A Checklist for Murder (38 page)

Answer: “Do I remember the document or do I remember somebody testifying to it?”

Question: “Let’s ask both questions. Do you remember the document?”

Answer: “I recall it here in court, yes.”

Question: “But you didn’t have that document in your possession?”

Answer: “The document, the way I understood the testimony, was found at the condominium.”

Question: “Yes, that’s where it was found. Did you put it there?”

Answer: “That particular document, I don’t think so. But what I was trying to do was find out what was going on with the insurances. There was no reason for Claire to be taking
out those insurance policies. I was very concerned about that.”

Question: “You don’t think you put that document there?”

Answer: “I did try to gather some documents on the insurance to try and make a file to find out what was going on. It didn’t make any sense.”

Question: “To find out what was going on, or to make sure that you had all her insurance policies so that you could make claims on them?”

And later
: Question: “Why did you have Natasha’s insurance policy dated May 27, 1987, at your house?”

Answer: “Well, I’m not a beneficiary on that policy. I did not take out that policy. Just as all those other policies, I did not take them out. There’s a very few of those policies I did take out. The policies I did take out were in ′83 and ′81.”

Question: [
taps the microphone
] “Is this working? Why did you have Natasha’s policy of 5/27/87 at [Sonia’s condominium]?”

Answer: “I don’t know if that policy was there or not.”

Question: “So, the police are framing you for that as well?”

Answer: “Absolutely.”

Question: “Okay.”

Answer: “Sir, I blew the whistle on corruption on the state contracts. Since then they’ve tried everything to bring false charges against me. I was also writing a book that was exposing state contracts costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. I won lawsuits over those issues. They’ve spent a lot of money trying to file false charges against me, and that’s what’s going on now.”

Question: “Why didn’t they just kill you?”

Answer: “If you look at the transcripts in the court records, there are six attempts all involving police officers to
injure me or kill me, and I won, and proved those issues already.”

Question: “Detective Fisk could have just killed you that night. In fact, according to your testimony, he wanted to.”

Answer: “Yes, sir, he did. The only thing that stopped him was the fact that there was other police officers.”

Question: “That would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money, wouldn’t it have?”

Answer: “And as he said at the time to his partner, Knapp, ‘Why don’t we just kill him and take the money?’”

Question: “And it says—”

Answer: “And they only took $2,000 and shoved it in their pockets.”

Question: “Why didn’t they just take the rest?”

Answer: “Evidently Vicki Doom is the one that got the rest.”

Question: “Why didn’t they just take it that night?”

Answer: “All my money was taken.”

Question: “Detective Fisk, he doesn’t dress that well.”

Answer: “They never returned the $25,000.”

Question: “He could have used the $2,500 bucks for a new wardrobe.”

By Mr. Green: “Objection, Your Honor.”

The Court: “Sustained. Sustained.”

By Mr. Richman: “You had separate bank accounts from Claire Peernock; is that correct?”

Answer: “Sir, the arrest warrant says clearly $28,000 was recovered. Only $25,760 was put into property.”

Mr. Green: “Your Honor, motion to strike. It’s not responsive to the question.”

The Court: “I am granting your motion to strike.”

The Defendant: “The records, the
police reports
say that!”

The Court: “There’s no question pending, Mr. Peernock.”

The Defendant: “Sir, Mr. Green does not work for me! He works for
you
! I fired him
numerous
times!”

The Court: “Mr. Richman, sir.”

The Defendant: “He provides me
no help at all
!”

The Court: “At this time, ladies and gentlemen, you may now exit the courtroom, and this is the end of the testimony of Mr. Peernock. You may leave now.”

[
The jury begins filing out of the courtroom
]

The Defendant: “The jurors should know that Green does not work for me in the least! This whole
thing
is rigged! It has to do with millions and millions of dollars of waste on state contracts! Sir, I move for a mistrial!”

