The Rabbi and The Rebbetzin (29 page)

“How
much do you request for bail?” the judge asked Perkins.

“One
million dollars” Perkins answered, thinking that it would be impossible for
Shulamit to raise the bail and avoid a night in jail.

Sam
Leonard rose and said, “Objection! That figure is absurd. For a woman who can’t
travel to her home and back without an ambulance and two nurses, does the District
Attorney seriously anticipate flight? Even serial murderers would not have their
bail set that high.”

The
judge agreed with Sam Leonard and set the bail at $25,000. Shulamit was about
to pull out a check from her pocketbook for that amount but one of the lawyers
stopped her. He told her that bail checks had to be certified or in the form of
money orders or traveler’s checks.

Shulamit
was well trained in financial matters. The first lesson that she had learned
was to let her father take care of the money. Securing a bail bond would cost a
non-refundable amount of $2,500, a sum that could be better given to charity.
Abe Levine asked the lawyer until when would the day judge be in court. The
lawyer answered, “Until five o’clock. You have two and a half hours to get the
money here.”

Abe
Levine picked up his cellphone and told his chief financial officer at the New
York office of Telacomp, “I need bail money to be wired to the Philadelphia
account in the amount of $25,000. The attorney here will call you in a few
minutes with the number of the court account and other information necessary. I
don’t want my pregnant daughter in jail tonight.” The transaction was completed
within an hour and Shulamit was released on bail. The two nurses called the
ambulance and escorted Shulamit home.

The
trial date was set for Monday, two weeks later.

At
9:00 AM on that day, the bailiff called the courtroom to order and announced “The
trial of the State of Pennsylvania versus Mrs. Shulamit Adler, Number 216354, Judge
Warren Dempsey presiding. Will the audience please rise.” The audience rose as
Judge Dempsey strode into court and took his seat.

Philip
Rogers waited a moment for the judge to check his documents and then said, “Your
honor, I am Phillip Rogers, assistant district attorney in the city of
Philadelphia. I will be the main prosecutor in this case.”

 The
judge then requested for the records the names of those who were to be listed
as counsel for the defendant. Sam Leonard said, “Your honor, I am Sam Leonard, chief
of the Criminal Law department at Finkel Nash. Assisting me will be attorneys
Arthur Brown, Gail Johnson and Manfred Lewis, all from Finkel Nash. In
addition, William Mazer from Haber Green will also be on our team.”

Judge
Dempsey could not help but poke a little fun at Sam Leonard. “Who is left to
mind the store at Finkel Nash?”

Leonard
didn’t mind the judges’ teasing. He knew that judges who have a sense of humor
were generally friendlier to the defense. He replied, “Over a hundred attorneys
at Finkel Nash volunteered to defend our beautiful defendant. We worked hard to
limit the number of assistants to four.”

One
of the senior partners had suggested that it wouldn’t look good if all of the
attorneys defending Mrs. Adler were from her own company. Someone might accuse
the group of not being impartial in the case but only looking out for the interest
of Finkel Nash and not for true justice. Sam Leonard said, “You may be right we
should have someone from a different firm defending Mrs. Adler in the interest
of justice rather than people from her firm.”

Sam
Leonard called up the managing director at Haber Green and explained the
problem to him. He wanted to know if he could borrow a lawyer for this trial
who was a good litigator.

“It
so happens that I have just the man for you, William Mazer, He’s the most
brilliant and eloquent man that we hired this year. Academically, he finished
second after Mrs. Adler by a fraction of a point and served as chairman of the
student government of the class. He is a number one litigator and is up to date
on recent changes in the criminal code. He has been advising some of the senior
attorneys on revisions in the criminal law. What is more, he worked with Mrs.
Adler in the student government and knows her better than anyone in
Philadelphia. I’ll speak to him and call you back.”

The
director called Mazer into his office and told him about the matter. “I’d be
very happy to be of help. In fact I’ve already written to Shula, that’s her
nickname, offering my services at her trial. We were really very close friends
for the last three years. She wrote me back that she was touched at my gesture
but she didn’t have the choice of defense lawyers because she was indicted as
an employee of Finkel Nash and the choice of lawyers was up to them.”

The
director said to Mazer, “Finkel Nash has requested a volunteer to help your
friend Shula and you are now appointed to do so. Remember, however, that she is
married to a rabbi.”

Bill
Mazer sighed sadly. “I am all too aware of that. Thanks for letting me take
this assignment.”

The
first item of business was voir dire, the selection of a jury. Leonard had one
objective in mind. He wanted the jury packed with as many women as possible.
When he asked one jury candidate what should be done to a wife-beater, she
answered quickly, “I think the Rebbetzin should have used a sledgehammer
instead of a tack hammer.” Leonard didn’t bother wasting a preemptory challenge.
He waited for Rogers to waste one of his preemptories to get rid of this juror.
In the end the jury was equally split between men and women. Leonard knew that
he had six votes of the jury in his favor, women who would not convict Shulamit
for hitting a wife-beater.

The
prosecutor was then scheduled to deliver his opening argument. He was satisfied
with the audience because women’s groups had urged every member on their
mailing lists to fill up the courtroom. Of the 250 places in the courtroom, not
only was every seat filled, but the hallways were crowded as well.

Ferrino
addressed the jurors as follows: “Members of the jury, you are duty bound to
follow the laws of the State in this case. No one is above the law, no matter
how rich or how attractive. The laws of the State call for punishment for
anyone guilty of a brutal assault on an innocent person. The defendant in this
case, a lawyer who should have known better, violently assaulted Mr. John
Pearson with a deadly weapon. Such a crime is a felony and is punishable by at
least one year at a penitentiary in the State of Pennsylvania.

