The Last Undercover (45 page)
As you know by now, my undercover career took me into some pretty dangerous situations. And after all that, I still say I would rather wear a wire into a meeting of armed murderers than testify in court.
I hate being on the stand, hate being subjected to the scrutiny of every word uttered, hate the attempts by the defense to twist every statement, and hate the frequent disregard for the truth in pursuit of a legal victory. I have never lied under oath, yet, based upon the decisions of some judges and jurors, there have been times when I was perceived as not telling the truth. I learned from those times that testimony by any witness has nothing to do with the truth: it has everything to do with whether you are believed to be telling the truth. In fact, the trial is not about the truth; a trial is about each side attempting to place into evidence that which helps its theory of the case and preventing the other side from presenting those facts most favorable to their cause. I am always afraid my nervousness on the stand will be perceived as lying, and I am constantly seeking peace as I testify.
Judge Manella’s courtroom 11 was in the old courthouse at 312 North Spring Street. Built in the 1930s, the courtroom was large and ornate; its vintage furnishings and beautiful wood paneling would provide the perfect setting for a Humphrey Bogart period piece. But when court began at 8:30 on Tuesday morning, it was no movie. Lindblad, who had been in custody since the February 12 arrest, was ushered into the court by two federal marshals. He was charged in two counts of a three-count indictment with violation of 18 USC 2423(b), travel for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual acts with a minor, and 18 USC 2423(e), conspiracy to do the same.
I took a deep breath and said the latest of the large number of silent prayers I’d uttered over the last few days.
THE TRIAL OF SAM LINDBLAD
I
n the morning session, Lindblad was wearing a multicolored sweater and looked somewhat like a like a thin, balding college professor. By the late morning session, he was wearing a shirt and tie and blue sport coat. To me, he now looked more like a molester. Whoever was responsible for the wardrobe change had my thanks.
What did concern me was Stutsman. Dick made bail several months after his arrest and was still free, pending his reporting to federal prison on January 31. He appeared in court and would be present throughout the three days of trial. One valuable piece of evidence would be the videotape of the February 11 motel room meeting between the Los Angeles undercover agents and the three co-conspirators, Lindblad, Stutsman, and Steve Irvin. If the jury realized that Stutsman, who was on the video, was sitting in the courtroom, they might assume he was acquitted of the charges or that no charges were filed against him. Although the judge would instruct the jury to judge this case only on the evidence presented at trial, there was no telling what factors could enter into a juror’s decision-making process. Although I doubted an outright acquittal was possible, it only takes one juror to force a retrial. There was little we could do to keep Stutsman out of the courtroom and could only hope for the best.
Somewhat ironic was the fact that four very attractive women were present in the courtroom throughout the trial. If cast for the movie, Michelle Pfeiffer could play Judge Manella. The prosecutor, Jennifer Corbett, and my two female case agents from the Los Angeles office were three of the most attractive women in federal law enforcement—but maybe my macho, male sexism is surfacing, attempting to overcome the pedophile persona I assumed for several years.
It took the lawyers all morning and part of the afternoon to select a jury, one of the most ethically diverse panels I saw in all my trials—blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians; male and female; young and old. It was truly a cross section of Los Angeles’s multiethnic communities.
Another concern I always have with trials near the holidays is that the Christmas spirit might enter into the verdict, though that can cut both ways: overwhelming evidence might result in quicker guilty verdicts, enabling jurors to get back to Christmas shopping.
Contrary to most TV courtroom scenes, witnesses do not sit in court listening to the evidence being presented, then come from the gallery to testify. Typically, courts “invoke the rule,” excluding witnesses from the courtroom until called. I paced the hallway, waiting to be called and rehashing in my mind the testimony I was about to give. I was to be the first witness.
I was sworn in and took the stand as Tom O’Brien began direct examination. Lasting more than an hour and a half, we played portions of the January 6 Albuquerque recording, including Sam’s statement that he liked to “fondle.” We also introduced two telephone calls Sam and I had the next day, January 7. NAMBLA and “boy love” was a central part of our presentation. I testified to the two conferences I attended and Sam’s role at the Miami conference. I was even able to put into evidence the minutes from the Miami NAMBLA conference Lindblad wrote as the “acting secretary.” My direct testimony was relatively short compared to the many times I’ve testified in the past, but I was nervous and was afraid it showed in my voice. I was telling the truth and could only hope the jury believed me.