[
The jury exits the courtroom
]

The Court: “The record should reflect that the jury and alternate jurors have left the courtroom.

“Mr Peernock is acting in an obstreperous manner. He kept on rambling and ranting and raving despite my warnings and my requests.

“I’ve warned him, warned him, and warned him. He refuses to desist in engaging in disruptive behavior. As such, his testimony is ended. He will be removed for the remainder and balance of the proceedings.

“Please set up the hearing device. We have ended Mr. Peernock’s testimony, and you may comment on Mr. Peernock’s obstruction on the stand as consciousness of guilt ….”

At numerous hearings over the years Peernock had been warned that he could not get away with shouting in court and hurling insults and accusations. So far the most anyone had done was make him sit in a lockup and listen in over the speaker system.

But this time he had cost himself his perch on the soapbox.

CHAPTER

29

“Lawyers work so hard
to win their cases.
Why do clients work so hard to lose them?”

—
Ancient Litigator’s Riddle

Don Green watched with mounting anguish during the days of Robert Peernock’s testimony as Peernock became more and more belligerent on the witness stand, raising his voice louder by degrees, ignoring Green’s motions to strike dangerous portions of his testimony, ignoring the judge’s orders to answer questions as they were asked, ignoring questions that caused him any serious difficulty. Green looked on in helpless horror as Peernock finally began to lose all self-control, shouting out loud in front of the jury, showing no ability to restrain himself despite his own lawyer’s efforts to contain him.

When Peernock finally had to be dragged out of court, still shouting that the trial had been rigged against him, Donald Green was sick at heart for having had to sit powerless while this scene played out before him. He later said that he felt as if he could have broken down and cried.

But there was nothing he could do to stop the runaway train.

Craig Richman, for his part, could smell victory at the moment the bailiff seized Peernock and took him away. But
he also knew that with a jury there is never any guarantee until the final verdicts are read. Now he pressed his tactical advantage like a hound with the hare clearly in sight. As soon as Peernock was in the lockup next to the courtroom and the listening device was turned on so that the trial could legally resume, Richman jumped to try to drive in the final nails.

“I’m not sure if there’s a reasonable solution to this problem,” he told Judge Schwab, “but I ask that the court consider not allowing any further defense witnesses to testify.”

Moments later, Green spoke up, fighting back the heavy feeling pulling at his insides. “I’d like to advise the court that, based upon what Mr. Peernock has stated in court today, whether it has been accepted as testimony or whether it was subject to a motion to strike, for the record, the court knows my reasons of why he was advised against testifying in the first place … the removal was obviously seen by the jury today.

“The jury just prior to the opening of the session this afternoon heard the rambling of Mr. Peernock on the stand about how a conviction has been rigged. I believe that based upon these factors; that is, the removal of Mr. Peernock, I guess by his own actions—”

Judge Schwab interrupted and asked whether Green conceded that Peernock’s manner in court had made it mandatory to remove him before the proceedings totally unraveled.

“I understand, Your Honor,” Green replied. “My point is that I, in my experience, in my seeing a number of jury trials, in my having my clients—”

“The bottom line is what do you
want
, Mr. Green, under the law … what am I to do, Mr. Green?”

“Your Honor, based on the irreparable harm, which has been caused by Mr. Peernock—”

“To himself,” Schwab added.

“To himself, as has been noted by the court …” He knew
what he had to do at this point and it galled him. But the legs had been cut out from under any defense strategy that he could have mustered the moment his client exploded in the courtroom and offered the jury members a personal look into his psyche.

“The defense … will rest.”

The words sat on Donald Green’s tongue like rusted tin.

There was a moment of silence as everyone absorbed that. Finally, Judge Schwab spoke again.

“I would note for the record, Mr. Green, that you have tried in a most valiant effort to defend your client. Your client has fought you every inch of the way.

“For some reason, your client has determined that this courtroom shall be Golgotha, and crucified himself on the highest cross.”

