CHAPTER 51

Judge Maxa keeps her head down as she pecks away at the keyboard of her laptop on the bench. Absently she says, “Any questions for this witness, Mr. Corvelli?”

“No, Your Honor,” I say.

Maxa looks up, as does the witness, in complete surprise.

“But I believe my partner Jake Harper does.”

Honolulu PD forensics expert Alison Kelly visibly deflates on the stand and looks to Maddox for help but there is no cavalry coming. Jake gathers his notes and walks slowly to the podium, never taking his eyes off his dear ex-girlfriend, Alison Kelly.

At first I dismissed the strategy as grade-school bullshit, bush league psych-out stuff that I might have utilized to delight my fellow law students in mock trials. Then I reconsidered. After all, cable news commentators like Marcy Faith make a mockery of the American system of justice every single day. Because of voices like hers, the defense perpetually plays “away” games; thus, we, as defense attorneys, might as well exploit fully any advantage we can. In fact, I’d say it is our duty.

“Morning, Ms. Kelly.”

“Good morning, Mr. Harper.”

“Ms. Kelly,” Jake says slowly, “on direct examination you testified that all fingerprints found in the honeymoon suite where the fire allegedly started matched either the deceased Trevor Simms or the defendant Erin Simms, is that correct?”

“Yes, that is correct.”

“And on the exterior of the door to the honeymoon suite—the side facing the hallway—that was also dusted for latent fingerprints?”

“Yes, it was.”

“And will you please remind the jury, Ms. Kelly, how many latent prints were found on the exterior of the door to the honeymoon suite?”

“On the side facing the hallway, three latent prints were recovered.”

“And who did those prints belong to, Ms. Kelly?”

“Two belonged to the victim, Trevor Simms. One belonged to your client, Erin Simms.”

“And that’s all?” Jake says, shrugging his shoulders. “Those are the only latent prints the forensics team could recover from the door to the honeymoon suite?”

“Again, on the side facing the hallway, yes.”

“Hm,” Jake says staring down at his notes. “That’s interesting. Do you know why that is interesting, Ms. Kelly?”

“I suspect you’ll tell me, Mr. Harper.”

Jake puts his hands out in front of him. “No need to sass me, ma’am. I’m just trying to get to the truth here.”

Truth is, there are going to be some fireworks this afternoon. Thanks to something seemingly innocuous said to me by Corwin Pierce, I sent our forensics expert Baron Lee back to the crime scene yesterday. And Baron found something, well, interesting.

Jake clasps his hands behind his back and pitches forward, his eyes rising from Baron Lee’s report to his ex. “To your knowledge, Ms. Kelly, did the forensics team search for any latent prints besides fingerprints on the exterior of the door to the honeymoon suite?”

Alison Kelly shifts uncomfortably on the witness stand and steals a glance at me. “Not to my knowledge, no.”

Last year in the Gianforte case Dapper Don Watanabe and I dueled over the admissibility of lip prints as identification evidence in a criminal case. Alison Kelly was caught in the middle of our duel, and suffice it to say, I came up on the short end.

“Are you familiar with the term ‘anthropometry,’ Ms. Kelly?”

“I am.”

“Very good,” Jake says, smiling. “Will you kindly explain the term to the jury?”

Alison Kelly clearly swallows an urge to shout at Jake for patronizing her. “Anthropometry,” she says, her face tingeing red, “is a system of body measurements used for personal identification.”

“Kind of like fingerprints?”

“No, not really.”

“Well then, kindly explain the difference, Ms. Kelly?”

“Fingerprint analysis is a widely-used, thoroughly-tested scientific method for positively identifying individuals. Fingerprint analysis has proven an acceptable form of identification in the forensics community and in the courts of the United States. Anthropometry, on the other hand, is a very general term relating to various measurements of parts of the human body.”

“Which parts?” Jake asks.