During a break, I ran into Dick Stutsman in the hallway. He smiled and said, “Now I remember you. I guess the crutch was fake, too.” I returned the smile but said nothing.
Following my direct examination, Lindblad’s attorney began his cross-examination. His questions were often confusing, sometimes using double and triple negatives. On one occasion, even Judge Manella interrupted, asking the attorney to clarify. As 5:00 approached, the judge called for a recess and stated that we would resume at 8:00
AM
, the next day.
Tom, Jennifer, and I, along with the case agents, returned to Jennifer’s office to discuss the day’s events. Although Tom wasn’t lavishing praise on my testimony, he said I did fine and that we were where we wanted to be in the presentation of our case.
I returned to my hotel room, grabbed a quick dinner, and went back to the room, once again reviewing the recording of my January 6 dinner with Lindblad.
Judge Manella began court precisely at 8:00
AM
and I was back on the stand. The cross-examination continued for well over an hour. I held my own, and Tom said my testimony was much stronger than it had been the day before.
The undercover travel agent was the next witness. He introduced the video recording of the February 11 meeting, the night before the arrests, and also introduced a three-way call he had with Lindblad and Stutsman. His cross was minimal.
Another agent, who posed as a traveler and was present for the arrest, also testified. He seized and searched Lindblad’s luggage and testified about what Lindblad brought on the trip: two books on boy love, a guide to Spanish, and a box labeled “Olympics.” Its contents would not have been menacing had he been an elementary-school teacher, but knowing he was a participant in a sex tour that he thought would involve underage boys, the contents were disturbing. A small piece of paper listed the “Olympic” games he wanted to play with the boys: “discus throw” with paper plates, “inch worm,” “tickle me Elmo” with feathers, “stand on head,” “crawl over the broom,” “limbo” with a long piece of rope, “front/back rolls,” and “javelin throws” with plastic straws. Included in the box were cookies strung with ribbon to be used as gold medals and presented to the winners of each event.
The agents who arrested Lindblad and subsequently interviewed him testified to the confession they elicited. The recorded confession would prove invaluable. Lindblad acknowledged that the “special trip would include some boy love.” He defined boy love: “for me, it is cuddling and contact and possibly some fondling, but that is not necessary. No sex . . . doesn’t have to include sexual contact.” When asked if it might include sex and what that would depend on, Lindblad responded, “The boy involved, partly, and my own feelings and opinions, but I certainly would not have oral sex or fellatio or anal sex or raping the child.” Later in the interview, in a follow-up question on the cuddling and fondling comment, Lindblad said, “Cuddling means holding hands, being close, running my fingers through the boy’s hair on his head, tickling him, possibly wrestling, not in terms of a hurtful wrestling but just . . . roughhousing, I guess, may be the word. . . . If the boy didn’t object or if he allowed or made available to touch his penis, I would. . . . If I tickled his stomach, and he said, ‘Tickle me lower,’ I would.”
Knowing he was being recorded by the FBI, Lindblad also repeated a theme I heard expressed throughout much of my NAMBLA experience. Lindblad discussed how a relationship with a boy who is being groomed moves beyond friendship to a sexual encounter.
We are all sexual beings, and [I’m] certainly not barring a ten-, eleven-, twelve-, thirteen-year-old boy from being sexual. . . . It’s on their minds a great deal, so they have questions. . . . There’s sexuality on the periphery of many things, you know. So when they say something as a compliment to you . . . on the side of that, the edge of that, is a bit of sexuality.
Finally, the police officer from Grand Junction, Colorado, testified to the 1996 conviction. The officer’s testimony was compelling and painted a very vivid picture of the type of predator Lindblad was.
The government rested. The case seemed solid. A conviction should have been guaranteed based upon any three factors individually: his statements to me at the Albuquerque dinner, his statements to the undercover travel agency, or his confession.