A few moments later the jury was brought back in. It was announced that the defense of Robert John Peernock had ended.

The next day, out of the presence of the jury, both sides met again before Judge Schwab regarding the stunning end to the defense. Craig Richman knew that the tide had turned decisively in his favor, but he also knew it was too soon to do anything other than press every advantage.

In support of Robert Peernock’s being removed, Richman said, “I think that the record needs to reflect that it was apparent by Mr. Peernock’s action that he would do anything to get off the witness stand at that point in time, including to strike out physically against either the bailiff, the court itself, or myself.”

Howard Schwab nodded his agreement. “I am certain by Mr. Peernock’s actions that he acted with full intent and knowledge of what he was doing and that he was disruptive in order to terminate the cross-examination in which he appeared to be faring badly. And I would also note for the
record, Mr. Green, you observed Mr. Peernock testify and I know you begged and pleaded with him not to testify. You felt it would be to his disadvantage tactically to testify and yet despite your pleas he refused to listen to you; is that correct, Mr. Green?”

“That is correct,” Donald replied heavily, “… because of the fact that certain events and circumstances had not been fully developed by the police when Mr. Peernock made certain statements, remarks, or writings, it was my considered opinion that for him to take the stand at that time, or take the stand at any time, would have caused irreparable damage to the defense.

“I believe up to the time that—of the presentation of the defense, and I still believe to this day, the people of the State of California could not put my client anywhere bludgeoning or beating anyone. I tried my best through the past couple of days by my objecting to the answers and sometimes the questions posed by the state, my objections to Mr. Peernock’s answers were not to create a conflict or an adversarial position between Mr. Peernock and me, but only as a sound tactical move to get him to shut up, to answer the question yes or no and to leave out the editorial comments or to leave out other information which I believe led Mr. Richman, the prosecutor, into other areas of questioning which I felt were damaging.”

Moments later Judge Schwab summed up his understanding of Green’s position. “And so by not calling these other witnesses, for sound tactical reasons, you are trying to basically salvage some credibility in an attempt to defend your client?”

“That is correct, to—while we still have the issue of reasonable doubt on the table.”

“… Very good. I want the record to be clear about this, that any harm done to Mr. Peernock was done by Mr. Peernock himself only.

“… And the court does take note that Mr. Peernock is attempting to act ‘crazy like a fox,’ in an attempt to disrupt the proceedings, hoping to receive favorable appellate review. And I again further find that Mr. Peernock’s disruptive activities yesterday were performed purposely in order to prevent the continuation of cross-examination because Mr. Peernock was faring so poorly under the questioning of Mr. Richman.”

A few days later, after the final procedural matters had been resolved, closing arguments were presented to the jury. Donald Green and Craig Richman both came in to fight with everything they had.

The prosecution goes first. Craig Richman stood up from the table and prepared to address the jury directly for the first time since the trial had opened months before, knowing that by this point every deputy DA in L.A.’s huge army of prosecutors had their eyes on the outcome of the Peernock case. If Craig failed to add the finishing brushstrokes, if he somehow created a loophole for Robert Peernock to slide through, the list of potential victims would be long and the young prosecutor’s career extremely short.

The jury did not see Craig Richman reach into his pocket and brush his fingertips over the strange-looking little carving of a donkey that he carried that day; he simply looked them each in the eyes, cleared his throat, and launched his summation. His trained voice constantly pulled the jury’s attention into their own imaginations, inviting them to visualize the events as he drew the word pictures.

“The defendant has seen to it that we will never be able to hear Claire Peernock’s version of the events that took place prior to her death, because the defendant has decided that for whatever reason she doesn’t deserve to live.”

Richman moved through the evidence one piece at a time. When he came to the assorted components of the checklist
for murder, he took the jury through the analysis of each one, tracing many of the same questions that he had planned to ask Peernock before the defendant turned himself inside out on the witness stand.