Larger Than Lyfe (28 page)

Steve Cooley, district attorney for Los Angeles County, approached the juror box. His salt-and-pepper hair was freshly cut. The navy, pinstripe suit he wore was new.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “justice is in grave danger… and, right now, it is your duty as citizens to help save it.

“Phinnaeus Bernard III was a very shrewd, corporate attorney.
He graduated from USC and went on to graduate from the Yale School of Law. He joined the very prestigious law firm of Carlyle, Brown, Von Klaus & Pennington right out of law school and he was on the fast track to become a partner from the start. He married his college sweetheart, Bunny. They went on to have two beautiful children and they’ve resided in their Brentwood neighborhood for more than twenty-five years. They have always been liked and respected by most. The Bernard family has always been an upstanding asset to the Los Angeles community.

“I felt it necessary to remind the jurors of these significant details because they have been downplayed by all of the other sensationalized drama of this trial…mainly the defendant’s sensationalized drama. A good family has been irreparably damaged by murder…and they need justice.

“Richard Lawrence Tresvant, the defendant, was a client of Phinnaeus Bernard III at the law firm of Carlyle, Brown, Von Klaus and Pennington. As Mr. Tresvant’s attorney, Phinnaeus Bernard set up corporations for Mr. Tresvant and advised Richard Tresvant on tax shelters for his personal income as well as for the revenues of his corporations.

“Richard Tresvant is an interesting character. He possesses no formal education beyond high school, yet he is a millionaire many times over… not that such a feat is an impossibility…but Richard Tresvant also has a rap sheet that includes charges for some very heinous crimes and markedly few convictions that could stretch right out the doors of this courtroom. He’s been accused of everything from racketeering, drug trafficking, extortion, aggravated assault, and even murder…all before we even get to our current murder trial…and he’s managed virtually every time to walk away, a free man, when v
ery compelling evidence was stacked against him.

“Another very interesting thing about Richard Tresvant is that
powerful, wealthy, upstanding men are absolutely mesmerized by him. You heard Walter Bumgaarten’s testimony. He said that Richard Tresvant is one of the most astute businessmen he’s ever met in his life. He said the words with unabashed admiration. Walter Bumgaarten’s family could very easily be called the Second Camelot, yet Walter Bumgaarten is close, personal friends with Richard Tresvant, whose reputation has always been less than savory.

“The People believe that Phinnaeus Bernard III was mesmerized by Richard Tresvant in the same way that Walter Bumgaarten and other prominent, Los Angeles businessmen who are personal friends of Richard Tresvant are mesmerized by him. Most of us, to varying degrees, are intoxicated by the mysterious allure of gangsters.
The Godfather, GoodFellas, Scarface,
are all blockbuster movies glamorizing the lives of gangsters and most of us ravenously collect them in our video collections to watch on movie night again and again. Some of us are drawn to danger like moths to the proverbial fla
me. Richard Ramirez, infamous, convicted serial killer, has a lengthy list of female admirers writing to him, desiring to visit him, some of them proposing marriage to him, while he sits behind bars, unrepentant for his unimaginably horrific crimes. It boggles the mind, but this is the reality.

“The People believe that Phinnaeus Bernard, as Richard Tresvant’s attorney, got to know more and more about Richard Tresvant, both on a professional level as well as a personal one. They played golf together. Phinnaeus Bernard introduced Richard Tresvant to established politicians and judges and other prominent figures he knew who might prove instrumental to Richard Tresvant in some way. The People believe that Phinnaeus Bernard got more involved in Richard Tresvant’s business affairs than merely the set-up of corporations and providing tax shelter advice.
He was MESMERIZED by Richard Tresvant and the dangerously mysterious allure connected to him. The People believe that the chief objective of the set-up of corporations for Richard Tresvant was to launder Richard Tresvant’s drug money and diversify his dealings into completely legitimate enterprises. Over the course of his dealings with Richard Tresvant, Phinnaeus Bernard more than likely got a taste of the underworld in which Richard Tresvant operates. The People believe that Phinnaeus Bernard eventually had second thoughts about what he’d gotten himself into. Perhaps something happened tha
t was more than he could handle. Phinnaeus Bernard had a meeting with the other partners of his firm a short time before his murder to discuss transferring Richard Tresvant’s files to another attorney within the firm. He also asked the other partners to strongly consider returning Richard Tresvant’s retainer to him and terminating the firm’s legal services to him.

“Once he got word of it, Richard Tresvant must have viewed this move by Phinnaeus Bernard as a definite betrayal. He’d allowed Phinnaeus Bernard into his world. He’d allowed Phinnaeus Bernard to be privy to details of his business operations. Phinnaeus Bernard held information about Richard Tresvant that could, most assuredly, get Richard Tresvant locked up for the rest of his life and, then, Phinnaeus Bernard suddenly had a flash of conscience and wanted nothing more to do with him. All of you have certainly watched at least one gangster movie, or you’ve heard enough stories about
the Mafia or some other organized crime operation, to know how betrayals are handled by gangsters.

“Something must be done about criminals with pockets deep enough to get away with the crimes that they commit. Something must be done about criminals with pockets deep enough to intimidate witnesses and jurors and bribe law enforcement and judges
and, like a magician, make guilt be turned to innocence with a wave of dirty money.

