“Sustained,” replied the judge.
“Mr. Straub, do you recognize this cell phone I am holding up for the jury to see? With the court’s permission, the people will mark it as exhibit P-4.”
“So marked, as exhibit P-4,” said Judge Garnett.
“Yes,” Straub replied, “it looks like my cell phone.”
“Your Honor, our forensics team was able to recover fingerprints off the cell phone that are Mr. Straub’s and not the Rabbi’s, plus they were able to prove the cell phone was bought at a Verizon store by a Mr. Richard Straub. Forensics also found this phone contained videos of Rabbi Bloom during his Sabbath services, and that Mr. Straub’s calling record indicated that he had conversations with Rabbi Isaac, who previously testified that he had given Mr. Straub Hebrew lessons.”
“Does the defense have any objections to placing people’s exhibit P-4 into evidence?” asked Garnett.
“Yes, Your Honor, relevance, unless they recorded the phone calls, which would be illegal,” argued the defense.
“Overruled, exhibit P-4 may be placed into evidence. It does not contain recordings of the conversations, according to the prosecution, but it obviously contains documentation of when and to whom the recordings were made. I direct that the prosecution redacts all calls that have anyone other than Rabbi Isaac as the subject.”
“Yes, Your Honor,” the D.A. responded, “I will submit a copy of the call record made on Mr. Straub’s cell phone to the court as exhibit P-4, with all other calls that are not Rabbi Isaac’s redacted. This written record comes directly from the forensics team.”
“I will permit exhibit P-4 into evidence, but I must warn you, Madam D.A., you are treading on very thin ice here. All it proves is one person speaking to a Rabbi.”
“Correct, Your Honor, but it proves that Mr. Straub was the person speaking to Rabbi Isaac and not just some other person using his phone, since no one else’s fingerprints were found on it.”
Glaring at Straub, she then asked, “Mr. Straub, would you explain why you changed your appearance from what your ex-employer Joe Rung and Rabbi Isaac described as kind of a grunge look to your imitation of Rabbi Bloom?”
“I was hoping that once I received my Hebrew lessons and made myself more presentable, he would at least accept me, maybe even permit me to preside over a service or two.”
“Mr. Straub, did you ever get bar mitzvahed?”
“No.”
At this point she faced the jury. “Mr. Straub, since you admit to burning the body of the Rabbi in his backyard, but deny killing him, can you explain how the partial skull and oh, by the way, a gun with a silencer attached was also discovered in the pile of ashes?”
“No, I can’t. The first time I found out there was a gun in the backyard was when I was arrested.”
“No more questions for now, Your Honor.” For the D.A., this case was looking very solid, and there was more to come. The judge recessed the trial until the following morning.
Thirty-Five
During the usual opening ceremonials the next morning, Defense Attorney Jaxson was feeling a vague sense of dread, but still hopeful.
The judge adjusted his robe before he sat down and said, “The defense may now call your next witness.”
“Thank you, Your Honor, the defense calls Mr. Joe Rung.”
A bailiff near the door called for Joseph Rung to enter the courtroom. Richard Straub’s former Greenery Landscaping boss walked into the courtroom. He was sworn in by the clerk and told to take a seat in the witness stand.
“How long did Richard or Dick Straub work for you at your company?”
“Not exactly sure, but I’d say Dick worked for me close to eighteen years.”
“Would you please point to Mr. Straub if you see him in the courtroom.”
“I’m not sure I can. The man sitting in the chair next to where you sit looks a little like him, but the Dick Straub who worked for me was not that cleaned up. This guy just doesn’t look like Dick. Dick had plenty of long hair on his sides with a receding top. He also had a goatee and a real tough look. Like someone you didn’t want to meet in a dark street. He was courteous enough, sometimes even kind, but I believe he carried a lot of anger in him.”
As Jaxson points to his client, he asks Joe Rung, “Are you saying that he doesn’t resemble Dick Straub?”
“No, that’s not what I’m saying. I would say that this guy looks a lot like Rabbi Bloom, as far as I can tell from the Rabbi’s picture. Straub once asked me to compare his looks to that of the Rabbi when he saw his picture in the Sedona Times Herald sitting on my desk, and I had to agree there was a resemblance.”
“Objection. Speculation and hearsay,” said the defendant’s counsel.
“Are you really objecting to your own witness’ testimony?” asked Judge Garnett.
“Only to his ending comments when he provided speculation after he answered my question in the negative.”
“Overruled. Mr. Jaxson, you were supposed to prepare your witness before testifying and the court believes his continuation after he said “no,” is relevant to the question.”
“No further questions for this witness,” mumbled the embarrassed defense attorney.
“Madam D.A., do you have anything further to cross?” asked Judge Garnett. Just as he finished the question, one of the district attorney’s assistants ran into the court and whispered something urgently to her.
“We do, Your Honor,” she said. “We have received word this next witness just arrived at the courthouse unbeknownst to us until this moment. Instead of continuing with Mr. Rung at this time, we call Mr. Jules Jacobson to the stand.”
“Objection, Your Honor, this individual was not on the witness list.”
“The court will hold off on its decision to overrule or sustain the objection until I hear the testimony, since the Court believes the D.A., that she just learned of his arrival in court. The court believes the district attorney would not jeopardize a contempt
