California Fire And Life

87

He walks in a Negative 7.

He can't see that, of course, but Jack can look into the jury's eyes and know they already don't like him.

It's one thing to look at a "jury" – even a focus group panel – from behind a one-way mirror. It's a whole different deal, Jack thinks, to be eyeball to eyeball with them, them staring at you like you're some sort of zoo animal.

A bad animal.

Anyway, he does his best to do what Peters advised him: Make eye contact, speak a little slow and a little loud, and answer the questions directly. Be calm, be cool, be confident.

Right, Jack thinks. Even as he sits down he can feel the sweat starting to bead on his forehead.

And Mallon staring at him.

Like, I've seen you before.

A long time ago, Judge, in a galaxy far, far away…

Peters starts him off with his background, his education, his experience level.

Then asks, "And how many fire claims would you say you've handled for Great Western?"

"I would estimate hundreds."

"As many as a thousand?"

"That's possible."

"And of that thousand," she asks, "how many were eventually denied for arson?"

"Very few."

"Can you give me a number?"

"A handful. Nine, ten."

"It's rare, isn't it?"

"Objection. Leading."

"Sustained."

"Could you give us an idea," Peters asks, "of the frequency of arson denials?"

"It's rare."

A low chuckle from the jury.

"Is it difficult to prove arson by an insured?"

"It can be."

"Why?"

"Arson is a crime that consumes its own evidence," Jack says. "It's also a crime in which the perpetrator tends to leave the scene before the event… for obvious reasons."

Jack feels himself flush because he used the word "crime" not once but twice – a supposed no-no in civil arson litigation, but then he thinks, Fuck it, I can't play for a tie here.

"Well," Peters says, "how do you prove arson by an insured?"

"As I understand the law," Jack says, "you need three elements: incendiary origin, motive, and opportunity."

She takes him through the meaning of the Tripartite Proof, then asks him, "Did you conclude that the White fire was of incendiary origin?"

"Yes, I did."

"What led you to that conclusion?"

"A number of things."

"Could you tell the jury what they were?"

Oh, yeah, Jack thinks. I sure could.

I could also take a dive, because this is the moment to do it. This would be the place to fumble, mumble, get my shit out of order, just generally look like a dooms.

Do the old two-and-a-half triple gainer with a twist and land headfirst in a pool with no water.

Crack.

Jack says, "It would be easier to explain using a chart and some photos I brought."

He gets up and walks over to a tripod stand. Flips the cover over to reveal a big blowup of his INCENDIARY ORIGIN/MOTIVE/OPPORTUNITY chart.

And runs it.

No mumbling, no fumbling.

Shit totally together, Jack runs the jury through the Tripartite Proof. Runs down all the evidence – the kerosene-soaked samples, the holes in the floor, the hole in the roof above the bed, the pour pattern. He matches each item with a blown-up photograph and he talks to the jurors as if they're in the house with him when he took the pictures.

Peters lets him go. You got a Thoroughbred, you give it its head, you let it run, and Jack is running like freaking Secretariat.

His ProCon numbers shoot up into the Positive 8 range.

Jack is amped.

He starts in on motive.

Runs the column.

Tells them how he concluded that White's motives were both personal and financial. Walks the jurors through the Whites' marital problems, their public fights, her drinking and rehab, the restraining order, the separation, and the upcoming divorce.

Then he takes them through White's finances: the $600,000 balloon payment on the house, the tax debts, the flat real estate investments, the tapped-out bank account, the delinquent credit card bills, the expensive furniture collection, the threat of alimony and child support, the threat of losing half of his meager assets to his wife.

The jury is tripping on Jack. They're pulling back on their joysticks like they're triggering a cocaine drip. There are 9s and 10s lighting up on the old monitor like Jack is some sort of eighty-five-pound adolescent girl on the uneven parallel bars.

"Did all this lead you to reach any conclusions?" Peters asks.

"Yes," Jack says. "That he was about to lose his home, his business, and his furniture."

"You seem to think the furniture is important, why is that?"

"It represented a very considerable investment," Jack says. "Also, it was one of the first things Mr. White asked me about the day of the fire."

