continued, “With your permission, Your Honor, I’d like to re-introduce prosecution exhibit P-1.”

“Let the record reflect that the prosecution has re-introduced exhibit P-1,” intoned Garnett.

Exhibit P-1 consisted of two photographs taken by a police photographer who focused his lens on the site of where the body lay, first on the skull with a bullet hole in the center of the forehead, and then on the back of the cranium where the bullet splayed the head open. The jury looked at the photos repugnantly.

“Mr. Straub, please look at the pictures labeled exhibit P-1,” handing them to him. “Can you explain why the objects in these pictures were found in the backyard of the home where you were arrested, and why your fingerprints were found inside the Rabbi’s house?”

“When I got to my brother’s front door, I found him lying there dead. I then took the body to the yard and burned it for fear the police would think that I killed him.”

“You mean to tell the jury that you did not plan to kill and replace your twin brother?” she asked.

“That’s exactly what I am saying.”

“But in so answering, you admit that he was your twin brother?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Objection, Your Honor. The D.A. is obviously harassing my client with not one shred of proof that he committed murder. The only crime that he committed, as he admits, was burning of the body he found to be his twin brother.”

“Overruled,” Judge Garnett decreed, and there was a bustle in the courtroom as reporters bolted for the door to call their editors. The judge banged his gavel to restore order and called for a brief recess.

Thirty-Four

When the proceedings resumed, the D.A pressed on. “Well, Mr. Straub,” she said with the hint of a smile, “the state’s case has turned against you as the murderer of Rabbi Bloom. The people, with the court’s permission, would now like to introduce exhibit P-3. It is a video tape obtained from the state police, who had CCTV cameras present at the Sedona gun show in May of this year.”

“Any objections by the defense?” the judge asked.

“Only to the prosecution’s summation of my client’s supposed guilt, your honor.”

“Overruled. Madam D.A., please continue.”

“Thank you, Your Honor. Would the Court clerk please place the DVD into the player and turn it on?” she asked.

The TV monitor was positioned facing both the jury and the judge. Jaxson and his client asked permission from the court to approach the monitor to see what the DVD was about to show. The judge granted them permission and directed a bailiff to stand next to the defendant.

“Here,” the D.A. began, “during the first three hours of the gun show opening, you can see hundreds of people walking into the show’s complex of sellers. There was a huge variety of weapons, and some sellers even had weapons of mass destruction such as AR-15s, grenade launchers, and even live hand grenades.” She again turned to the court clerk, “Would you please forward the recording to number 356 on the player?”

The court clerk did as he was asked by the D.A.

“Please run the video in slow motion, from numbers 356 thru 362.” She faced the jury and stated, “You will observe here that Mr. Straub—or is it the Rabbi?—is seen walking into the gun show. As you watch the video, take note of the date on the top right.”

“Now, please forward to frame 528.” Again, she provided an introduction as to what they were about to view. “Here we see Mr. Straub—or the Rabbi as he would have you believe—leave the gun show with a rather thick package made to look like something other than a gun, wrapped in newspaper. Then, at number 534 on the video, he exited the building.”

“Mr. Straub, please explain what you were carrying out of the gun show.”

The defendant answered with extreme trepidation. “I did not attend a gun show! Those videos are not of me. They may look a little like me, but they are not me!”

The D.A. asked the clerk, “Could you please focus in on the person in frames 528 to 534?” He did as was asked.

“That’s a good close-up, thank you. I guess we’ll have to leave it to the jury to decide if that’s you or not. It sure looks like you to me.”

“Objection, Your Honor,” Jaxson weighed