Ice Hunter by Joseph Heywood Page B

turned to face the jury. “In fact you did not see my client discharge a weapon. What you heard could have been another weapon, am I right?”
    â€œIt was his.”
    â€œBut theoretically it could have been another. Did you find spent cartridges?”
    â€œNo.”
    â€œHow do you account for that?”
    â€œI don’t.”
    â€œSo you did not see my client discharge a firearm of any kind and you found no spent cartridges, is that correct?”
    â€œYes.”
    â€œOfficer, were rounds missing from the defendant’s clip?”
    â€œNo, because—”
    â€œYou’ve answered the question, Officer. Thank you.”
    Doolin would circle back to this one.
    â€œIf you did not see Mister Schembekeler fire a weapon—any weapon—and you found no cartridges, then you must agree that theoretically there could have been another shooter.”
    â€œTheoretically.”
    Bois smiled at the jury. “Thank you, Your Honor.”
    â€œRedirect,” Peltinen said, checking his watch.
    Doolin asked, “Officer Service, how could there be no rounds missing from the clip?”
    â€œBecause there wasn’t any clip. It was a single-shot weapon.” Doolin was hokey, but he was good.
    â€œHad the weapon been fired?”
    â€œIt had.”
    â€œHow do you verify this?”
    â€œMy nose and a test.”
    â€œWas this test done?”
    â€œYes.”
    â€œWhen?”
    â€œOn scene immediately after the apprehension.”
    â€œAnd the result?”
    â€œIt was positive. The weapon had been fired.”
    â€œThank you. Did you recover a slug from the dead animal?”
    â€œYes. It was the same caliber as the defendant’s rifle, but the bullet was too fragmented for ballistics.”
    â€œCan you explain this to me? Our jury probably understands this stuff, but I don’t.”
    Doolin played every angle. “This caliber with this powder load makes the bullet tumble. When it strikes something hard, it shreds.”
    â€œHave you had previous experience with this caliber?”
    â€œYes, it’s poachers’ favorite flavor.”
    â€œDid the defendant deny the weapon was his?”
    â€œNo.”
    â€œDid the defendant say he had shot the animal?”
    â€œNo. He only said that it wasn’t his fault, that he had been intoxicated by sweets.”
    â€œHow did you interpret this?”
    â€œHe had shot the animal, but was not acting rationally.”
    â€œAnd his weapon was equipped with a silencer, which is against federal statutes.”
    â€œObjection,” Bois said angrily. “There is no charge on a silencer in this case.”
    Peltinen grimaced. “Overruled. Answer the question, Officer Service.”
    â€œYes, silencers are illegal.”
    â€œOfficer, have you ever arrested other suspects when you did not see them shoot?”
    â€œMany times.”
    â€œAnd all those arrests stuck?”
    â€œObjection,” Bois said. “Irrelevant.”
    â€œSustained,” the judge said.
    â€œDid you hear any other shots that night?” Doolin asked.
    â€œNone.”
    â€œIf we are to believe the defense, there would need to be two poachers in the woods at that isolated location, both with the same weapon, same ammo load, and each with a silencer, is that correct?”
    â€œThat seems to be his theory.”
    â€œWhat’re the odds of that?”
    â€œObjection,” Bois said with a raspy growl. “The witness is not a statistician.”
    â€œWithdrawn,” Doolin said. “Officer Service, in your twenty years with the DNR how many silencers had you encountered in the field before this situation?”
    â€œNone.”
    â€œThis was the first one in twenty years?” Doolin looked surprised. It was more playacting.
    â€œYes.”
    â€œYour first ever, and defense counsel would have us believe that there were two?”
    â€œObjection!” Bois