Dog Tags

CHAPTER 57

DETECTIVE DONN SANFORD IS VERY ANNOYED AT HAVING TO TESTIFY. That is obvious by his body language and the short, curt answers he gives to Eli’s questions. I have seen Detective Sanford testify a number of times, and he is ordinarily an outstanding witness, authoritative and confident. Not today.

Sanford is Billy’s friend; they joined the police force in the same class. It is not part of his makeup to betray a friend—but neither is it part of that makeup to lie under oath. So he’s here, but he’s obviously not happy about it.

Hike has once again joined me at the defense table, having returned from his trip with Willie. I was glad to see him, both because he’s a valuable trial resource for me to call on, and because his arrival means that Willie didn’t drop him out of the airplane. The last thing I needed was another murder trial.

Eli leads Sanford to say that he and two other detectives went with Billy to a Knicks game at Madison Square Garden soon after Billy returned from Iraq, and afterward they went to a bar on West 35th Street.

“And the four of you had a conversation at the bar?” Eli asks.

“Yes.”

“Did Erskine’s name come up?”

“Yes.”

“Who first mentioned him?” Eli asks.

“I believe it was Billy Zimmerman.”

He barely whispers it, and Judge Catchings asks him to speak up, so he says it more loudly. I’m annoyed with Eli for putting Sanford through this. I know from the witness list that the other two detectives who were part of the conversation are going to testify. They are not friends of Billy, and have little compunction about doing so. Sanford is not necessary for Eli’s case, but he probably wants to show the jury that even Billy’s buddy has evidence against him.

Eli gets Sanford to say that Billy had some drinks in him, and talked about how it was Erskine’s fault that he lost his leg, which in turn cost him his jobs with the army and then the police force when he got home.

“Did he say what he would like to do about it?” Eli asked.

“He didn’t say anything. It was the alcohol doing the talking.”

Eli objects and Catchings admonishes Sanford for the unresponsive answer. “He said he’d like to kill the son of a bitch,” Sanford says. “That if he had the chance he’d strangle him with his bare hands.”

On that dramatic note, Eli turns the witness over to me. Sanford and I have tangled quite a few times over the years, and there have been times he would admit he wanted to strangle me with his bare hands. But right now he’s looking to me for help.

“Detective Sanford, when you heard Billy Zimmerman say those things about Mr. Erskine, did it worry you?”

“No.”

“Did you caution him against taking violent action? Or contact Mr. Erskine and warn him his life was in danger?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because it was just talk,” he says. “We were drinking and saying stupid things. I knew Billy well enough not to take it seriously.”

I nod my agreement. “Detective, does the name Randall Brubaker mean anything to you?”

“Yes, it does.” He just about lights up at the question, since he knows where this is going. I draw out of him the fact that Brubaker was a drug dealer who preyed on local high school kids. One of those kids, Joey Davidson, died of an overdose, and Brubaker was arrested in connection with it.

“Who was Joey Davidson?” I ask.

“He was Billy’s nephew. His sister’s kid.”

“Was Brubaker convicted of that crime?”

“No, he got off on a technicality. Mishandling of evidence.”

I frown, as if this is unpleasant news to me. “And how did Billy react?”

“He was very upset. He said he wanted to put a bullet in his head, so he couldn’t destroy any more kids.”

“And did he put a bullet in his head?”

“No. But he watched him, on his own time when he was off duty, and caught him doing it again.”

“So he arrested him?”

“No, he called in backup to do it. That way Brubaker’s lawyer couldn’t claim that Billy set him up, and the case wouldn’t be compromised.”

“How did it turn out?”

“Brubaker got thirty years.”

“Thank you.”

This testimony from Sanford is a little risky. In truth it shows that Billy had a grudge against Brubaker, and it caused him to go above and beyond the call of duty to nail him. It could be thought by some to show that Billy acts on his grudges, and that in Erskine’s case he just took it a major step farther.

On the positive side, it showed that Billy operated within the law and did not commit violence against someone deserving of it. Billy could probably have killed Brubaker and gotten away with it, but he chose to risk the legal system messing up again.

I have less luck with the other two people at the bar that night, since they are not friends of Billy and have no reluctance to testify against him.

Eli has successfully conveyed to the jury that Billy had a grudge against Erskine, was at the scene of the murder, and had a gun in his hand.

It’s getting ugly.