turned, pointed to the judge. “Now, Judge Grimes is going to instruct you that in a murder trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the defendant is under no obligation to put on any defense, nor is he under any obligation to take the stand to deny his participation in the crime. Judge Grimes will further instruct you that his failure to do so must in no way be considered by you to be an indication of guilt, that you should put it from your minds, give it no weight and not let it affect your deliberations in the least.”
Steve smiled and shook his head. “Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you can do that, I think you’re all destined for sainthood. Personally, I don’t think there’s a person in this courtroom who isn’t thinking right now, ‘Gee, why didn’t he put on any defense?’
“Well, rather than strike it from your minds, ladies and gentlemen-which frankly I don’t think is possible-I’d like to tell you why. The reason I didn’t put on a case is because the prosecution has made my case for me.
“I know you don’t think that now, but that’s because you’ve only heard the evidence, and you haven’t had time to deliberate on it and consider what it means. I’ve already done that, because frankly, to quote Mr. Dirkson, ‘That’s my job.’”
Steve was watching the jurors when he said that. None smiled, but he certainly had their attention. He pushed on.
“Harry Dirkson has already interpreted the evidence for you and told you what he thinks it means. Now I’m going to tell you what I think it means.
“Before I do so, I must digress a moment to explain something about the law. This is a case involving circumstantial evidence. By that I mean there is no eyewitness to the crime. There is no one who saw the assailant fire the bullet into the brain of the decedent. You are asked to conclude that happened from the circumstances which the prosecution has laid out.”
Once again, Steve indicated the judge. “Judge Grimes will instruct you that in any crime involving circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances of the crime as laid out by the prosecution can be explained by any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the defendant, then you must find the defendant not guilty. That is the doctrine of reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. He is presumed innocent-you’re all familiar with the book, whether you’ve read it or not-he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty. And he is
“Well, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to give you a reasonable hypothesis. But I’m going to go a little further than that.
“As I said, I didn’t put on my case because the prosecution proves my case for me. I’m going to show you how that is by building a reasonable hypothesis. Then I’m going to go beyond that by showing you that it is not only a reasonable hypothesis, but it is the
“Now, let’s look at the evidence. I have no quarrel with the evidence Harry Dirkson just laid out for you. It’s only his interpretation of it. I think we can all concede the following things happened: on the afternoon of February 26th, Jack Walsh showed up at Jeremy Dawson’s school, found Jeremy and asked him to go with him. Jack Walsh took him to Manhattan to the 66th Street subway station, where he was seen by Joseph Bissel. He proceeded to write out a will leaving everything to Jeremy Dawson. That will is here in evidence, and you will have a chance to look at it during your deliberations.
“Now, as Mr. Dirkson said, we know the time that that happened because Jack Walsh put it in the will. It was two-thirty in the afternoon. Jack Walsh wrote out the will and gave it to Jeremy Dawson to keep.
“What happened then? Jeremy Dawson left Jack Walsh and eventually returned home. How do we know that? We know that by the testimony of the witness, Carl Jenson, who stated that Jeremy Dawson returned home at approximately five-thirty.
“What happened between two-thirty and five-thirty? I don’t think there’s much question as to that. Jeremy Dawson made his way back to New Jersey-probably read the will to himself several times on the bus going back- and in the course of the afternoon he gradually became imbued with the thought, ‘By god, I’m going to be rich.’ Not an illogical hypothesis. And we have the statement of Carl Jenson that Jeremy said almost exactly those words.
“Now, Jeremy Dawson arrived home at five-thirty, encountered Carl Jenson. Carl berated him for skipping school, demanded to know where he’d been. Jeremy replied in a flippant, hostile manner, went upstairs to take a shower. He showered, changed and went out, after saying the now immortal words, ‘You be nice to me, Carl, ’cause I’m gonna be rich.’
“And where did Jeremy Dawson go? Well, we have the testimony of Martin Steers, who saw a young boy with green hair attempting to break into Teaneck High School around seven o’clock. Can we conclude that that boy was Jeremy Dawson?”
Steve held up his hands, paused, looked around questioningly. Then he nodded. “Absolutely. I don’t think there’s a shadow of a doubt that that boy was Jeremy Dawson. I think there’s no question what Martin Steers observed was Jeremy Dawson breaking into Teaneck High School.”
Steve smiled. “Now, I see by your faces that some of you are puzzled. I would assume that you, like Harry Dirkson, expected me to argue that point. But it’s not a point I care to argue. I think the boy was Jeremy Dawson. So far, the prosecution’s and my interpretation of the case is the same.”
Steve held up his hand. “Here’s where we differ. The prosecution would have you believe Jeremy Dawson broke into the high school to get the gun. The gun kept in his locker. I think there’s a much simpler explanation. You will recall the testimony of the officer who served the search warrant on Jeremy Dawson’s locker. When he searched it, he found in the locker drug paraphernalia and several vials of crack. I think a much more likely explanation is that Jeremy Dawson broke into the high school to get the drugs. We know from Carl Jenson that Jeremy didn’t keep drugs at home, because Jenson searched his room. We know Jeremy kept drugs in his locker, because that’s where they were found. And Jeremy Dawson was a crack dealer and a crack addict.”
Steve held up his hand. “Now I’m not condoning or excusing that behavior. Frankly, I think it stinks. But that’s neither here nor there. The fact is, I think what happened on the night of February 26th was that Jeremy Dawson got so excited by the prospect of inheriting Uncle Jack’s money, so keyed up by the thought that he was going to be rich, that he decided, what the heck, he’d use up some of his merchandise and spend the evening getting high smoking crack. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.”
Steve broke off, looked up to find the jury staring at him incredulously. He smiled. “Yeah, I know. In the first place, you can’t believe I’m admitting he did that. And in the second place, you’re saying, ‘Yeah, but that leaves a few small questions unanswered. Like, for instance, who killed Jack Walsh.
“Well, the reason that leaves that question unanswered is because I’m explaining to you what Jeremy Dawson did, and the simple fact is Jeremy Dawson had absolutely nothing to do with the murder.”
Steve smiled again. “Yeah, I know. That’s a sort of unsatisfactory explanation. So let’s answer the question. Who killed Jack Walsh?”
“I refer you once again to the testimony of Carl Jenson. Jeremy Dawson returned around five-thirty, Jenson questioned him, Jeremy Dawson made rude replies and went upstairs to take a shower and change.
“If you will recall my cross-examination of Carl Jenson, at this point I asked him if Jeremy Dawson had ever cut school before, and then I asked him if Jeremy had ever been suspended. He said, yes, for drugs. I asked him if he had ever searched Jeremy Dawson’s room and he admitted that he had, but he had found no drugs. He said that that didn’t prove anything because Jeremy was selling them out of his locker.
“Now,” Steve said, “during your deliberation you have the right to ask to have any portions of the testimony read back to you.” Steve picked up a paper from the defense table. “I call your attention to the following exchange:
“Question: ‘I see. So you searched his room?’ Answer: ‘Yes, I did.’ Question: ‘And did you find any drugs?’ Answer: ‘No, I didn’t.’ Question: ‘And did that make you think maybe the school was wrong?’ Answer: ‘No, because he didn’t have them at home, he had them at school. He was selling drugs out of his locker.’ Question: ‘You know that now because of what the police found in his locker. But you didn’t know it then.’ Answer: ‘Yes, I did.’ Question: ‘How?’”
Steve Winslow looked up from his reading. “At this point the court reporter has written the word ‘pause.’ You will recall, that was because the witness did not answer. Then the question is repeated: Question: ‘How, Mr.
