A Reasonable Doubt by Susan Sloan (free novels .txt) 📕

red MG he had picked up at a police auction a while back.

“Detective Hitchens,” John Henry began his direct examination, “Dale Scott was your partner, is that correct?”

The witness nodded.  “Yes, sir, he was.”

“For how long?”

“Almost three years.”

“What kind of a police officer would you say he was?”

“Dedicated, hard-working, detail-oriented, a good closer.”  He rattled off the words as though they had been memorized from a script.

“After he was murdered, were you put in charge of the investigation into his death?”

“I was.”

“Will you tell the jury how you conducted this investigation and how you arrived at the conclusion you did?”

“We started with the crime scene evidence and the medical examiner’s findings,” Hitchens began.  And he then went on to recount, step by step, the investigative process he had used in following up on the processing of that evidence and those findings, of personally interviewing the defendant and securing what he and his superiors considered, if not an out-and-out confession, at least a recognition of guilt.  His manner was confident and courteous, and the jurors clearly liked him.

“And in the course of your investigation,” John Henry inquired, “did you find any evidence to suggest that anyone other than the defendant was responsible for the death of your partner?”

“No, I did not,” the detective said firmly.

“What about self-defense?” the prosecutor pressed.  “Did you, at any time, find any evidence that could have led you to the conclusion that the defendant acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Detective Scott?”

Hitchens hesitated for perhaps the length of two seconds before he replied.  “No, I did not.”

“I have nothing further,” John Henry said, and sat down.

. . .

Lily rose from her seat.  “Detective Hitchens, you’ve testified that you were in charge of the investigation into your partner’s death,” she began and then stopped.  “Come to think of it, wasn’t that a little unusual?”

“What do you mean by unusual, Ma’am?”  the witness hedged.

“Well, that you would be put in charge of an investigation involving your partner’s death,” she said.  “I would have thought that someone else might have been more suitable, someone perhaps more objective.”

“I guess Chief McAllister didn’t agree.”

“Oh, I see -- it was his idea.”

Hitchens shifted in his seat.  “Well, I may have suggested that I could handle it,” he said.  “But it was his decision.”

“Of course,” Lily murmured.  “All right, as the officer in charge of the investigation into your partner’s death, you were responsible for the evidence that was collected at the crime scene, is that correct?”

“I was.”

“And you never at any time during this investigation considered that my client may have acted in self-defense when he shot Dale Scott?”

“I considered it,” he replied.  “But there just wasn’t any evidence to take me there.”

“Are you familiar with the testimony of the medical examiner and the crime lab analyst, who both stated that Detective Scott had incurred physical injuries before he was shot?”

“With some of it, yes.”

“Well then, in light of their testimony, would you now be willing to consider self-defense?”

“At this point, I suppose I could second-guess myself.  But at the time, I simply had to go with my gut.”

“And at the time your gut was telling you this wasn’t self-defense -- did it tell you this was a case of intentional, premeditated murder?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Because Dale had been shot in the head, at very close range.”

“Perhaps you can explain to the jury what the difference is between evidence that indicates premeditation, evidence that indicates murder without premeditation, and evidence that indicates self-defense.”

Hitchens frowned.  “I’m not sure I know what you’re asking.”

“Nothing terribly complicated,” Lily assured him.  “Just tell the jury, generally, what evidence you found during your investigation that you considered consistent with premeditated murder as compared to what evidence you would have considered consistent with unpremeditated murder or self-defense.”

The detective took a breath and turned to the jury.  “Self-defense is when the perpetrator fears for his life and acts to protect himself,” he declared.  “There was simply no evidence of that in this case.  There was just a drunk Indian who beat the crap out of my partner and then put a bullet in his head.”

“I see,” Lily said.  “All right, suppose we try this another way.  What kind of evidence was it that convinced you that self-defense was not involved in this case?”

“Objection,” John Henry interjected.  “Asked and answered.”

“Hardly, Your Honor,” Lily retorted.  “Either to my satisfaction or, I suspect, to the jury’s.”

“Overruled,” Judge Pelletier said.  “The witness will answer.”

Hitchens threw up his hands in exasperation.  “I don’t know what evidence you expect me to conjure up here,” he declared, “but my partner had injuries all over his body -- his face, his arms, his stomach -- indicating he was not the aggressor in the fight that preceded his death.”

“Could any of the injuries on the victim qualify as offensive wounds?” Lily wondered.  “Such as the bruised knuckles?”

“I suppose,” Hitchens was forced to admit.

“Ah, so what you really meant to say was that the deceased had what could be considered both offensive and defensive wounds on his body, is that correct?”

The detective stared at the defense attorney for a moment, as though weighing something in his mind.

“That’s correct,” he said finally.  “He may have had a few cuts and bruises on him that could have been classified as offensive wounds.  But not enough, in my judgment, to indicate that there had been any kind of a fair fight.”

“I see.  And your judgment that there was no evidence of self-defense involved in your partner’s death was made mostly on a personal basis, wasn’t it?”

Hitchens shrugged.  “He was my partner.”

“Yes, he was,” Lily said.  “And you were close?”

“Yeah, we were,” the detective responded.  “Not so close that I wasn’t seeing clear about the case, but I’d say we were pretty close.”

“Then let me ask you this,” the defense attorney pressed, “would it come as a big surprise to you if I were to suggest that your partner -- with whom you were close -- was a drug user?”

“Objection!” John