Everyone, however, was shocked when the defense presented its only witness: the defendant. Sam Lindblad took the stand and for the rest of the day testified on direct examination by his attorney. The answers were eerie and surreal. Seldom does a three-time convicted sexual predator under oath detail his life and his sexual history. Sam did.
Having spent parts of three and a half years posing as a boy lover, it was difficult for me to be unbiased as I watched Sam on the stand. I could only hope the jury was seeing the same things I saw.
Sam began his testimony by saying, and repeating often throughout his direct and cross examinations, that he had a “deep emotional need to relate to and be with young boys, and it’s something I’ve dealt with all my life.” His reason for agreeing to go on the trip to Mexico was “not sexual. It’s companionship, sharing, playing, teaching. . . . I wanted to have a good time with a young lad.” He planned to “avoid all sexual activity with that boy.”
He testified to his meeting with the boy involved in his 1996 Colorado conviction. Sam described the fourteen-year-old boy as “a bit on the naïve side, but also inexperienced and shy.” They played footsie under the table at the Burger King where they first met. As with other boys he encountered, Sam contemplated a time when he could put his “hands in their hair, hold hands, rub their shoulders, give them a push . . . on the swing . . . horsey-back ride . . . wrestling.”
Sam had difficulty putting into words his own emotional development but described himself as being at the “twelve-year age. . . . I wish there was a good way to explain it. Whether it’s called the ‘Peter Pan syndrome’ or arrested development, or there are some of us adults that never really make it to adulthood, I still feel and respond to many things as a twelve-year-old . . . or an eleven-year-old.” Yet this teacher with a master’s degree admitted to remaining married for twenty-five years and fathering a child. He also admitted he hoped the relationship he had been developing with the victim in the 1996 conviction would’ve grown into a sexual relationship.
Sam’s defense was somewhat unique, maybe the only one a three-time convicted sex offender could attempt. Essentially, he was saying he had been wrong in the past, had learned his lesson, and would never again engage in a sexual act with a minor because of the harm it would bring to the child. His purpose for going to Mexico was nonsexual contact with a boy, and his definition of “fondling” did not include the touching of the penis.
He admitted to his prior bad acts, but prison changed him: “I spent time in prison. It was not comfortable. It was a great deal of time for self-introspection. There was also therapy, which I can’t say changed my emotional need for boys, but it did dampen my sexuality. . . . As a sexual human being, I am a failure. With my wife—we were tremendous platonic friends, but ‘platonic’ does not meet the criteria for marriage, and it made marriage difficult. Sexuality with adult men . . . I feel like I’m in the wrong place. I do the out-of-body experience, I guess. Not that I’ve had many, but, you know . . . not pleasant. And with minors or children or young boys, it’s nothing but pain for both of us. I see the look of fear on a child’s face, and I realize it’s the same look I have on my face when I’m in an uncomfortable sexual situation.”
Later in his testimony, he described himself as “an emotional-sexual failure” and denied ever having sexual intercourse or engaging in oral sex with a minor.
Sam claimed that while in Miami, he heard “rumbling” about a sex trip. He denied ever being on a “sex trip” but admitted to knowing about them. He also admitted that when I first broached the subject of the trip with him at our January 6 dinner in Albuquerque, he knew the trip was a “sex trip” and illegal, but as he maintained throughout his testimony, he had no desire to engage in any sexual act while in Mexico.
Sam and his attorney concluded the direct testimony that afternoon. Jennifer would have the evening to prepare her cross-examination. We returned to her office to evaluate Sam’s appearance on the stand. Although we unanimously concurred that his testimony didn’t pass our “smell test,” it only took one juror to believe his story enough to raise the specter of reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt burden sets a very high standard for the prosecution. We needed to meet it on each element of Sam’s offense.
THE VERDICT
J
ennifer enjoyed an excellent reputation with all of us in the L.A. FBI office, but I had never been in court with her. I wasn’t sure what to expect. Obviously, direct examination is all about preparing the witness. It takes work, but the script is written. Cross-examination is where the good trial attorneys are separated from the weak. I learned the next day that Jennifer was beyond good; she was great. She eliminated the wiggle room in Sam Lindblad’s testimony and laid a solid foundation for the jury to return a guilty verdict, if they were inclined to do so.
