Play Dead

Richard, a look of pure joy on his face, finally makes it to his feet. “Sit, Reggie,” he says, and Reggie immediately assumes a sitting position, as if waiting for the next command. The only sign to connect him to the chaos he has just caused is the fact that he is panting from the exertion.

It is a demonstration stunning in its simplicity; just by those two words Richard said all there was to say. No reasonable person could have witnessed what just took place and continue to have any doubt that Reggie is Richard’s dog.

It turns out that Coletti is not a reasonable person. “Your Honor, may we approach the bench?” she asks.

Judge Gordon grants her request, and Coletti and I walk up for a private conference. “Your Honor, the defense should be admonished for that performance. It runs completely counter to what was agreed upon. The dog was supposed to be kept on the leash, under control.”

I laugh. “Under control? It would have taken a marine battalion to keep him under control. He was seeing his owner for the first time in five years.”

“That ownership is still to be determined,” Coletti says.

“Were you in the courtroom just now?” Judge Gordon asks her. “Did you see what I saw?”

“I saw a demonstration that might well have been staged,” she says.

I shake my head in exaggerated amazement. “Staged? He’s a dog; he’s not DeNiro.”

“Ms. Colletti,” Judge Gordon says, “if the state wants to continue this, then the defendant can put the dog through whatever tricks they have planned. But I am telling you, as far as the court is concerned, this is the defendant’s dog.”

Coletti can tell that she has pushed this as far as possible. “We can end it here.”

We both go back to our respective tables. Reggie is once again standing near the witness stand, held on the leash by Karen.

“No further questions,” I say. “The witness is excused.”

Karen and Reggie leave the courtroom, and both Coletti and I announce that we have no more witnesses. Coletti stands to give her closing argument.

“Your Honor, five years ago a lengthy investigation focused on the murder of Stacy Harriman. Hundreds of hours of work went into it by experienced, dedicated professional law enforcement officers.

“They determined that there was probable cause that Mr. Evans committed the crime. Their work was reviewed by the county attorney, who agreed with their conclusions and filed murder charges against Mr. Evans.

“A four-week trial then took place, during which Mr. Evans was ably defended. He entered that trial with the presumption of innocence and retained the right to challenge his accusers. At the conclusion of that trial, a jury of his peers deliberated for eight hours before unanimously voting to convict him.

“What has changed since then? We have now learned that Mr. Evans had infinitesimal traces of campene in his system. This might be significant, if we could be sure how it got there.

“And we know that a golden retriever seems to be the dog that Mr. Evans used to own. This also might be significant if Mr. Evans had been convicted of murdering that golden retriever, or even of dognapping. But no such charges were ever filed.

“Your Honor, the defense has not even come close to meeting its burden. To grant a new trial on this flimsy evidence would be to discredit the original trial, and there is certainly no reason to do that.”

Coletti sits down, and as she does, I stand up immediately. She has presented a reasonably convincing argument, and I don’t want it to stand unchallenged for a moment longer than necessary.

“Your Honor, I was not involved in Mr. Evans’s original trial, but I have carefully read the transcript. Most of what I read was presented by the prosecution, since the great majority of the witnesses called were theirs.

“The prosecution contended back then that Mr. Evans sustained his facial bruise from falling out of bed. When Dr. King came in here and said that it could not have happened that way, they backpedaled and said it could have happened as he was staggering around the room.

“The prosecution contended back then that Mr. Evans swallowed a bottle of pills. Yet we find out today that they cannot find any pharmacy that prescribed the pills, and that Mr. Evans would have had to eat them dry, without using water. Such a technique would have been masochistic, in addition to being suicidal.

“The prosecution contended back then that Mr. Evans’s dog was on board the boat; they presented eyewitnesses that were quite clear about it. They told the jury that he killed that dog by throwing him overboard, and then described the act as evidence of his depravity.