PART 35 (62 page)

Sullivan testified that, after careful comparison, all the identifiable prints found in the Soto apartment belonged to Soto or some member of his family. No prints of any value had been found on the articles taken in the burglary. Nor were there prints of any value on the revolver. The only prints found in Hernandez's car belonged to Hernandez and his wife. There were no prints of Alvarado anywhere.

Sandro had no further questions.

“If that's what Ellis wants, give it to him,” Sam gloated.

Siakos had no questions.

Ellis rose to cross-examine. He asked Sullivan what it meant that there were no fingerprints found on the stolen articles in the apartment.

“Objection, Your Honor,” Sam rose. “That question is totally irrelevant and calls for speculation and conjecture.”

“Overruled.”

Sullivan testified that many times prints are found at the scene of a crime that cannot be processed because they are too fragmentary, smudged, or unclear. Ellis asked if the fact that there were no prints eliminated the possibility that Alvarado was in the Soto apartment or at the scene of the crime. Sullivan said it did not. Ellis sat.

Sandro rose immediately, standing in place.

“Officer, does the mere failure of your finding his fingerprints in the car, or fingerprints in other places, or on the property connected with this crime eliminate the possibility that David Ellis could have been in that apartment or in that car?”

Ellis jumped up to object, red and angry. The judge overruled. The jury laughed.

“No, sir, it doesn't eliminate it. It doesn't do anything.”

Sandro had no further questions. Ellis was fuming. Sam smiled just at the corner of his mouth, so the jury couldn't see.

Sandro called for Detective Anthony Panetta next. Panetta was the officer who had interviewed Carmen Salerno on July 3rd, 1967, at 153 Stanton Street. Sandro showed Panetta a copy of a DD5. The detective acknowledged it as his own, and it was received in evidence.

Panetta said that Mrs. Salerno had given him certain information concerning the prowler she had seen on the fire escape before the shooting. After reading the DD5, Panetta testified that she had described the prowler as a male Negro.

“Did she say the man was tall?”

“It says so here. She must have.”

“And did she describe the Negro as real dark.”

“I don't think she did.”

“Will you look at the report again.”

He read and looked up. “Yes, she did.”

“What did she say he was wearing?”

“His clothes were a shabby, yellow, waist-length jacket, black pants.”

“Did she describe his hair?”

Panetta read. “She said it was kinky and close-cropped.”

“And did she also say to you that she did not see the man's face?”

“That is correct. That's what she said.”

“Thank you very much, Officer.” Sandro had no further questions. Siakos had no questions.

Ellis sat still as a statue. “I have no questions.”

Sandro called Randolph Torrance to the stand. Torrance was with the Department of Correction, and been chosen to come over with the financial record books of the Tombs. He testified that whenever a prisoner was brought in, all the property and money on his person was taken into custody. Everything but money was placed in envelopes bearing the prisoner's number. The money was put into an account against which the prisoner could charge items from the commissary at the Tombs.

“If the defendant Alvarado had any money with him when he first arrived in the Tombs, would that fact be recorded in the record book you brought with you?”

“Yes, sir. It has to be.”

“Is there any entry there stating that the defendant Alvarado had $141 with him when he arrived?”

Torrance studied the book. “No, sir.”

“Is there an entry for
any
money Alvarado had with him when he arrived? Even $2?”

“No, sir.”

“I have no further questions.” Sandro walked back to the counsel table.

“Now they're even beating him out of the two bucks in change Mullaly said he had,” Sam whispered.

“I'll bet you thought you couldn't get screwed for two bucks in New York anymore,” Sandro whispered back.

Siakos asked Torrance about any money Hernandez had with him when he first arrived. Torrance said that Hernandez, too, had had nothing with him.

Ellis had no questions.

“We'll take our luncheon recess now. Do not discuss this case,” said Judge Porta.

As they walked out of court, Sandro made his way to the north elevator bank where Mike was sitting with the alibi witnesses on the windowsills. They all smiled and nodded, but they were getting weary.

“Say, this is really charming,” said Mike, looking around the hallway. “Who decorated your witness room for you?”

