A Hole In One, Paul Weininger [top novels to read txt] 📗

had concluded her opening remarks, Judge Garnett said, “Madam D.A., please call your first witness.”

“Thank you, Your Honor,” Stanford replied. “The people call Detective Johnny Pratt.” Detective Johnny H. Pratt was sworn in, took his seat on the witness stand and D.A. Stanford began her questioning. “Detective Pratt, would you please tell the jury what, where and for whom you work.”

“I work for the Sedona Police Department under the direction of Marshal Brian Whitaker. My assignments have been varied, but I always worked in Sedona since I moved here, except for this case which I shared with Flagstaff Detective Jason Sommerville.”

“Detective, what was the last assignment given to you by the marshal?”

“I was told to investigate a series of four shootings aimed at four different individuals and yet each time the shootings occurred, there were only two shots fired. A very unusual pattern for a shooter.”

“Objection, the detective was not asked to opine whether or not the pattern was unusual,” said Jaxson.

“Sustained.”

“I’ll rephrase that question. Detective, did the shootings present any pattern to you?”

“Well, yes, it’s an unusual pattern for someone to shoot at four people and each was shot at only twice, whether they were hit or not.”

“Was anyone injured by these shootings?”

“Yes, Mr. Green was shot in his lower left kidney and the Rabbi was shot in a lung.”

“Were the shots fatal to either Green or the Rabbi?”

“No, they both received emergency surgery at the hospital, and are now back to normal.”

“Was anyone else shot at like this?”

“Yes, two additional men. One was a Mr. Tony Pilaris and the other Dr. Todd Stern. Neither was struck by a bullet, but both men had two shots fired at them. That made a total of four men shot at and each with just two shots apiece.”

“Did you ever learn of a connection between the four men and the possible shooter?”

“Just partially. The men are a team of four golfing partners who play together every Sunday, but none of them have any idea who the shooter might be.”

“And did you or Detective Sommerville establish any connection to the shootings based on their playing golf together?”

“No, we did not. We still aren’t sure of any reason why the four were picked as targets.”

“Did you ever identify the weapon used in the shootings and was it the same weapon each time?”

“Yes, the weapon each time was a .45 caliber. Either bullets or their casings that came from that same gun were found at each shooting, or within the victims who were shot.”

“What else in your investigation did you discover?”

“After having been invited to attend a Jewish Sabbath service by Dr. Todd Stern, who was a regular congregant at the Rabbi’s synagogue, I heard the Rabbi begin his service and Dr. Stern pointed out immediately an error he believed the Rabbi made.”

“Objection, Your Ho…”

The judge interrupted the defense’s objection. “Sustained. Madam D.A., you know well enough that hearsay testimony is not permitted.”

“I’m sorry, Your Honor, but I did not believe this to be hearsay, since the detective was there and heard it himself as part of his official investigation,” she replied tersely.

“Incorrect, Ms. Stanford. Mr. Pratt was there, and he did hear it, but since it was interpreted for him by Dr. Stern, that was the part that is hearsay.” She felt the bite when the judge referred to her as Ms. Stanford this time.

“All right, Your Honor, my mistake. I concede to your sustaining the objection.” As if she had a choice in accepting his decision or not.

“Were you called to the Rabbi’s house?” she asked Pratt.

“Yes, the Rabbi’s next-door neighbors had seen some unusual activity in his backyard and called 911 to which both Detective Sommerville from Flagstaff and I were dispatched to his home that same day to investigate.”

“Did you detectives speak to his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Weissman?”

“Yes, we did.”

“What exactly did the Weissmans tell you?”

“Objection, your honor, that again is hearsay. If the D.A. wants to know what they said, then have the D.A. call the Weissmans and place them on the stand.”

“Sustained,” said the judge. “Since the Weissmans are on the witness list, we’ll wait to hear directly from them.”

Stanford whispered to her assistant D.A., “Mr. Jaxson should have noticed this couple was on the witness list and should have realized they would testify the same. What he just did for us was emphasize the importance of their testimony when it comes up.”

Turning back to her witness, the D.A. continued, “Detective, would you please tell the jury what you personally discovered in the Rabbi’s backyard.”

Pratt replied, “The day Frank Weissman called 911, I entered the Rabbi’s backyard with Detective Somerville and saw a huge pile of ashes. Protruding from the top of the ashes was a human skull just as Mr. Weissman described. Only I noticed a bullet hole in the forehead and an exit hole in the back of the skull which spread the back of the skull apart.”

“At this time, Your Honor, I would like to introduce exhibit P-1,” two photographs taken by the police photographer. Exhibit P-1 shows the Rabbi’s backyard containing the ashes and the skull with a bullet hole in the center of the forehead. The second photo is of the skull’s back. She handed copies to the court clerk who distributed them to the judge, defense attorney, and jurors.

The jury looked at the photo repugnantly. The defense looked at it without a reaction; they had obviously seen it before.

“What did you do next, Detective?”

“I suggested that Detective Sommerville call for additional back-up, an ambulance, a coroner and the forensics team from his department since the body was in Flagstaff and so were Sommerville’s people.”

“Thank you, Detective, there will be no more questions for this witness, but I retain...”

The judge cut her off. “We know, Ms. Stanford; you retain the right to recall this witness should you need him for rebuttal. Mr. Jaxson, do you have any questions for this witness?”

Twenty-Five

“Yes, I do, Your Honor,” Jaxson began. “Detective Pratt, isn’t it