Proof Positive (2006) (11 page)

Mr. Cashman, were you called to the Continental Motel recently?

Yes.

Why were you summoned there?

A gentleman named Vincent Ballard was found dead in his motel room. Mary Clark and I conducted the forensic investigation at the crime scene.

Would you please give the judge a brief overview of the steps you took to process the scene?

Cashman told Judge Belmont what he and Mary Clark had done at the motel.

During your search of the motel room, did you notice a beer can on the night table? Mike asked when Cashman was through.

I did.

Greene picked up a card that was white on one side and black on the other, and a plastic evidence bag containing a beer can and a strip of tape. A section of the can was coated with black fingerprint powder. He carried the items over to the witness.

Would you identify these items for the judge, please? Greene asked.

Certainly. Exhibit six is a plastic evidence bag containing the beer can. When I examined the can, I dusted it with fingerprint powder so that the print would be highlighted. Then I removed the print from the can using the tape that is in the bag and I placed the print on the white side of the card exhibit seven so it would show up against the white background.

What did you do next?

I ran it through AFIS the automated fingerprint identification system to see if the computer could identify a possible match.

Did the computer match the print to an individual?

Well, AFIS doesn't make a match. It lists individuals with the highest probability of being a match. The person listed as most likely to be a match was the defendant. Of course, I compared Mr. Prochaska's prints with the print from the can myself before calling Detective Brewster.

Do you believe that the print on the beer can was placed there by the defendant, Arthur Wayne Prochaska? the prosecutor asked.

Cashman smiled at the judge. Yes, I do. I found sixteen points of agreement between the print on the beer can and Mr. Prochaska's known prints. That is enough for me to testify in court that the print on the can was made by the defendant.

Criminalist Cashman, were you able to find any other evidence connecting the defendant to the murder of Vincent Ballard? Greene asked.

Oh, yes.

What did you find?

The bullet fragments that the medical examiner concluded were the instruments of Mr. Ballard's demise are consistent with ammunition discovered in the defendant's home.

Are you talking about the 9-mm slugs that Detective Brewster testified about?

Yes.

Prochaska had been calm during Cashman's testimony, but his face flushed with anger. He leaned close to Frank.

I'm being framed, Frank. There's no way those bullets match.

Don't worry, Art. I'm not going to take Cashman's word for anything. I' ve got my own expert. He'll double-check all of Cashman's conclusions. If the lab screwed up, we'll know.

Please tell the court how you determined that the bullets Detective Brewster found in the defendant's closet matched the bullets that killed Vincent Ballard.

Certainly. You might remember, judge, from your high school or college chemistry class that there are ninety-two known elements listed in the periodic table as being found in nature. If we take a bullet and place it in a source of neutrons atomic particles the material will absorb the neutrons and become radioactive. More than fifty of the known elements will emit gamma rays when they become radioactive, and we have instruments that will measure how many of these gamma rays are given off by the element and their specific energy.

Frank was always impressed by Cashman's delivery. He sounded more like a lecturer at a university than a cop from the crime lab.

How did you make this measurement, Criminalist Cashman? Mike Greene asked.

We have an arrangement with Reed College, which has a nuclear reactor. In this case, I took a small fragment from one of the bullets found in a box in the defendant's home

How small? the prosecutor asked.

Oh, I don't need much, just a sliver.

Go on.

I shaved off this sliver and took another small fragment from one of the bullets found in the deceased and asked the head of the reactor facility to place the two fragments in the reactor, our source of neutrons. The fragments were placed in vials that had been precleaned to remove impurities that might contaminate the fragments and were lowered into the reactor.

When the material became radioactive it was removed from the reactor and taken to an area where there is a counter a machine that will detect gamma rays and measure their energy. We analyzed this data to find out which elements were present and how much of each one was present in each fragment. Then we compared the findings to determine the degree of similarity in the fragments. I might add that one advantage of doing this analysis with bullets is that lead one of the major components of a bullet will not become radioactive, so it's easier to see what other elements are in the bullet fragments and if these elements and their energies are similar.

And what did you find? Greene asked.

I discovered that the elements antimony, arsenic, and copper were present in both samples in the same amounts.

What did you conclude from this?

I concluded that the bullet that killed Vincent Ballard was consistent with the bullets that were found in the defendant's closet and most probably both bullets were produced in the same batch.

No further questions, Mike Greene said.

Frank had been given all of Cashman's reports, including the printouts made at the nuclear reactor. He was personally at sea when it came to the science Cashman used to support his conclusions and could not think of any questions to ask the criminalist about the tests he had conducted. Frank would consult with his own experts and bring out flaws in Cashman's testimony in front of a jury at trial. But he did have a few questions that he wanted to ask the criminalist.

Mr. Cashman, the batch of bullets that produced the ammunition found in Mr. Prochaska's closet and the bullets that killed Mr. Ballard is very large, isn't it?

Yes.

We' re talking about thousands of bullets that are distributed all over the country, aren't we?

Yes.

So you' re not saying that your test shows that the bullets that killed Mr. Ballard came from the box found in Mr. Prochaska's house.

They could have, Cashman answered, but I could not testify that they did.

All these bullets were just from this huge batch?

That's correct.

Now, Mr. Cashman, were you able to find striations on the bullets that killed Vincent Ballard that were created when the bullets were fired?

Yes. The bullets were badly fragmented but I did find striations on the base area.

