A Hole In One by Paul Weininger (10 best books of all time txt) 📕

the prosecution having shown that their forensics team found two sets of fingerprints at the Rabbi’s home. “I was taking notes,” she said. “They mentioned that ninety-eight percent of the prints were from the Rabbi and the rest belonged to Richard Straub. Straub never once admitted to having entered the Rabbi’s home, yet his fingerprints were all over it. This should be enough to change your vote to guilty.”

“Nice try, Number Seven, but that still doesn’t prove anything to me as to who killed the Rabbi. Straub admitted he took the body of the Rabbi and disposed of it illegally in the backyard and then, after moving into the home, went through his closet to look for clothes he could wear for the religious services he intended to conduct. I agree that Straub is a scumbag, but finding his fingerprints in the house does not make him a killer. My vote remains innocent,” replied Number Five.

By 3:30 p.m. the foreperson notified the judge in writing: “We’ve made some progress after much back and forth bickering, but that’s it for today regarding any further progress.” She requested an overnight recess, which the judge granted, ordering the jury to return at 9:00 a.m. the next morning.

The next day the foreperson called on Juror Ten to start the discussion by asking, “Do you have anything you would like to add to the conversation, Number Ten?”

Juror Ten was a middle-aged gentleman in his late forties, an accountant by profession. “Yes, I do. This has been a tough decision for me to reach. I’ve gone from guilty to innocent and back and forth quite a few times. I’m too confused right now. I need clarification,” replied Juror Ten.

“What clarification do you need?” asked the foreperson.

“Can we ask to have the transcript read to us? Specifically, when Straub asked his boss if he thought that he resembled the photo of the Rabbi in the newspaper?” He then added, “And can they show us the video of the gun show again, please?”

“Absolutely,” said Number One. She got up and called for the bailiff and handed him a note to give to Judge Garnett. The note asked for the court reporter to come into the jury room and read from the transcript about the time when Straub asked his landscaping boss if he thought that he resembled the photo of Rabbi Bloom in the paper. She also asked for the court clerk to come in with the television monitor and show the video of the gun show to the jury again.

The judge called for a thirty-minute recess and told the court stenographer to bring her transcription machine with her so that she could read the requested testimony to the jury. The judge then called the court clerk to the bench and told him, “Bring the video taken at the gun show along with the monitor for the jury to review again.”

“Yes, Your Honor,” the clerk responded. The media types quickly ran out of the court to report to their producers and editors that the jury requested to review a portion of the transcript in addition to the video taken at the gun show.

Thirty-Nine

The court reporter entered the jury room and read from her transcript in reply to their question. Judge Garnett followed the stenographer into the jury room just in case there were any other questions that he might need to address. This was an unusual move for a judge, but it had happened before in other cases to assure that nothing out of permissible order was taking place. The court clerk followed behind them with the monitor and the video.

The stenographer began to read the transcript of the district attorney’s questioning of Mr. Rung.

D.A.: “Mr. Rung, you have an employee by the name of Richard Straub, don’t you?”

Rung: “I did, until he quit a few months back. I haven’t heard from him since.”

D.A.: “Did Mr. Straub ever mention Rabbi Bloom to you?”

Rung: “Kind of, but not by name, and only once. He showed me a picture of the Rabbi some months ago, which appeared in the Sedona Times Herald; it was of the Rabbi being, I think they used the word ‘feted,’ at some event. He asked me to look at the picture and see whether I saw a resemblance between the Rabbi and him.”

D.A.: “And what was your answer?”

Rung: “Considering that Richard had a lot of facial hair and a thinning crop of hair on his head, he looked more like a gangster biker than a Rabbi. I didn’t notice a resemblance, but not to get him upset, I said yes, he looks a little like you.”

D.A.: “What was his reaction to your response?”

Rung: “He seemed pleased.”

Juror One asked, “Does that answer your question, Number Ten?”

“Yes, it does, thank you,” Juror Ten answered.

“Would the clerk please set up the video and play it back to us in slow motion so that we don’t miss any details?” requested the foreperson. The D.A. mentioned the numbers on the video she wanted to have shown.

At this point the court reporter left the jury room and returned to the courtroom.

The clerk stopped the video each time a jury member asked him to, for closer inspection.

The judge remained in the jury room while the clerk was showing the video as slowly as he could on the VCR. At one point the clerk was asked to pause the video when Straub entered the show. The jury could see that his shirt collar was high up on his neck and didn’t allow any mark to be visible.

“Thank you, Your Honor, I believe that’s all we needed,” said Juror One.

The judge and the clerk left the jury room. Judge Garnett returned to his chamber until he was notified that the jury was ready to return.

In the jury room, the foreperson asked Juror Ten if the transcript and video had changed her thinking.

“Yes, it did. We were made aware that Straub already researched his background and learned the date, hospital, and time of