“Well, if I recall correctly, there are eleven: height, bust, length and width of head, width of cheeks, length of the left middle finger, length of the left foot, length of the right ear—”

“Let’s pause right there,” Jake says, “because the right ear happens to be what I’m most interested in.”

From the corner of my eye I watch Luke Maddox, who remains perfectly calm, sitting forward, his arms crossed on the prosecution table. He should be standing, shouting his objections, because we’re springing this on him—but he’s not. He’s perfectly fine with what is happening, and I suspect Alison Kelly, despite her apparent irritation of having to deal with Jake, is, too.

Maddox thinks we’re playing right into his hands.

“Are you familiar, Ms. Kelly, with the use of ear print analysis as a means of forensic identification?”

“I’m familiar with it,” she concedes, “but it is much more popular in Europe than in the United States.”

“So we’re a bit behind in that particular area of forensic science,” Jake states as fact.

“I wouldn’t say that.”

Jake ignores her. “Ms. Kelly, would you be surprised if I were to tell you that in addition to the fingerprints found on the exterior of the door to the honeymoon suite, there was another latent print discovered by the defense’s forensics team—an ear print, to be specific?”

Maddox finally objects, feigning outrage.

I hide my smile behind my hand.

Feign your anger now, Luke, because this is just the beginning. You’re not going to have to feign anything but calm come tomorrow.

“Sustained,” Maxa says. “The jury will disregard Mr. Harper’s last question.”

“Then, hypothetically, Ms. Kelly,” Jake continues, “were a latent ear print discovered on the exterior of the door to the honeymoon suite, what would that suggest to you?”

Maddox doesn’t object to Jake’s use of a hypothetical; Maddox thinks he’s still steering the boat.

Alison Kelly shrugs. “That someone pressed their ear against the door, of course.”

“And hypothetically speaking, Ms. Kelly, why would anyone press their ear up against the exterior of a hotel room door?”

“My guess would be to listen to whatever was going on inside.”

“Again, hypothetically, Ms. Kelly, based on your knowledge and experience, who in your estimation would want to hear what was going on inside someone else’s honeymoon suite?”

The witness purses her lips. “Security, maybe.”

“Hypothetically, why would security want to hear the goings-on in someone’s honeymoon suite?”

“If there was a complaint for excessive noise, for instance.”

“An excessive noise complaint,” Jake says. “Wouldn’t then security be able to hear said noise from the hall without pressing their ear up against the door and invading a young couple’s privacy?”

“Possibly.”

“If you are correct, Ms. Kelly, then, hypothetically, that ear print should match the size and shape of the ear of Mr. Izzy Dufu or some other security employee of the resort, isn’t that right?”

“I would assume so.”

“Again, hypothetically, Ms. Kelly, if this ear print didn’t match up with anyone from the resort’s security team, would you say that it is likely that someone else other than security pressed their ear up against the door to the Simms’s honeymoon suite?”

“That’s a logical assumption.”

“And hypothetically, who might that be?”

“Could be anyone,” Alison Kelly says.

“Anyone? Is it likely that one of the room’s current occupants would press their ear up against their own door?”

“Anything’s possible, Mr. Harper.”

“But if that hypothetical ear print didn’t match up with the size and shape of the ear of either of the room’s current occupants—say, Trevor or Erin Simms—that would exclude them, correct?”

“I suppose.”

“Hypothetically, Ms. Kelly, if that ear print didn’t match anyone working security for the resort or either of the room’s current occupants, then someone else pressed their ear up against that door, right?”

“Probably.”

“Someone who wanted to listen inside, correct?”

“Yes.”

Jake’s voice suddenly rises in pitch, his pace quickens. “Maybe someone who wanted to know if anyone was in that room. Someone with something nefarious on his mind, someone who wanted to rob or kill that suite’s occupants or set that suite on fire—”

“Objection, Your Honor.”

“Sustained. Mr. Harper?”

“My apologies, Judge.”

“Any more questions, Mr. Harper?”

“No, Your Honor. The witness and I are through.”