“Otis Brothers,” Sandro smiled. “Let's go to lunch. We'll take all the witnesses with us.” They took the elevator down and went to Happy's. Sam and Sandro were involved in a discussion of the coming defense strategy during lunch. Since Francisco Moreno and Pablo Torres didn't speak English, they didn't feel left out. Mike chatted with Annie Mae Cooper and Phil Gruberger. Only once did Sandro turn his attention from Sam, when he heard Pablo Torres talking about
camarones.
He knew from reading menus that
camarones
is the word for
shrimp
, but his recent education in Delancey gave it a more sinister meaning.

“Did he say the cops were bothering him?” Sandro asked Mike.

“No, he said his lunch was delicious,” Mike laughed. Torres, unaware, continued eating his shrimp salad. Sandro laughed and turned back to Sam.

“Call your next witness,” the judge said.

“Annie Mae Cooper,” said Sandro. One of the uniformed officers walked out to the public corridor. Annie Mae Cooper entered the courtroom and walked to the witness chair.

She testified that she worked at the Associated Five & Ten on Broadway and Roebling Street in Brooklyn, and was working there on July 3rd, 1967. She said she recalled an incident with a hundred-dollar bill that took place on that day, involving the man sitting at the counsel table. She pointed to Alvarado. Sandro asked her to step off the witness stand and walk over to him. She walked directly to Alvarado and pointed at him. She resumed the stand.

“Is there any question in your mind that that's the man who was in your store with a hundred-dollar bill on July third, 1967?”

“That's him, all right.”

She testified that when Alvarado asked her to change the bill, she had said: ‘Gee, another hundred-dollar bill. I haven't seen one in a long time. Are you making these things?' She said she had told Alvarado to wait while she went to the assistant manager to okay her changing it. She had seen Alvarado only once in her life before then, and that was two or three days earlier. On that occasion also, Alvarado had come into the store to change a hundred-dollar bill.

She had seen Alvarado between 1:15
P.M.
and 1:20
P.M.
She said she fixed the time because she had her coffee break at 1 each day and had to be back on the floor at 1:15 so that another girl could go for her break. She had just returned when Alvarado came in.

There was no doubt in her mind that it was Alvarado and that the day was July 3rd. She remembered the rain and the holiday the next day, when she saw television newscasts about the murder. She also saw Alvarado's picture in the newspapers. Sandro had no further questions.

Siakos asked one question. She testified that Alvarado was alone when he entered the store and she had never seen Hernandez before coming into court this afternoon.

Ellis began to question. She said she couldn't describe what Alvarado was wearing on July 3rd, except he was wearing a hat. She said she did not notice where he went when he left the store. She again fixed the time between 1:15 and 1:20. When asked if she was a friend of Alvarado's, she said she wasn't. She said she had certainly been subpoenaed to come into court. She wouldn't have come any other way. Ellis had no further questions.

Sandro called for Philip Gruberger. Gruberger, small and alert, his eyes passing across the defendants, sat on the stand, waiting for the questions. He identified himself as the assistant manager of the store in which Annie Mae Cooper was working on July 3rd, 1967. He recalled that she had come to him, asking if she could change a hundred-dollar bill. He said he had studied the bill and okayed it. He testified that he had not seen the person who cashed the bill, but one was unquestionably cashed on July 3rd. Gruberger said that he had approved her cashing another hundred-dollar bill the Wednesday before July 3rd. He remembered both bills specifically because they were the only hundred-dollar bills cashed in that store that year. This he knew, since he was the person who made all the bank deposits at the store. Gruberger testified he didn't recall the exact time the bill was cashed on July 3rd, but it was definitely after 1
P.M.

He said he had seen the man who cashed the first hundred-dollar bill. He identified Alvarado. Sandro asked Gruberger to get out of the witness chair and walk over to the man he was identifying. Gruberger walked over to the counsel table and again identified Alvarado as the man who had cashed the hundred-dollar bill. Gruberger stated that he was not a friend of Alvarado, nor had he known or ever spoken to him.

Siakos asked Gruberger if he had ever seen Hernandez before. He said he had not.

