Proof Positive (2006) (30 page)

How are things looking, Frank?

You can't predict what will happen in a trial, but I'm feeling good about our case.

Did you come up with something about that fingerprint? Breach asked.

Yes, I did.

Did one of the lab guys set up Artie?

The question was asked without emotion, but Frank could sense rage swimming below Breach's calm surface like a great white shark cruising beneath the placid waters off a beach filled with vacationers.

Sit in on the trial when the state's forensic expert testifies this afternoon and you may be pleasantly surprised, Frank said with a reassuring smile.

You don't think it will hurt Artie to have me in court? Martin asked anxiously.

Not today, Martin, not today.

Bernard Cashman had studied the composition of the jury in the Prochaska case before choosing his wardrobe. An hour before court, he'd still not decided which suit and tie to wear. Most of the jurors were from the lower and middle classes, so he didn't want to look too well dressed: but there was a retired doctor, and also a housewife who was married to a wealthy architect. They might not give full credit to the testimony of a witness who dressed down too much. In the end, he selected a conservative suit that he'd purchased at an upscale department store, instead of one of the suits that he'd had hand-tailored in London on a recent trip, and a solid navy blue tie. He felt that the outfit was understated but tasteful.

Mike Greene summoned Cashman to the witness stand an hour after court resumed in the afternoon. Cashman had treated himself to a light lunch at one of the better downtown restaurants, but had not ordered wine. Even though he was not worried, he wanted to be clear-headed for Frank Jaffe's cross-examination. Cashman had testified against Jaffe's clients before, with success, and Frank had not laid a glove on him at the preliminary hearing, but it was better to be safe than sorry. He couldn't imagine what the attorney had learned since the preliminary hearing that he could use to call into question the evidence that would lead to Art Prochaska's well-earned conviction. True, the defendant had probably not killed Vincent Ballard, but he had gotten away with murder and numerous other serious crimes in the past. This time, he would not be so lucky.

As Cashman strode down the center aisle of the courtroom, he spotted Martin Breach and several of his associates. Breach fixed the criminalist with an intimidating stare that unnerved Cashman for a moment, but he forgot about the mob boss as soon as he was through the bar of the court and standing in front of the witness box, ready to take the oath.

Cashman's hair had been styled the day before, and his beard and mustache were neatly trimmed. After being sworn, he dazzled the jury with his smile, then humbly related his academic credentials and work experience in the pleasing baritone that was so effective with jurors. After these preliminaries, Mike Greene asked Cashman to explain the investigation that he had conducted at the Continental Motel. Then Cashman explained how he had discovered the thumbprint of the defendant, Arthur Wayne Prochaska, on a beer can that had been sitting on the night table in Vincent Ballard's room and why he had concluded that the bullets that had caused Mr. Ballard's death were consistent with bullets discovered in a box of bullets found by the police during a search of the defendant's closet. By the time Mike Greene finished his direct examination of the witness, the jurors were nodding after every statement Cashman made, and he was certain they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Prochaska was guilty as charged.

Your witness, Mr. Jaffe, Judge Belmont said.

Mr. Cashman, Frank said, you testified that you graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in chemistry, did you not?

That's correct.

Amanda handed Frank a document. It was hard for Cashman to tell from his seat across the courtroom what it was. Frank studied the document for a moment before turning back toward the witness.

Would you please tell the jurors the name of the professor who taught the first chemistry class you took in college?

Cashman chuckled. That was many years ago. I'm afraid I can't remember his or her name.

Can you tell the jurors the name of any professor who taught you chemistry?

Cashman shrugged. I simply don't recall any of them.

There would have been several, wouldn't there, if you were a chemistry major?

Well, yes.

Frank took another look at the document he was holding.

Let me give you an easier task. Would you please tell the jury the title of three classes you took in your major while at the University of Oklahoma?

Cashman shifted in his seat. Let's see. There was introduction to chemistry, of course, and organic chemistry, and I believe one of them was called advanced chemistry.

Those sound about right, but I'm having a problem.

Frank stood and strolled across the space between the defense table and the witness box. On the way, he handed a thin packet of papers to Mike Greene and the bailiff. When he reached Cashman, he handed him an identical packet.

For the record, Your Honor, I' ve just handed the district attorney and Mr. Cashman copies of Mr. Cashman's undergraduate transcript from the University of Oklahoma and his transcript from graduate school at the City University of New York. I'd like them marked as exhibits.

Any objection, Mr. Greene? Judge Belmont asked.

No, Your Honor.

Very well, the judge ruled.

Can I have copies of these documents given to the jurors? Frank asked.

No objection, Mike said.

Amanda handed a stack of copies to the bailiff, who distributed the transcripts to the jurors.

Maybe you can help us out, Mr. Cashman, Frank said after each juror had a copy. My eyesight's a lot worse since I' ve gotten older, so maybe I missed them, but other than intro to chemistry in which I believe you received a grade of C I can't find another chemistry course listed on that transcript. Could you point them out to the jurors?

They' re not on here. The college must have sent you someone else's transcript. I remember getting an A in my introductory chemistry class.

I see. This is all a big mistake?

Well, obviously.

Just for the record, before I move on, what major did the Bernard Cashman who is listed on this transcript have?

Cashman pretended to study the document. It appears to be secondary education.

Not chemistry?

No.

Frank looked at the second transcript. It looks like the City University of New York screwed up, too. This is supposed to be the transcript of someone named Bernard Cashman, but it shows that this fellow never finished his master's degree, and it looks like it was in the education department, too not forensic science.

