about the contents of this exhibit to testify. Essentially, they have
agreed that the document is exactly what it appears to be and that
what's written on it is true.'
When the judge was finished, I turned back to Chuck. 'What does the
invoice indicate?'
'It shows that Frank Derringer paid eight hundred dollars for new
paint, upholstery, and carpet for the vehicle.'
'And does it indicate when the work was completed?'
'Yes, it does. The work was done the day after Kendra Martin was
abducted.'
I paused to make sure that the jury understood the implication. Then,
for the truly dense, I followed up. 'So, one day after the assault on
Kendra Martin, and before you were able to search it, Frank Derringer
paid someone to replace the carpet and upholstery on the interior of
his car?' Chuck agreed. 'And one day after the assault on Kendra
Martin, Frank Derringer paid someone to change the appearance of his
vehicle by painting its exterior?' Yes, again. 'And he paid eight
hundred dollars for this work?' Yes.
'Detective, are you familiar with the Blue Book for automobile prices?'
Yes. I pulled out the photocopy of the relevant page from the Blue
Book and asked Chuck to refer to it. 'Based on that, Detective, what
is your estimate of the maximum fair market value of Frank Derringer's
vehicle, prior to the work he had completed at the Collision Clinic?'
'Twelve hundred dollars.'
'And what is your estimate of the fair market value after he paid eight
hundred dollars for the work at the Collision Clinic?'
'Fourteen hundred dollars.'
Lisa was predictably gentle on cross. Yes, Chuck admitted, some people
spend money to improve houses and cars, even if they might not get the
money returned. And, yes, he conceded, it may have been worth eight
hundred dollars to Mr. Derringer to have a new feel to his car. When
Lisa finished her questioning, reserving the right to recall the
witness later, I didn't see any need to redirect. Instead, I caught
Chuck's eye as he left the witness stand. I was right. Testifying in
a solid case with an easy cross had taken his mind off the Zimmerman
debacle.
The trial was trucking along smoothly. I began to suspect that my
paranoia about Lisa's strategy was exactly that paranoia. Perhaps she
had simply concluded there was no reason to knock herself out trying to
save Derringer. She didn't even try to attack the accuracy of the
fingerprint evidence when the criminologist, Heidi Chung, called a
match based only on six points. Her only questions concerned the
timing of the latent print found on Kendra's purse. Chung conceded the
point that must always be given up on fingerprint evidence: Although
she could state with confidence that the defendant had left his
fingerprint on the victim's purse, there was no way to determine when
the print had been left behind.
On redirect, Chung explained to the jury that it was never possible to
determine from physical evidence alone when a fingerprint was left
behind. All the physical evidence could do was confirm that the
suspect had touched that item at some point prior to the print's
discovery.
Through the end of my case-in-chief, the only witness Lisa
cross-examined in any detail was Dave Renshaw, Derringer's probation
officer. She didn't get far.
The sole purpose of Renshaw's testimony was to show that when Renshaw
saw Derringer's private parts a few weeks before Kendra was assaulted,
they were still covered with hair like most other people's privates.
Lisa tried to rattle Renshaw's testimony by pointing out that he didn't
actually examine Derringer physically and was not looking specifically
at that physical feature. In the end, though, there was no way to get
around the obvious: A shorn scrotum stands out.
The only other line of questioning she had for Renshaw concerned
Derringer's probation record. Renshaw admitted on cross that Derringer
had kept all their appointments, stayed in regular contact with him,
and maintained regular employment. Lopez even went through a list of
the various temp jobs Derringer had worked since he got parole: day
labor, grill cooking, stockrooms, inventories.
I could've objected on the basis that Lisa's questions called for
inadmissible character evidence. She was, after all, trying to
establish that Derringer had been keeping his nose clean, which had
nothing to do with the issues in the trial. But any objection would
invite a bullshit attempt to justify the evidence in front of the jury.
Lisa would probably argue something to the effect that the evidence
contradicted the State's theory that Derringer planned the abduction
ahead of time or was associating with a possible accomplice. I figured
any minimal benefit she got out of the questioning was a reasonable
price to pay to avoid giving her an opportunity to make a speech for
the jury.
As it turned out, Renshaw was a pro who could diffuse Lisa's points on
cross without my assistance on redirect. After Lisa had established
that Derringer had reported all address changes, met all appointments,