Ellis asked Gruberger only if he had seen the person who cashed the hundred-dollar bill on July 3rd. Gruberger said he hadn't. Ellis had no further questions.

Sandro called Pablo Torres. As he was waiting, Sandro thought to himself that the defense was going in like greased glass so far. Ellis hadn't caught the drift of the current yet, but he was about to get flooded. Torres took the stand. He was the typical rustic immigrant, shy and uncomfortable on the stand, wearing his Sunday-go-to-
iglesia
best.

Through the interpreter, Torres identified himself as the cook in the Velez Restaurant on Roebling Street, a half block from the Associated Five & Ten on Broadway in Brooklyn. He said that on July 3rd, 1967, he served Luis Alvarado lunch in the restaurant. He said he hadn't known Alvarado by name at the time, but he had learned the name afterward when he saw Alvarado's picture in the newspaper. He testified he couldn't say exactly what time it was when he saw Alvarado in the restaurant, but it was a few minutes before 2 o'clock because the lunch rush hour had been over about fifteen minutes when Alvarado came in.

Torres testified that he remembered the exact date because he was off the next day for the fiesta of independence. He said he remembered this one man, Alvarado, because the next morning he saw the pictures of Alvarado on the front page of
El Diario
, one of New York's two major Spanish newspapers. He testified it was not often that a man he recognized was accused of killing someone, especially a policeman. Sandro had no further questions.

Siakos asked Torres if he had ever seen Hernandez before. He said he had not.

Ellis asked Torres if he had ever seen Alvarado before July 3rd. He testified he had seen him pass the store once before. Torres testified that on July 3rd, Alvarado had actually come into the store with another man. Ellis had Hernandez rise. He was not the man, Torres said firmly. The man who was with Alvarado was very dark-skinned, as dark as Alvarado. Torres believed that Alvarado was wearing a blue suit and a hat when he was in the restaurant.

Torres testified that Alvarado had stayed in the restaurant about fifteen or twenty minutes while eating a steak, and then left.

Ellis had no further questions.

“We'll take our recess now,” said the judge.

Out in the corridor they found Mike. He had the barber Francisco Moreno sitting in a courtroom across the way.

After recess, Moreno took the stand. He sat quietly, composed, watching Sandro walk to his position by the witness chair. He testified that he was working in the Imperial Barber Shop on Roebling Street on July 3rd, 1967. The barber shop was about a block from the associated Five & Ten and a block in the other direction from the Velez Restaurant. Sandro asked Moreno if he could identify in the courtroom anyone who was in his shop on July 3rd, 1967. Moreno nodded, rose, walked toward Alvarado, and pointed directly at him. He then resumed the witness chair. He testified that Alvarado came into the shop on July 3rd, about 2:25 or 2:30, waited while Moreno worked on another customer. Moreno stated that there was one man, a friend of his, ahead of Alvarado, but the man had not been in a hurry, and he allowed Alvarado to go first. Moreno testified he cut Alvarado's hair and trimmed his moustache.

Moreno testified that Alvarado had remained in the shop about twenty-five minutes, leaving before 3. Sandro asked him how close Moreno was to Alvarado when he worked on him. Moreno grinned. “Close,” he said, moving his hands with an imaginary scissors and comb.

Moreno testified that he did not know Alvarado before July 3rd, 1967. He said he saw Alvarado's picture in the newspapers the morning of July 4th, and remembered that he had been cutting the man's hair in Brooklyn at the time the newspapers said Alvarado had killed Lauria in Manhattan. Moreno stated he couldn't very well forget something as unusual as that. Sandro had no further questions.

Siakos had Hernandez rise, then asked Moreno if he had ever seen Hernandez before in his life. Moreno said he had not.

Ellis rose. “Have you, Mr. Moreno, ever been convicted of a crime?”

“I was caught playing dice, and I paid two dollars fine once,” the interpreter translated.

Juror number twelve, the retired newsman, nudged juror eleven, the textiles man, and smiled. He must have been a craps shooter too. Sam rose and asked that the answer be stricken since Moreno had not been convicted of a crime when he paid a two-dollar fine. The judge struck the answer.