Cashman did not respond.

You'd better call up those schools when court is over and get this straightened out, so you won't be embarrassed the next time you testify, Frank said.

Cashman was seething inside, and he vowed to make Jaffe pay. Not right away, when suspicion would fall on him, but later maybe years later when waiting would make revenge all the sweeter. Jaffe was laughing at him now, but he would see who had the last laugh.

Frank glanced at Amanda, who handed him a folder that Paul Baylor had put together.

I'd like to ask you a few questions about the thumbprint you found on the beer can in Vincent Ballard's room. You said that you dusted the can with black fingerprint powder.

Yes, answered Cashman, who was relieved that there would be no more questions about his academic record.

Then you used tape to lift the print, which was highlighted by that black fingerprint powder, and transfer it to an evidence card so it could be preserved as evidence?

That's correct.

Frank scratched his head. When he turned toward the jury, he looked puzzled.

Can you explain to the jury and to me why there are traces of copy toner, like you'd use in a Xerox machine, on the evidence card with Mr. Prochaska's print?

Cashman felt faint. There isn't any copy toner on the card, he stated with as much authority as he could muster.

Gee, that's not what my expert and Ron Toomey, one of your coworkers at the crime lab, told me, Frank said.

I I don't know what you' re talking about.

Cashman looked toward Mike Greene, desperate for him to object, but Greene was leaning back in his chair, studying him, stone-faced. Martin Breach was sitting a few rows behind the prosecutor. His eyes lasered in on Cashman. The expert's stomach rolled and he forced himself to look away.

Frank turned toward the judge. With your permission, Your Honor, I would like to interrupt Mr. Cashman's testimony and put on Paul Baylor, the defense forensic expert.

That's highly irregular, Mr. Jaffe. The state hasn't rested yet.

Mike Greene stood up. In the interests of justice, Your Honor, the state has no objection.

Greene walked to the bench and handed the judge a document. This is a stipulation between the parties arrived at yesterday afternoon to the effect that Ronald Toomey, an expert at the Oregon State Crime Laboratory, if called to testify would agree with Mr. Baylor's scientific conclusions regarding the ballistics tests and fingerprint analysis conducted by Bernard Cashman. Mr. Toomey's reports are attached to the stipulation.

Cashman glared at Greene. If the stipulation was entered into yesterday, he'd been set up.

The judge read the stipulation and Toomey's report before turning to the witness.

Mr. Cashman, I think it would be best if you stepped down.

Your Honor, could you please order Mr. Cashman to stay in court? Greene asked.

While the deputy district attorney was talking, Paul Baylor entered the courtroom, and two police officers slipped into seats in the last row, next to the door. Judge Belmont noticed the policemen and ordered Cashman to take a seat in the front row of the spectator section.

Mr. Baylor, Frank said after his expert had been sworn and had told the jury about his academic credentials and work history, did I ask you to review the conclusions of the state crime lab in Mr. Prochaska's case?

Yes.

Were there two specific pieces of evidence on which I wanted you to concentrate?

Yes, the thumbprint Mr. Cashman claimed to have found on a beer can that was located on a night table at the crime scene and the ballistics tests conducted on the bullets that caused Mr. Ballard's death and bullets found in Mr. Prochaska's home.

Now that you' ve finished your tests, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Cashman's conclusion that Mr. Prochaska's thumbprint was on the beer can?

It's my conclusion that there is no way to tell whose print was on that can.

Why is that?

If there was a print on the can, Mr. Cashman destroyed it.

But Mr. Prochaska's print is on the evidence card, is it not?

Yes, but the print did not come from the can. The print was faked.

Please explain what Mr. Cashman did.

Paul Baylor turned toward the jurors, who were leaning forward, eager to hear what he had to say.

Mr. Cashman had me going at first. There was a match when I compared Mr. Prochaska's prints with the evidence card he created. When I blew up the crime scene photograph of the print on the can I made the match again. Then I got an idea, and I tested the fingerprint card. There were chemicals on the card that were consistent with copy toner.

Here's how Mr. Cashman faked the print, Baylor said. While at the crime scene, Mr. Cashman took one photograph of the can to show where he found it in the motel room and a close-up of the can. Someone's print may have been on the can, but after Mr. Cashman applied the tape to the area he had dusted, any print would disappear from the metal surface, leaving a blank space. So no one can go back and check the beer can to see what print if any was on it.

Next, Mr. Cashman found a fingerprint card with Mr. Prochaska's prints in the police files. Then he scanned a picture of the beer can and Mr. Prochaska's prints into a computer. Once that was done, he cropped the fingerprint he wanted to the size it would be if it was found on the beer can and he overlaid it onto a picture of the can, making it look like Mr. Prochaska's print was on the can before he made the lift. That way, anyone who blew up the photo of the beer can taken at the scene would find a match with Prochaska's prints.

Have you asked a computer expert to verify your conclusion?

Yes. His report is attached to mine.

Go on, Frank said.

Faking the evidence card was just as easy and equally clever. Mr. Cashman made a photocopy of Mr. Prochaska's prints from his real fingerprint card and lifted the print he claimed to have found on the beer can from the photocopy. Then he transferred that print to a blank evidence card. If I hadn't tested the card and found copy toner, he would have gotten away with it.

So, what you' re saying is that it is impossible to tell if there was ever a fingerprint on the beer can?

Yes. If there was a print, Mr. Cashman removed it.