'I don't understand the question.'
'Alcohol, dinner, cocaine, sex… do those activities usually precede a murder?'
'I wouldn't know.'
'Have you ever had such a case?'
'No.'
'But despite all that, you still think she killed him?'
'Yes, I do.'
'Even though she called nine-one-one?'
'Yes.'
'Even though she could have wiped her prints off the murder weapon before calling the cops?'
'Yes.'
'She killed him then invited the police into her house-does that make sense to you?'
'Murder never makes sense to me.'
'Wouldn't one way to try to make sense of a murder be to investigate the victim's life?'
'I suppose.'
'I mean, since you couldn't determine any motive for Rebecca Fenney to kill Trey Rawlins, wouldn't you want to know what was happening in his life to see who might have had a motive to kill him?'
'She happened in his life.'
'Did you investigate Trey Rawlins' life?'
'No.'
'Why not?'
'I knew who killed him.'
'So you were not interested in learning other facts about the victim?'
'It wasn't necessary.'
'Detective, when you arrested Rebecca Fenney, were you aware that on the day Mr. Rawlins was killed a man wanted for murder in Mexico was working at a house less than one hundred yards from the Rawlins residence?'
'No.'
'Were you aware that Mr. Rawlins owed five hundred thousand dollars to his drug dealer, a man tied to a Mexican drug cartel known for brutal killings?'
'No.'
'Were you aware that Mr. Rawlins owed a fifteen-million-dollar gambling debt to the mob in Las Vegas?'
'No.'
'Were you aware that Mr. Rawlins was having an affair with the seventeen-year-old daughter of another pro golfer and only one week earlier that golfer had threatened to kill Mr. Rawlins if he didn't stay away from her and that Mr. Rawlins had in fact not stayed away from her?'
'No. But none of that would have mattered. Because only the defendant's fingerprints were on the knife.'
'But the DPS lab technician testified that she could have put her prints on that knife a year ago, that another person wearing latex gloves could have held that knife and stabbed the victim, that the fact that her prints are on the knife does not mean that only she could have stabbed the victim with that knife.'
'Then why were her prints aligned in a stabbing grip?'
'She could have-'
'Coulda, woulda, shoulda-the fact of the matter is that she stabbed the victim with that knife.'
'So the prosecution's entire case is predicated on Ms. Fenney's fingerprints being on the murder weapon in a stabbing grip, is that correct, Detective?'
He appeared perturbed, but not as perturbed as the black and Latino jurors; they knew all about cops who assume guilt without investigation. The defense was making progress.
'Of course our case is predicated on her prints because her prints prove she held the murder weapon in a manner used to stab the victim and she was covered in his blood-that's about all we need, I think.'
'I think the jury will decide that, Detective. So you ignored all other evidence that might indicate someone else killed Trey Rawlins?'
'I didn't have any other evidence.'
'Because you didn't look.'
'Because she did it.'
'You really believe that Rebecca Fenney killed Trey Rawlins then went to sleep in his blood?'
'Yes.'
'Why? Why would she do that?'
The detective gave an honest answer. 'I don't know.'
'Detective, is it true that you have hired a literary agent?'
'Uh… yes.'
'To shop the book you're planning to write about this case?'
'Yes.'
'But your desire to profit from this case did not affect your professional judgment or actions when investigating this case?'
'No.'
'Did your agent say whether a book deal is more or less likely if Ms. Fenney is acquitted or convicted?'
'No.'
'So you want the jury to convict Ms. Fenney only because you believe she is in fact guilty?'
'Yes.'
'And not because of your desire to sell a book and make money?'
'No.'
'Okay. If you say so.'
FORTY-FOUR
There's an old saying among trial lawyers: You can't pick your fact witnesses, but you can pick your expert witnesses.
Fact witnesses testify to facts-what they personally saw or heard. They identify the perpetrator or the murder weapon or the getaway car or what they saw at the crime scene. A prosecutor can't substitute better fact witnesses. They might be too young or too old or too nearsighted or too much of a jerk for the jury to appreciate, but he's stuck with what he's got. The DA was stuck with Ronda Jensen, Officer Art Crandall, and Detective Chuck Wilson as the state's fact witnesses.
But he wasn't stuck with his expert witnesses. Because expert witnesses offer their opinions. If a prosecutor doesn't like the first expert's opinion, he can find another one who will give a better opinion-an opinion that will support the prosecution's version of the case.
'Hard' experts testify as to 'hard science': fingerprints, DNA, toxicology, cause of death, manner of death. The criminologist, the lab technician, and the medical examiner were the state's hard experts.
'Soft' experts testify as to the 'soft sciences,' primarily psychology and psychiatry. They testify as to the defendant's mental state. The D.A. picked a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Holbrooke, as the state's soft expert witness. He had white hair and wore black reading glasses even when he wasn't reading. He wore a crisp shirt under a tailored sports coat. He was not nervous because he was a professional witness. He would testify for the prosecution or the defense, whichever side paid him more. That day he was a prosecution witness because the State of Texas had more money than Rebecca Fenney.
A bad fact witness can lose the case for a prosecutor, but a good expert witness can win the case. Consequently, there's another old saying among trial lawyers: Bad science convicts more innocent people than bad