“On March 11, 2005, Richard Tresvant had a meeting and lunch with his attorney, Phinnaeus Bernard III. The head of security at the office building where Phinnaeus Bernard worked testified that Richard Tresvant and Phinnaeus Bernard were clearly arguing when they left the building for lunch that day. Phinnaeus Bernard returned to work later that afternoon and continued to work late into the evening. The office building’s security log indicates Phinnaeus Bernard signed out for the day at 9:47 p.m. and his family never saw him alive again. Phinnaeus Bernard III was murdered, execution-style, i
n his car before he even left the parking garage at his place of business. Richard Lawrence Tresvant murdered Phinnaeus Bernard III. The murder weapon with Richard Tresvant’s prints all over it was found in Richard Tresvant’s Bel Air home.

“Richard Tresvant’s ride of slickly slipping through the hands of justice needs to end HERE and NOW. The People ask that you, the jurors, find Richard Lawrence Tresvant guilty of the first-degree murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III.”

The following day was dedicated to the defense’s closing argument. Larry Steinberg paced in front of the jurors’ gallery and made eye contact with each of the jurors individually for a few seconds before he proceeded.

“The prosecution has trumped up a case based on relentless speculation, circumstantial evidence, complete and utter nonsense, and outright fabrication.

“There must be justice for the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III.
None of us will disagree with this. However, wrongfully convicting a man for first-degree murder based on falsified, physical evidence and a prior criminal record that has nothing at all to do with this case is an INJUSTICE…an absolute injustice.

“An anonymous phone call to the police department is what led LAPD to secure a warrant and find the murder weapon that killed Phinnaeus Bernard III at Richard Tresvant’s Bel Air home. To this day, we have yet to determine exactly who made the anonymous call from a phone booth on Century Boulevard in South Central Los Angeles. We know that this anonymous person sounded like a male…and that’s about it. Perhaps this person was connected in some way to Phinnaeus Bernard’s murder. Perhaps this person framed Richard Tresvant for murder. How did this person know to direct police to Richard Tresvant’
s home to find the murder weapon? How did this person know anything about Richard Tresvant in the first place, to even connect him to Phinnaeus Bernard? There are enough questions surrounding this phantom informant who has conveniently disappeared like he never existed to build a mountain of reasonable doubt.

“Now…I’ve watched enough television, from
CSI
to
Law and Order
to big-budget, psychological thrillers at the movie theaters, to know that, if you want to commit a murder and get away with it, you’re probably going to want to wear gloves. You don’t want your prints anywhere near the crime scene and you definitely don’t want your prints anywhere near the murder weapon. You’ll also want to get rid of the murder weapon immediately after commission of the crime. You certainly won’t want to take it home with you like some sort of a keepsake or souvenir.

“Throughout this trial, the prosecution has painted Richard Tresvant as this ‘highly sophisticated criminal’ who repeatedly slips out of the grasp of justice because of his organized crime
money and witness intimidation. Yet, if we are to believe the reenactment presented by the prosecution, this ‘highly sophisticated criminal’ clearly dropped the ball on the night that he allegedly murdered Phinnaeus Bernard. If we are to believe the reenactment presented by the prosecution, Richard Tresvant laid out a trail of bread crumbs after, allegedly, murdering Phinnaeus Bernard that led directly back to him and, ultimately, incriminated him—he met with Phinnaeus Bernard on the day of the murder and had lunch with him, he and Phinnaeus Bernard are seen allegedly arguing as they leave fo
r lunch on the day of their meeting, Phinnaeus Bernard returns to work after lunch and is, later that same evening, murdered execution-style in his office building’s parking structure, a large quantity of cocaine and one hundred thousand dollars cash are found by detectives in Phinnaeus Bernard’s car trunk that the killer conveniently left behind, and then…the pièce de résistance…the murder weapon is conveniently found at Richard Tresvant’s home after an anonymous phone call to police. Nothing about the flaming trail evidence revealed in this crime indicates that a ‘highly sophisticated criminal’
was involved. Better yet, if Richard Tresvant is even half the man that the prosecution proclaims him to be, why wouldn’t he simply hire someone to carry out the job of executing Phinnaeus Bernard, thereby keeping his own hands clean?

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Richard Lawrence Tresvant is NOT guilty of the first-degree murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III. Richard Tresvant has been FRAMED! Richard Tresvant submitted to two polygraph exams, one administered by a poly-graphist hired by the defense and a second administered by the polygraphist selected by the district attorney of Los Angeles County. Richard Tresvant passed BOTH polygraph exams.

“The most glaringly suspect evidence in this entire trial is the
fingerprint evidence taken from the murder weapon. We brought in an expert forensics witness, formerly employed with the FBI, to examine the fingerprints on the murder weapon. The forensics expert determined that the age of the fingerprints on the murder weapon substantially predated the date of the murder, thereby giving validity to the defense’s claim that Richard Tresvant was set up, framed for the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III and certainly adding to the mountain of evidence already existing that establishes REASONABLE DOUBT in this case.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for you to convict Richard Tresvant for the first-degree murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III, the evidence pre
sented against him must REMOVE ALL DOUBT that there is some other person still walking around free who is actually responsible for the commission of this crime. If the evidence presented over the course of this trial raises and leaves far more questions unanswered than inarguable facts, reasonable doubt is established. As it stands, there is a lengthy list of factors establishing classic examples of reasonable doubt in this case and, where there is such a substantial level of reasonable doubt as is apparent in this case, you have no other option except to acquit the defendant. The defense implores each
and every one of you to find Richard Lawrence Tresvant ‘not guilty’ of the first-degree murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III.”