‘Were those the defendant’s exact words?’ says Cassidy.
Ranklin makes a face. ‘ “Let me kill the bitch,” or “I’ll kill the bitch,” something like that,’ he says. ‘It was a long time ago in a crowded room with a lot of noise.’
Morgan strides toward the jury. ‘ “Let me kill the bitch,” ’ and she looks at Ranklin purposefully — ‘or “I’ll kill the bitch.” ’ She repeats the witness’s words while Lama emits glazed expressions of malicious pleasure from the counsel table.
‘That’s what I remember,’ says Ranklin.
‘And when did she say this?’
‘While she was being restrained,’ he says. ‘Immediately after she attempted to strike the victim.’
‘Who was doing the restraining?’
‘I recall that it took a couple of gentlemen,’ he says. ‘Her lawyer, over there.’ He points to me. ‘And one or two others.’
‘But you have no doubt that those were her words: “Let me kill the bitch,” or “I’ll kill the bitch”?’ Given the chance, Cassidy would carve these words over the judge’s chair, just under the state seal and its motto of ‘Eureka.’
‘That’s what I heard.’
‘Officer, do you recall reading about the murder of Melanie Vega in the press?’
‘Sure,’ he says. ‘It was big news. Of particular attention to those of us who worked in the courthouse, because we were seeing the Vegas every day in court during the custody case,’ he says.
‘And you remember that this altercation — the attack by the defendant on Melanie Vega — as having occurred on the afternoon of the same day that Melanie Vega was murdered, is that correct?’
‘Yes. There was a lot of talk about it in the courthouse the next day.’
‘Talk by who?’
‘The people who worked there, who’d heard about the ruckus between the two women.’
‘So would you say there was a general perception on the part of people who had followed the custody case that there was bad blood between the two women?’
‘Objection. Calls for speculation.’
‘Withdrawn,’ says Cassidy.
‘Did you have occasion to watch any portions of the Vega custody case while you were on duty?’
‘I saw some of it,’ says Ranklin. ‘A few hours.’
‘And from your own personal observations, was it your impression that there was a general sense of animosity harbored by the defendant, Laurel Vega, toward Melanie Vega?’
Ranklin laughs. ‘It comes with the turf. A bitter divorce. Disagreement over custody. Sure. There was bad blood,’ he says. ‘It was obvious to anybody who watched.’
‘Thank you, officer. The witness is yours,’ says Cassidy. She takes her seat next to Lama, who as he looks at me is the picture of satisfaction.
Ranklin is in his mid-twenties, a fixture in the courthouse for the last five years. He has bounced between assignments in a couple of departments. I have seen him a hundred times in the elevators, nodded to him, and said hello. He is a friendly soul, a strapping kid, well over six feet, an advantage for security in a courthouse setting, the ability to intimidate without resort to a weapon.
Ranklin is a bit of cipher to me, so I probe carefully around the edges, not anxious to cause any irritation. I paint him quickly into the posture of the neutral law-enforcement officer that he is, just doing his job. It is how the jury will no doubt see him. I want them to know that I am looking through the same-colored prism that they are using. Perspective is everything.
‘In your position with the court you must observe a lot of trials? You spend more time in this place than I do.’
He agrees, and laughs a little. This sands some of the edge off any anxiety. Many young defense lawyers have learned through sorry experience that you can do your case no end of damage by leveling a broadside at a detached and neutral cop.
‘I suppose you would develop a keen sense for reading witnesses on the stand? A well-tuned ear for hostility?’
He concedes that this is something one picks up.
‘Did you actually have occasion to hear or see any of the testimony of the defendant, Laurel Vega, when she appeared in the custody case?’
He says that he did not, that he was in another department at the time.
‘So other than the brief encounter out in the hallway you never had an opportunity to personally observe any statements by the defendant as they might have reflected on her feelings toward the victim?’
‘That’s true,’ he says.
If he saw parts of the custody case, and formed opinions of bad blood between the two women, there is only one other possibility. Ranklin must have listened to Melanie Vega harangue Laurel from the stand. While this might reflect more on Melanie’s hostility toward Laurel, it is still Melanie who is dead. That I might be able to show that she inspired her own demise still serves to flesh out a neat motive. So I leave it alone.
‘Officer Ranklin, let me ask you, are you absolutely certain that outside of the courtroom that day you heard Laurel Vega say she wanted to kill Melanie Vega, that she actually used the word “kill”?’
‘That’s what I heard.’
‘Are you certain that she might not have used the word “bitch,” and said something else?’
‘No. She called her a bitch and said she wanted to kill her.’
Lama has done his homework on this one — Mr. Persuasion. Ask me what I heard in a conversation, even an angry one, seven months ago and I would be lucky if I could remember the participants, much less the words that were used.
‘Officer, did you have to make any efforts to restrain the defendant as a result of what we have just observed on the videotape?’
‘No. You were doing a pretty good job of that as I recall,’ he says.
‘So the defendant did not persist in her attempts to reach Melanie Vega?’
‘I don’t know that I would go that far.’
Ranklin insists that he heard a death threat, so my job is to live with the words but to diminish their import. I try another tack.
‘Would you characterize the event as a quick flash of anger that seemed to pass in a couple of seconds?’
He mulls this over, makes a face. ‘I guess you could call it that,’ he says. Finally a concession.
‘And you didn’t actually have to step in between the two women to break it up, did you?’
‘No.’
‘In your capacity performing court duties, have you ever had to physically restrain parties or members of the public during a trial or other proceedings?’
‘Several times,’ he says.
‘And have you ever heard threats being uttered by people during such heated moments?’
‘It’s not uncommon,’ he says.
‘Death threats,’ I say.
‘Yes.’
‘And isn’t it your experience that in most cases those threats are in fact idle? That they are not carried out? Isn’t that what occurs in most cases, people making foolish statements they don’t mean in the heat of an argument?’
This is something readily in the experience of every juror. There is only one credible answer and Ranklin knows it.
‘That’s true,’ he says.
‘And at the time that you say you heard the defendant make such a threat against Melanie Vega, was there anything peculiar about it that would cause you to think the words were anything other than idle words of anger?’
Ranklin is in a box on this. If he says there was, it begs the question, ‘Then why, officer, did you not take her into custody?’
‘No,’ he says.
‘So you believed it was an idle threat?’
‘Yes.’
‘And in fact, as you sit here today, knowing all the things that you know about this case, based solely on your personal knowledge of the facts as you know them, you cannot tell the jury that the words uttered that day by Laurel Vega were in fact anything but an idle threat, isn’t that true, officer?’