Highway Song: A Smokey's Roadhouse Novel (39 page)

With that, he knocked on the door, and the matron unlocked it, then summoned a couple of male guards to escort me through the accused
’
s entrance, while Mr. Jameson went in through another. We met again at the defense table, where my public defender sat as a formality. True to Mr. Jameson
’
s promise, the guards allowed Rex to enfold me in a hug, which we held until they instructed us to break it up. It did more for my confidence than all of Mr. Jameson
’
s pep talks put together.

I sat down with my back to the spectators, only to stand up again when the clerk intoned,
“
Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. The Fourteenth District Court of the State of Texas is now in session. All rise.
”

TWENTY-SEVEN

Rex

U
ncomfortable in my unfamiliar suit, I had to admire Amy
’
s composure. As she
’
d explained, Jameson had provided a conservative business suit for her, and it fit her like a glove. Always slender, she looked magnificent in a slim black skirt and fitted jacket, more like a lawyer herself than a murderer. If appearances alone swayed the jury, they
’
d find it difficult to convict her. Of course, it wouldn
’
t be that simple.

I
’
d never attended a trial of any sort before, much less a murder trial. I
’
d skipped the long and, I assumed, boring jury selection. Thirteen people sat in the jury box
—
twelve jurors and an alternate. For a while, I watched them as the lawyers made their opening statements, and the prosecution began presenting its evidence. They seemed attentive, but I couldn
’
t tell whether they were influenced by the lawyer
’
s arguments or not. No one turned a stare of hatred on Amy, but no one smiled at her either.

Enduring the lies of the prosecutor was all I could do. Jameson had warned me not to make an outburst in court, no matter what he said.

“
You
’
ll perceive them as lies. They are not. They are merely his interpretation of the evidence he has. Don
’
t, under any circumstances, react to them, or I
’
ll have you removed from the courtroom myself. This is important for Amy, Rex. Do you understand?
”

I
’
d said I did, but it hadn
’
t prepared me for the prosecution
’
s viciousness in stating his case. He made Amy out to be a drug-addled whore, out for vengeance on the man who
’
d separated her from her pimp for an involuntary rehab program. What hogwash.

Jameson, though famous for his courtroom dramatics, told the other side of the story in an almost reserved manner. However, when he concluded by saying he would reveal the real murderer during the course of the trial, his statement caused a stir and some conversation in the audience until the judge tapped her gavel.

I knew that Jameson had already turned Amy
’
s story over to the prosecution. The trouble was, Octavio hadn
’
t been found. Once they announced a break in the case, the district attorney
’
s office didn
’
t want to back off, say
‘
sorry, we goofed
’
, and let Amy go. They had a suspect in hand, and that
’
s who they
’
d try, since the evidence pointed at her rather than a third party.

Jameson
’
s task was going to be difficult, but no more difficult than he
’
d make it for the prosecution to prove Amy
’
s guilt
‘
beyond a reasonable doubt
’
. He
’
d planted the doubt. Now it was up to him to get evidence in to make it grow. He was the master of the technique. If he couldn
’
t do it, no one could.

Day after day, witness after witness, Jameson chiseled away at the prosecution
’
s case. When they presented a fingerprint expert, Jameson brought out on cross-examination that a fingerprint could exist for years under the right circumstances. When they brought out experts on meth addiction, Jameson made the experts admit that yes, they
’
d known of people who beat the addiction with long-term rehab, despite popular opinion that it was almost impossible to cure.

At the end of the prosecution
’
s case, it seemed to me that any reasonable person would see there were holes a mile wide in the proof. As was normal, Jameson moved for dismissal of the case on the grounds the prosecution hadn
’
t proved Amy
’
s guilt. As was also normal, the motion was denied, and it was time for Jameson to put on his defense.

The trouble with a case that has little or no evidence is that the defense also has little or no evidence. Even more so after four years. Jameson had a few experts of his own to reinforce the points he
’
d brought out on cross-examination, but we knew going in that Amy
’
s only hope was to take the stand herself. Once she did, it would be a fight to get in her full story, which was necessary to give credibility to her claim that Octavio had murdered Frank.

We had sat through three long days of relatively boring testimony about fingerprints, how crystal meth affected a person
’
s brain, the high failure rate of rehabilitation programs for meth addicts, and a prosecution psychiatrist who
’
d examined Amy and found her
‘
sane and knowledgeable concerning right and wrong
’
, as if the defense had ever questioned that. Now Jameson went through his witnesses quickly, until he put his own psychiatrist on the stand.