“In
the course of the trial, we will hear witnesses who will testify to this
assault and we will show you the weapon with the fingerprints of the defendant
on it. We will also prove the serious injury to Mr. Pearson, who was rendered
unconscious by the impact of the blow and was confined to Philadelphia General
Hospital for treatment and tests.”

When
Ferrino concluded his opening remarks, he was overwhelmed by the response from
the courtroom audience. The women rose as one and began to jeer and boo the
assistant district attorney. They also chanted some strong epithets accusing Ferrino
of defending wife-beaters and being prejudiced against women. It took an
immense effort on the part of the judge to restore order to the courtroom and
proceed with the trial. He knew that he couldn’t empty the courtroom entirely
because that would deprive the defendant of a public trial, which was
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
 

Bill
Mazer was appointed by Sam Leonard to deliver the opening statement for the
defense. He described Mrs. Adler as a responsible citizen who supported many
charities from her own funds and who volunteered to work for many worthwhile
causes. He promised to provide witnesses who would testify to her peaceful
nature and tranquil disposition. He would further have rabbinical authorities
testify that according to her religious beliefs it was forbidden for a person
to allow someone to be killed or injured in his or her presence without
intervening to save the victim. He also stressed that the right of self-defense
was considered inviolable in Judaism as well as by every other world religion. He
went on to say that the defense would present evidence to the effect that Mr.
Pearson struck his wife in a lethal manner and rendered her bleeding and semi-conscious.
When the defendant intervened and screamed at him not to hit his wife any
further, he threatened both his wife and the defendant that he would ‘finish’
them.

As
his first witness, William Ackerman called upon Mr. John Pearson. He asked Mr.
Pearson if he had threatened Mrs. Adler. Pearson answered, “I didn’t threaten
her at all. I quietly asked her not to interfere in my personal affairs.”

The
next question to Mr. Pearson was, “Did you ever hit your wife before this
incident?”

Pearson
denied ever doing so. Even in this case, he claimed, “I just pushed her and she
was injured when she fell.”

When
Leonard rose for rebuttal, he asked Pearson if he knew the penalty for perjury
in the State of Pennsylvania. When Pearson said he wasn’t sure, Leonard told
him that he could get three to five years in jail for perjury under oath. Leonard
then asked him, “In the light of the perjury laws of the State, do you still
maintain that you never hit your wife?”

Ferrino
rose in objection to the question, claiming that Mr. Pearson had already
answered that question earlier. Leonard claimed that Pearson’s answer was given
before he knew the severity of the perjury laws and it was necessary to repeat
his denial after he was made aware of the law. The judge sided with Leonard and
told Pearson to answer the question that was placed to him.

Ackerman
rose quickly and said, “I am instructing my client not to answer the question
under the Fifth Amendment.”

The
judge was angry, and told Ackerman that he could not start instructing Mr.
Pearson during his testimony. But the damage was done. Pearson understood what Ackerman
wanted him to do and he told Leonard that he would not answer the question and
violate his Fifth Amendment rights. Leonard was angry that Ackerman had saved
his witness from perjury charges by his unlawful behavior.

The
next witness called by the prosecution was Shulamit. Ackerman asked her why she
was keeping a weapon in her desk. Shulamit answered that in her opinion a tack hammer
could not be considered a lethal weapon and she certainly did not keep it for
defensive purposes. She explained that she borrowed the tack hammer from the
maintenance department to hang posters in her new office and for no other
purpose.

Ackerman
went on and asked her, “Is it true, Mrs. Adler, that on the date of the
incident in your office, that you struck Mr. John Pearson on the head with a
blow from a lethal weapon and rendered him unconscious?”

 “Yes,
it is,” Shulamit answered. “But I take exception to describing the weapon as
lethal.”

Once
Shulamit admitted the deed, Ackerman rested his case and turned it over to the
defense.

Leonard
rose and advised the judge that he wished to present tangible evidence that Mr.
Pearson had threatened to kill both his wife and Mrs. Adler, and that he had
actually struck his wife in a violent manner inflicting heavy injury upon her.

William
Ackerman rose and called out, “Your honor, I demand a mistrial. The attorney
for the defense is claiming that he has evidence that Pearson was guilty of
certain acts.” According to the law, each side in a law case must describe
evidence in its possession to the opposing attorney, so that he could have time
to contest the validity of the evidence. Failure to do so was grounds for a
mistrial, and he was therefore requesting the judge to grant one.

The
judge was also angry. He said to Leonard, “If this is true, Mr. Leonard, I will
grant Mr. Ackerman a mistrial and all such evidence will be nullified.”

Leonard
was not in the least concerned. He quickly changed the order of his witnesses
and said, “I wish to call the clerk of the court to the witness stand.” The
judge allowed her to testify.

When
she took the stand, Leonard said to her, “Mrs. Sanders, will you please
describe the document that I am handing you.”

She
quickly answered, “This is a list of all the items of evidence that were
registered to be distributed to both sides in this case.”

Leonard
then asked, “Mrs. Sanders, is securing the evidence and distributing it to the
opposing lawyers part of your responsibilities?”

“It
most certainly is,” she replied.

“Can
you read to the court Item 18 from the list of evidence submitted by the
defense to the prosecution?”

In
a loud voice, the clerk read: “Item 18 consists of an album of twenty
photographs taken by Mrs. Amanda Collins, all date stamped with the time of the
incident in Mrs. Adler’s office. The subjects in the pictures were all present
in Mrs. Adler’s office during that time. All actions that followed Mrs. Collins
entry into the main office from the secretarial office are on film.”

Leonard
continued and asked Mrs. Sanders to read Item 19. “The caption under Item
number 19 reads: ‘Electronic tape, recording all sounds heard in the main
office from the time that Mrs. Collins entered the main office.’”