“Granted,” the judge said.
Mara took the yearbook from me and walked closer to the jury. She held it up so they could see the photograph. I caught a few of the jurors looking at Detective Parrish in the gallery.
Mara put the yearbook back on the defense table and then turned back to me.
“Just to clarify, Detective Parrish was old friends with both Eric Ellis’ lover and the man who would eventually find Mr. Ellis’ body five years after he was murdered?” Mara asked.
“It would seem so,” I said.
Mara walked back to the defense table and grabbed three identical eight-by-ten color photographs of a blue Honda Accord.
“Your Honor, I move to have Defense Exhibit C admitted into evidence,” Mara said.
“Any objections?” the judge asked.
“No, your Honor,” Piper Lane said.
“The clerk will admit Exhibit C into evidence,” the judge said.
As before, she handed one of the copies to Piper Lane and the other to the judge.
Mara held the third copy up so that I could see it.
“Do you recognize this photograph, Mr. Rutherford?”
“I do.”
“Whose car is this?”
“It belonged to Detective Josh Parrish,” I said.
“Belonged? As in past tense?”
“Yes, he sold it about eight months ago.”
“Objection, your Honor. How is Detective Parrish’s automobile relevant?” Piper Lane asked.
“I’m about to get to that, your Honor,” Mara said.
“Overruled,” the judge said.
“Mr. Rutherford, why is this Honda Accord important to this case?” Mara asked.
“Detective Parrish sold it after he got a car from the Maui Police Department. They provide sedans for the detectives.”
“How much did he sell it for?”
“Five thousand dollars,” I said.
“That’s interesting. The same amount of money that his old friend, Daniel Davis, owed to a loan shark. This is the same Daniel Davis who found Eric Ellis’ body with his non-existent dog.”
“Objection, your Honor. Ms. Winters and Mr. Rutherford are trying to besmirch the good name of a member of our law enforcement community,” Piper Lane said.
“Sustained. Tread carefully, Ms. Winters,” the judge said.
“Yes, your Honor,” Mara said, and she turned back to me. “Mr. Rutherford, earlier you mentioned that Stan Cross provided you two breakthroughs. The first was the revelation of Eric Ellis’ affair with Tiana Wise. What was the second?”
“He alluded to karma coming back to bite Mele Akamu,” I said.
“Why is that significant?” Mara asked.
“Yes, I think we’d all like to know,” Piper Lane said, and there was no hiding the sarcasm in her voice.
“Is there an objection coming, counselor?” the judge asked.
“No, your Honor. My apologies,” Piper Lane said.
“Let’s get back to my question, Mr. Rutherford. Why did you believe Mr. Cross’ comment about karma was significant?” Mara asked.
“I believed he was referring to a man who disappeared twenty years ago. That man’s name was Ronan Huff,” I said.
“Why is this important to the murder of Eric Ellis?”
“I believe they’re connected. Ronan Huff was working for Mele Akamu around the time he disappeared. His body was never found.”
“Was my client suspected in Mr. Huff’s disappearance?”
“Yes, according to the detective who originally looked into it twenty years ago.”
“Twenty years is a long time. Were you able to talk to any of Mr. Huff’s family about the case?” Mara asked.
“Mr. Huff had one young son at the time he disappeared. It took a bit of an effort to find the man because he changed his last name after he was adopted by his foster family. I haven’t had a chance to talk to the man yet.”
“Who is that man?”
“Detective Josh Parrish,” I said.
“No further questions, your Honor.”
34
Karma
Here’s an interesting piece of legal history for you. In Ramos versus Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that a jury must be unanimous in its decision to convict a person in a criminal case. A man named Evangelisto Ramos had been convicted of murder in the state of Louisiana by a ten to two jury vote.
He appealed his conviction and said that the non-unanimous verdict was the result of a Jim Crow law that allowed for racial discrimination by juries. The Louisiana Court of Appeals disagreed with him, and they upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court did not. They said it violated his Sixth Amendment rights, which gives someone the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.
So, how does this relate to Mele Akamu? It meant that Mara only needed to convince one juror of her client’s innocence. Actually, let’s not even take it that far. Mara just needed one juror to feel the prosecution hadn’t proven the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mara convinced all twelve.
About a week after my courtroom appearance, Mele Akamu was pronounced “Not Guilty” and released from jail. Samson Opunui had the charges against him dropped a few days later. Mara had assured Piper Lane that she could expect a repeat performance by yours truly and there was no reason for Ms. Lane to suffer another public defeat. In fairness to Piper Lane, I don’t think she dropped the charges against Samson because she didn’t want to lose the case and embarrass herself. I think she realized the real killer was hiding behind a badge.
Shortly after both Mele Akamu and her butler were freed, I was summoned to the Akamu estate. My jazz phase was starting to ease up, so I made a switch in musical styles and listened to the Pet Shop Boys, the English duo formed in the early 80s. I got through their songs, “It’s a Sin,” “Always on My Mind,” “Love Comes Quickly,” and their smash hit, “West End Girls,” during the drive to Maui’s upcountry.
Mount Haleakala was covered in clouds as it often is, but the temperature was nice, and there was a cool breeze blowing in my face for most of the drive. It was the official conclusion of the Mele Akamu case, at least I thought it was, and I was anxious to put it behind me and move on to less urgent matters.
There were tropical drinks to be drunk. Dogs to be walked. Pools to be swam in,