Did you conduct a ballistics test to see if the gun that was found in Mr. Prochaska's home fired the bullets that killed Vincent Ballard?

Yes.

What was your conclusion?

It's my opinion that the 9-mm Glock that was discovered during the search of the defendant's home did not fire the bullets that killed Mr. Ballard.

Thank you, Mr. Cashman. I have no further questions.

As soon as the courtroom door closed behind Bernard Cashman, he let loose the smile he'd been suppressing. He almost felt sorry for Frank Jaffe, but not quite. Most defense attorneys were powerless when he testified. They didn't have the scientific knowledge to challenge his expertise. Cashman knew that Jaffe would consult with a private forensic scientist before trial, but it wouldn't do him any good.

Cashman's chest swelled as he relished the power he wielded. He was the instrument of justice that would send Arthur Wayne Prochaska to the death chamber for the murder of Vincent Ballard. Michael Greene would prosecute the case, the jury would render the verdict, and Judge Belmont would impose the sentence, but none of this could happen without his evidence. Bernard Cashman knew that he was the key. Others would get the credit, but this never bothered him. He was perfectly happy laboring for justice in near anonymity, an avenger of the dead and the defenseless.

As Cashman headed to the elevators, a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit rounded the corner on the way to the jail elevator. When they passed each other, Bernie could not help staring. The prisoner's frizzy, uncombed hair stood out in all directions, and his head was twitching from side to side. Cashman's immediate impression was that the man was insane, and it was reinforced by the fact that the prisoner was mumbling angrily to himself, seemingly oblivious of his surroundings.

Cashman turned the corner and immediately lost interest in the madman. Ahead of him, Hannah Graves was berating Doug Weaver while Steve Hooper looked on, his face flushed with anger. Cashman knew the defense attorney from State v. Hayes and a few other cases in which he had been one of the state's witnesses. Doug's face was flushed with embarrassment and he looked as though he wanted to crawl into a hole.

You think you' re so smart now, but let's talk after your client rapes his next victim, Cashman heard Graves say. Then the DA and the detective turned on their heels and walked away. Cashman walked up to the defense attorney.

What was that about? the forensic expert asked.

Doug whirled toward him, startled. Gosh, Bernie, I didn't hear you come up.

Sorry. I guess you were distracted by Ms. Graves. May I assume that you just bested her in court?

Yeah, Doug answered, sounding strangely subdued for a victorious defense attorney. I just won a case that should never have gone to trial. Graves should have resolved it with a plea. But she was so sure of herself that she screwed up in court and she's mad at me when she should be accepting responsibility for her own incompetence.

Doug stopped. I shouldn't have said that about her being incompetent. Forget you heard that, Bernie.

Cashman smiled. Between us, Doug, Graves is not the brightest DA with whom I' ve worked.

Who isn' t? asked Amanda Jaffe, who had just rounded the corner on the way to the courtroom where Prochaska was being heard.

Amanda, said Cashman. He had testified in several cases that Amanda had defended and believed her to be a worthy adversary. Do you know Doug Weaver?

Sure. We ate lunch together at that CLE last year.

Doug was a little in awe of Amanda, who was the success he wished he could be. He appreciated the fact that she had not mentioned that Doug had been a student at the continuing legal education seminar while she had been lecturing on the latest trends in search-and-seizure law.

Nice seeing you again, Doug said.

We were talking about Hannah Graves, Cashman said. Doug just beat her in court and she didn't take it well.

She never does, Amanda said. I won a case from her recently and she stormed out of the courtroom like a two-year-old. Hannah needs to lighten up.

I heard her say something about a rape, Cashman said. Is that what the charge was?

No. It was failure to register as a sex offender.

Doug gave Amanda and Cashman an abbreviated version of the facts and what had happened at trial. Shortly after Doug started, the criminalist realized that Doug's client was the disturbed prisoner he had passed in the hall.

Good going, Amanda said when Doug was through.

Do you think your client is dangerous? Cashman asked.

Doug hesitated. What did he really believe about Jacob? Did he have any way of judging a person who was as mentally ill as his client?

Not really, he decided to answer. I'm not even certain Jacob committed the attempted rape in the first place. I talked to his last attorney and Jacob's version of the facts sounds as plausible as the version his accuser gave. The problem is that Jacob makes a horrible impression in front of a jury because he's seriously mentally ill. He lives in an abandoned car in a vacant lot on Queen Anne and Hobart and he refuses to accept help from anyone. He thinks we' re all part of some vast government conspiracy.

He sounds like a lost soul, Cashman said.

It's a sad case. I just hope he stays out of trouble and takes care of himself, but I don't have much hope.

Doug hefted his briefcase. Well, it was nice seeing you, Bernie, Amanda. I' ve got to get back to my office.

As soon as they'd said their good-byes and Doug was on his way, Bernie remembered Prochaska.

This is a coincidence. I just testified in a case your father is defending. He's in Judge Belmont's courtroom. I think they' re near the end.

It's no coincidence. I'm on my way to see Dad. I'm doing a little work on the case with him.

I should have guessed.

It was nice seeing you again, Amanda told the criminalist.

Same here, Cashman answered.

Amanda walked away, and Cashman watched her for a moment before continuing to the elevators that would take him to the main floor. From there, it was back to the crime lab and his continuing examination of the evidence in another case he knew he could solve.