“I contend that Mr. Chesterfield hated both men, so hate was the motive for both murders.”
“Can’t you be a rival in love without hating the other suitor?” the judge asked.
“I… It’s possible, I guess,” Ragland conceded grudgingly.
“Even if you established that Mr. Chesterfield did hate his romantic rival, is mere hatred sufficient to get other crimes’ evidence before a jury? Wouldn’t that open the door to admitting any crime in a defendant’s life where he hated the victim?”
“Well, that’s too broad,” Ragland answered.
“Do you have any evidence that Mr. Chesterfield hated Mr. Gentry? Are there phone calls, threatening letters?” the judge asked.
Ragland looked flustered. “Not that we have discovered so far.”
“Why can’t Mr. Ragland introduce the Gentry evidence to prove a common scheme or plan?” the judge asked Regina.
“To bring a case within this exception to the general rule, the two crimes must be connected as parts of a plan or so related as to show a common motive or intent running through both,” Regina said. “The case before the court provides an excellent example of a situation where the exception applies. Evidence of the attempted murder of Mr. Moser would be admissible to prove how Mrs. Randall got the poisoned candy. The murder weapon was sent to Mr. Moser and he gave it to Mrs. Randall because he was on a diet, so the two crimes are connected. But the State will try to prove that Mr. Gentry was murdered two years before Mrs. Randall for completely different reasons that are not connected to this case. The two murders are not part of a common scheme or plan.”
“Mr. Ragland?”
“It’s the same MO. He has a grudge against someone, and he sends them poisoned candy.”
“We’re talking about whether the two crimes are part of a common scheme or plan, and I don’t see that they are.
“But what about using the Gentry evidence to prove the identity of the person who murdered Mrs. Randall?” Judge Beathard asked Regina.
“The cases I’ve cited in my memo hold that the mere fact that the two crimes are parallel as to the methods and means employed in their execution doesn’t serve to identify the defendant as the poisoner of Mrs. Randall unless his guilt may be inferred from its similarity to the Gentry poisoning.
“Mr. Ragland has no evidence that proves that Mr. Chesterfield sent the candy to Mr. Moser. In the Gentry case, there is only circumstantial evidence that the cause of death is cyanide, and the only evidence that the poison, if it existed, was in candy is also circumstantial and derives from an inadmissible hearsay statementmade by Mr. Gentry. No box of chocolates was found in Gentry’s house.
“Furthermore, this is not a case where a killer leaves a distinctive mark on each victim, like aZcut in the victim’s cheek or a rose left at each murder scene. Using poison to kill someone is not so unique that Your Honor could conclude that the use of poison in Gentry proves the identity of the poisoner in this case.
“I’d like to make one other point, Your Honor. As soon as I understood how little evidence Mr. Ragland can present to implicate my client in this case, it became obvious to me that Mr. Ragland can’t prove his case without evidence from the Gentry case, because there isn’t enough evidence in either case to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chesterfield committed any of the crimes charged.
“Mr. Ragland is hoping to bootstrap a conviction in the case that is before you by presenting the unrelated evidence in Gentry, precisely the type of behavior the rule of evidence prohibiting the use of unconnected evidence of other crimes was written to forbid.”
Ragland responded to Regina’s arguments, but it was clear that the judge was only listening to be courteous. When Ragland sat down, the judge made his ruling.
“I spent quite a bit of time researching the issues raised by your motion, Miss Barrister. The cases and law review articles cited in your excellent memorandum of law in support of the motion were very helpful. After giving the issue a lot of thought, I find that I agree with Miss Barrister. Her motion to prohibit the introduction in our case of evidence about Arthur Gentry’s case is granted.
“I’m also going to grant Mr. Chesterfield bail.”
Lily Dowd leaned forward and laid a hand on Regina’s shoulder. “Thank you.”
“You were fantastic,” Chesterfield said. “Worth every penny.”
“I’d like to see Counsel in chambers so we can work out theconditions of release,” the judge said before standing up and heading to his chambers.
As soon as Judge Beathard left the courtroom, the spectators and reporters started talking. Because of the noise and commotion, no one noticed that Gary Randall had walked into the bar of the court until he smashed his fist into Robert Chesterfield’s face.
“I’ll kill you!” he screamed as he pulled his fist back again. Before he could land another blow, the jail guards grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground.
“Let me go!” Randall screamed as he thrashed about on the floor.
“You’ve got the wrong man, Mr. Randall,” Chesterfield said. “I didn’t try to poison anyone.”
Morris Quinlan watched the chaos caused by Gary Randall’s attack. Then he shook his head in disgust and left the courtroom. “I knew Peter would fuck up this case,” he told his partner.
“What can we do now?”