This is where the fight would begin. If no one else among the spectators knew it, I did. I sat straighter, anticipating what he had to say and anxious for Amy
’
s state of mind. For the first time, her story would be told, along with a professional opinion as to the effect her childhood and early adulthood had on her. It could generate sympathy. It could also backfire, and give her an even stronger motive for murder.

Whichever way it went, it would expose Amy in the light of truths she
’
d hoped to keep secret her entire life. Mentally, I sent her all the strength and energy I could. She was going to need it.

“
Dr. Jefferson, please explain to the court how you came to examine Ms. Bruno, and what your examination revealed.
”

“
I examined Ms. Bruno on your request over the course of several hour-long sessions comprising approximately fourteen hours of in-depth conversations and several standardized tests. My conclusion is that Ms. Bruno is a remarkably well-adjusted and truthful young woman considering her childhood trauma and the interruption of her adult development by being forced into the sex trade and involuntarily addicted to methamphetamines.
”

A gasp went up from the spectators at his wording. Judge Andrews tapped her gavel again, before Jameson asked his next question.

“
Can you briefly summarize the events of which you speak?
”

“
Objection. Hearsay.
”

“
Sustained. Rephrase your question, counselor.
”

“
What did Amy tell you regarding her decision to run away from her father as a minor?
”

“
Objection! Your Honor
…”

“
I
’
ll allow it. The witness will testify as to what he was told, rather than the fact of it.
”

“
She told me her father began beating her shortly after a stepmother left him, and continued to do so at the slightest provocation until she left home at the age of fifteen, under the belief that if she didn
’
t he would eventually kill her.
”

This time the stir in the courtroom took several taps of the gavel to quell.

“
What happened
…
? Pardon me. What did she tell you happened then?
”

“
She told me that a man offered to get her something to eat and a safe place to sleep, but in fact raped her when she accompanied him in trust.
”
With the spectators
’
mutters and curses becoming louder and the judge
’
s gavel banging in earnest, he raised his voice and continued.
“
After which he sold her to several other men, claiming she was a virgin.
”

By now, the prosecution was literally yelling his objections. The bailiff came forward and the judge, nearly purple in her outrage, ordered him to clear the court. When order was restored, Jameson told me afterward, she instructed the jury to ignore the psychiatrist
’
s last sentence. Then she dismissed them for an hour while she dressed down both attorneys for the outburst. She gave instructions to Jameson that he
’
d better control his witness if he didn
’
t want to be held in contempt.

When I was allowed back into the courtroom along with the rest of the spectators, a calmer judge began proceedings again with a question to the witness.

“
Do you understand, sir, that if you continue speaking after an objection and before my ruling, I will hold you in contempt of court?
”

“
Yes, ma
’
am,
”
he replied, not at all contrite.

She leveled a look of admonition at him, then instructed Jameson to continue.

“
Is it your opinion that Ms. Bruno
’
s memories of the events leading to Officer Magruder
’
s death is accurate?
”

“
Yes. I saw no evidence of inconsistency over several instances when I asked her to recount the events.
”

“
Is it your opinion that Ms. Bruno is truthful?
”

“
I conducted certain tests to determine her truthfulness, yes. I understand that they are not admissible as evidence, but I am convinced she is telling the truth.
”

“
No further questions.
”

On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked contemptuously whether the tests Dr. Jefferson referred to were lie detector tests.

“
One was, yes. I also used others, including having her recount the story while under the influence of sodium thiopental.
”

“
Are you aware, Dr. Jefferson, that lie detector results are highly subjective, and that the use of so-called truth serums such as sodium thiopental is now questioned by many experts?
”

“
Yes, of course I
’
m aware. Which is why I said the results were inadmissible as evidence, and why I also used several methods as a way of corroborating the results. They were consistent.
”

I thought Dr. Jefferson had won that round.

“
Are you an expert in the mental changes wrought by methamphetamine use, Dr. Jefferson?
”

“
No sir, I am not.
”

“
And yet, you testified under oath that the accused was at one time addicted to methamphetamines. Can you now confidently testify that her violent upbringing and the changes her brain underwent as a teenaged addict have not removed any compunction about killing?
”

“
That
’
s a very complex question. I can
’
t testify to such a thing under oath, because I did not examine her for that specific purpose.
”

“
So in your opinion, that could very well be the case.
”

“
Objection! That isn
’
t what the witness said,
”
Jameson interrupted.

“
Sustained. Counselor, please refrain from putting words in the witness
’
s mouth. Rephrase.
”

“
Withdraw the question. No further questions.
”