"The day of the fire?"

"Yes."

"Mr. White called you about his claim the same day his wife was killed?" Peters asks, looking at the jury, an incredulous little tremor in her voice.

"Yes," Jack says, matter-of-factly. Better to let the jury get indignant.

"So the fact that he was about to lose all these things," Peters says, still shaking her head a little, "did that mean anything to you?"

"Yes, it meant to me that he had sufficient motive to set the fire."

"And murder his wife?"

Casey launches up. "Objection!"

Jack says, "It's hard to reach the conclusion that the fire was intentional and the death accidental. There is also forensic evidence to indicate that she was dead before the fire broke out."

"Which is probably beyond the scope of this inquiry tonight," Mallon quickly tells the jury. "Suffice to say that a coroner has ruled that Mrs. White died as the result of an overdose of drugs and alcohol."

And thank you very much, Your Honor, Jack thinks.

Mallon gives Jack a dirty glance, because Pam Vale's death was supposed to be out-of-bounds. Jack gives him an innocent look but he's thinking, Fuck you – Casey brought it up in his opening and he's not playing by the rides, so I'm not playing by the rules. In fact…

"Mr. Casey told the jury we accused his client of murder," Jack says. "We didn't – we're not the police – but I thought the jury should know why we denied the life insurance claim."

"You're out of order, Mr. Smith," Mallon says.

"Sorry."

Jack looks over at Casey, who is working, albeit none too hard, to suppress a smile.

The jury is grooving on this little spat. Winging happy numbers back to the observation room.

Mallon says, "Ms. Peters, if you would continue your direct…"

"Gladly," Peters says. "Let's talk about opportunity."

She says this giving Jack a look like. Get back on the leash, claims dog. He does, and she leads him through his testimony on whether White had the opportunity to set the fire.

Jack takes the jurors through the points on the locked doors and windows, the burglar alarm not going off, the time it would have taken White to drive from his mother's house, set the fire, and drive back.

Then Peters asks, "Did you talk to White's mother about his whereabouts that night?"

"Yes."

"What did she tell you?"

"That her son was home watching a movie that night, and that she saw him at her house during the time the fire was being set,"

"Did you believe her?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"The guard at the gate told me he saw Mr. White come back in at 4:45 a.m.," Jack says.

To a little ahhhh from the jury.

"And the combined weight of all the other evidence argued against her alibi," Jack says. "She had a vested interest in protecting both her son and her own home, which Mr. White had mortgaged to raise capital to cover other debts."

"Any other points on opportunity?"

"The dog."

"The dog?"

She looks at him with feigned puzzlement. The jurors don't – their puzzlement is genuine.

Jack looks at them and explains the whole thing about the dog. He finishes with, "I came to the conclusion that Mr. White let the dog out before setting the fire."

Peters can't help herself. "He loved his dog more than his wife?"

"Objection."

"Sustained."

"Did you consider whether there was anyone else who had the opportunity to set this fire?" Peters asks.

"No facts came to light to indicate that there was anyone else," Jack answers.

"Did you reach a conclusion as to the issue of opportunity?"

"Yes."

"What was your conclusion?"

"That Mr. White had sufficient opportunity to have either set the fire or known that the fire was going to be set."

"Earlier, you testified about there being three elements necessary to deny a claim based on arson," Peters says. "Do you recall that testimony?"

He does and she knows he does. She wants the jury to recall it before she goes on.

"I do," Jack says.

"Did you reach a conclusion whether those three elements were sufficiently proved so that you could reasonably deny Mr. White's claim?"

"I did."

"And what was your conclusion?"

Jack says, "Based on the totality of the facts we learned, I concluded that there was sufficient evidence to deny the claim."

"Beyond a reasonable doubt?"

"I don't know if I could describe it in those words," Jack says. "Let me just say that I'd have to be damn sure."

"And were you 'damn sure' that Mr. White was involved in this fire?"

Jack looks at the jury.

Says, " Damn sure."

"No further questions. Thank you."

Goddamn Billy breaks into applause.

Turns back to the corporate mucks and points to the monitor.

Solid 10s across the board.

Jack Wade had killed.