The Pizza Connection case provides a stark example of how a witness’s testimony can be exposed as comical if the witness refuses to provide the truthful answers. The Pizza Connection case was a mega-trial involving 18 defendants who were charged with a $1.6 billion heroin smuggling and money laundering that stretched from Brazil to small pizzerias in the the Midwest. Trial lasted from October 24, 1985 to March 2, 1987.
The following is an excerpt from Shanna Alexander’s book The Pizza Connection: Lawyers, Money, Drugs, Mafia 318-320 (Weidenfeld & Nicholson) (1988) in which she describes United States Attorney Robert Stewart’s cross-examination of an alibi witness and it’s a gem of a cross:
(Defense counsel) Larry Bronson’s defense of (defendant) Sal Greco is focused on his client’s need to prove that he was not in a Bagheria farmhouse in early March 1980 watching a heroin quality-control test. Bronson will show he [Greco] was quietly, busily at home in New Jersey. He calls Greco’s good friend and tax accountant, Justin Pisano, a man who keeps detailed date books.
Under patient examination by Bronson, the witness goes through a precise account of driving to the Jersey Shore three Sundays in March to go over Greco’s accounts and to visit nearby pizzerias with his client in order to compare their business with that of the Greco pizzeria in Neptune City.
Stewart’s cross-examination of Pisano becomes this prosecutor’s finest hour. He concentrates on the March date-book entries.
“On March 2, yes, I drove down to see Greco,” Pisano says, “and we had a leisurely dinner.”
“You told us yesterday you were in no rush, right?” “Yes.” “And that’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
‘Yes.” “Then what is this appointment for 7:00 p.m., with Troviatta?” “Just a tax appointment. Early March is income tax time, and I made many Sunday and night appointments to service all my tax clients.” “What is Troviatta’s first name? Where does he live?” “I don’t remember. I don’t even think I do their taxes anymore.” Stewart remembers. He says Pisano was thirty-five miles away from Greco’s pizzeria that night, in the heart of Manhattan, at Lincoln Center, at the opera. Pisano emphatically denies this. He has only been to Lincoln Center once in his life, to hear Pavarotti. “Are you an opera fan?” “Nope. Only been to one opera in my life, when I was in high school.” Stewart shows the witness, and the jury, the Sunday-evening newspaper opera listing for March 2, 1980, at the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center: La Traviata. Bronson objects. “Misleading the witness, your Honor. His witness’s tax client is named Troviatta—with two t’s.” “And the advertisement for the opera is spelled T-R-A-V-I-A-T-A, right?”Stewart asks. “No. It’s La Traviata,” says Pisano gamely. “La Traviata?” “Right. I don’t see the comparison to Troviatta.” “Except for the time. That’s a coincidence. Isn’t it?” Pisano agrees, and Stewart directs him to look at the entry for two Sundays ahead,
March 16, at one in the afternoon. “Are you referring to Carmen? Carmen Sangari, who I no longer do?” “Carmen Sangari?” Stewart produces the New York Times, and asks him to read aloud the opera listing for that Sunday afternoon. Pisano looks, and agrees that this is truly an amazing coincidence.
Spectators have begun to giggle. But Stewart is not finished. He directs the wit- ness’s attention to his diary entry for the following Sunday at 7:00 p.m. “Is that a tax client of yours?”
The giggling turns to guffaws. The notebook says, “Barber of Seville.”
This cross illustrates that no matter which way the witness responds, the cross-examiner wins when the question require that the witness concede the truth or suffer the consequences.
Another striking example of how to catch the truth on cross-examination occurred during the manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray who was Michael Jackson’s doctor. That cross illustrates the axiom that a cross-examiner must know the answer before asking the question on cross. The answer sought is the truth that either supports the examiner’s case theory or undermines the other side’s case theory. The proposition holds true for lay witnesses and, as the following example shows, for expert witnesses as well.
Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson’s doctor, was prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. The defense called Dr. Paul White to testify to, among other things, that Jackson self-medicated with his own stash of propofol thereby causing his own death. Prosecutor David Walgren relied on concession-seeking cross-examination to build his case against Dr. Conrad. Walgren asked questions to which he knew the defense expert had to answer in a way that was favorable to the prosecution. They included:
"Do you agree that there are instances where Dr. Murray deviated from the standards of care in his treatment of Michael Jackson on June 25, 2009?"
"And would you agree that there were instances where Dr. Murray deviated from the standards of care in the preceding two months of treatment, as relayed by Dr. Murray in his statement to police?"
“Have you ever used propofol in someone’s bedroom?”
“Have you ever heard of anyone doing that prior to this case?”
Murray’s expert Dr. White had to make these concessions because they comported with common sense and the standard of care for medical treatment of a patient.
Cross-Examination Handbook covers this concession-seeking cross-examination technique, including how to identify the content of this type of cross – what the truth that the witness must concede - and how to construct and conduct a smooth flowing and effective cross to elicit the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment