The witness has been sworn in. The defendant’s Defense Attorney (which is redundant but I am establishing the characters) approaches the stand.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: “Please state your name for the record.”
WITNESS: “Earl Pomerantz.”
“Is that your full name on your Birth Certificate?’
“Earl Raymond Pomerantz.”
“Thank you. (TURNING TO THE JUDGE) “Your Honor, at this time I would like to treat Mr. Pomerantz as a hostile witness.”
JUDGE: “On what grounds, Counselor?”
“The man is clearly withholding evidence.”
JUDGE: “Because he didn’t give you his whole name?”
“Correct, Your Honor. If he holds back on something as trivial as stating his entire name, how can we trust his veracity when it comes to the pertinent evidence at hand?
JUDGE: ‘Counselor…”
“‘Broken windows’, Your Honor. It’s a proven principle. If we ignore the small stuff, people are emboldened to…”
JUDGE: “Proceed with your cross-examination, Counselor.”
“So that was a ‘No’ then, Your Honor? (OFF JUDGE’S ANNOYANCE) Just checking to make certain. (TURNING BACK TO THE WITNESS) All right, Mr. Earl (FOR THE JURY’S BENEFIT) Raymond Pomerantz, tell us as briefly as you can why the Prosecution believes your testimony is pertinent to this case?’
“I saw the defendant punch the victim repeatedly in the face.”
“You saw that, did you?”
“The man beat him mercilessly.”
“You are not here to make judgments.”
“I heard him cry, “Mercy!”
“‘Hearsay’, Your Honor?”
JUDGE: Not if he heard him.”
"A judgment call".
JUDGE: “Well I’m a judge.”
“Let’s break down this ‘heinous assault’, shall we? The alleged ‘victim.’ Was he seriously hurt?”
“Broken nose, shattered cheek bone and more than a hundred stitches to the face.”
(TURNING TO JUDGE) “Your Honor. I would like the witness’s remarks stricken from the record.”
JUDGE: “That is the record, Counselor.”
“Yes, but Mr. Pomerantz could not possibly have known…”
JUDGE: “He was here when the attending physician testified to precisely those injuries.”
“He was here, Your Honor. But was he listening!”
JUDGE: “Move on, Counselor.”
“Of course, Your Honor. At this point, we will stipulate to the victim’s various injuries. The sixty-four dollar question – or sixty-four million dollar question, adjusting for inflation – is was it unequivocally my client who inflicted those injuries?”
“Yes.”0
“‘Yes.’ A ‘Yes’ that, if accepted by this jury, could destroy a possibly innocent man’s life. ‘Serious stuff’, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Pomerantz?”
“It is.”
“Then I ask you again, Mr. Pomerantz – and I ask you to take your time before answering – are you unequivocally certain it was my client who was assaulted the victim?”
“I am.”
“You call that ‘taking your time?’ Withdrawn. Let me ask you, how far away were you when the alleged incident allegedly took place?
“I was about five feet away.”
“Forgive me for asking, Mr. Pomerantz, but how good is your eyesight?”
“I am pretty reliable from five feet. I also picked him out of a ‘Line-up.’”
“Ah, yes. The proverbial ‘Line-up.’ Mr. Pomerantz. I do not ask you for a precise number, but approximately how many people are there on this planet?”
“I have heard about six billion.”
“Six billion people on this planet. And exactly how many people were there in that ‘Line-up’?”
“Six.”
“Six. So what you are telling us, Mr. Pomerantz, is that of a total of six billion possible suspects – okay, half of those are women, although the assailant could very easily have been a ‘manly’ woman… and okay, a percentage of those six billion people are children; although with advances in nutrition children are growing taller and taller… and okay, there are people of various colors and ethnicities; although with this country’s skyrocketing number of interracial…”
JUDGE: “Can you get to the point, Counselor? You seem to be suggesting that we be required to include, what? – a billion or so people in the ‘Line-up’?”
“Only if you want justice, Your Honor.”
JUDGE: “That’s ridiculous, Counselor.”
“How else can we be sure we arrested the right man?”
(INDICATING THE DEFENDANT) “That is definitely the right man.”
“So you say.”
“I totally recognize him. Right down to that tattoo of an armadillo on his neck.”
“Like he is the only man with an armadillo tattoo on his neck.”
“It’s pretty distinguishing.”
“Let’s home in on this ‘distinguishing feature’, shall we? If you’re such a big expert on these matters, can you ‘distinguish’ between an armadillo and an anteater?”
“No, I can’t.”
“A-ha! You cannot distinguish between and armadillo and an anteater.
(MOVING IN FOR THE KILL) And yet you are dead certain my client was the assailant!”
“I don’t see the connection…”
“It is not your job to see the connection…”
JUDGE: “I don’t see the connection either. And it is my job.”
“I will concede that, Your Honor. (TURNIGIN TO JURY) You got that, didn’t you?
THE ENTIRE JURY SHAKES ITS HEAD “NO.”
Let’s try an alternative line of questioning. Mr. Pomerantz, do you bear any personal animus towards the defendant?”
“No.”
“You have no prejudiced feelings towards my client?”
“I do not.”
“Mr. Pomerantz – and I remind you you are under oath – after my client allegedly assaulted the victim, do you recall him speaking to you?”
“Yes.”
“And what exactly did he tell you?”
“He said, ‘If you say anything, you’re next.’”
“The assailant threatened you directly?”
“He did.”
“And you’re asking this jury to accept that a man you believe threatened – forgive me, Your Honor – to beat the crap out of you, and you have no negative animus towards him whatsoever? Come on, Mr. Pomerantz. Nobody’s that nice.”
JUDGE: “What are you saying here, Counselor.”
“You Honor. The witness believes that my client threatened his personal safety. It’s clear he can’t possibly be impartial. And since he’s the only witness, my client must be acquitted.”
JUDGE: We let him go because he intimidated the witness?“
JUDGE: Counselor, in all my years on the bench, I have never seen such an incompetent performance. I’m almost wondering if you are deliberately laying the groundwork for an appeal for ‘Inadequate Representation.’”
“Your Honor, I am not required to reveal my strategy for the case.”
JUDGE: “‘FYI’, Counselor. If that isyour strategy for the case, it’s working. Now do you have any further questions for this witness?”
(RETURNING TO THE DEFENDANT’S TABLE) “Let me just check my notes here, Your Honor. (RUFFLING THROUGH A DISORGANIZED CLUTTER OF PAGES) I may not have yet unequivocally proven my position, but I have some questions… somewhere… that will exonerate…”
THE DEFENDANT SUDDENLY RISES.
DEFENDANT: “You suck!!!”
THE DEFENDANT PUNCHES HIS LAWYER PUNISHINGLY IN THE FACE. HE THEN TURNS, POINTING A MENACING FINGER AT THE JUDGE.
DEFENDANT: “And if you say anything, you’re next!”
THE COURTROOM RELEASES A COLLECTIVE GASP. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY TAKES A HANDKERCHIEF FROM HIS POCKET, STAUNCHING THE FLOWING BLOOD EXITING HIS FRACTURED PROBOSCIS.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: (DEMONSTRABLY NASALLY) “Your Honor… I doe dis looks bad for us…”
No comments:
Post a Comment