PRESUMED INNOCENT

Harrison Ford, 1990





Judge: Please draw a name.

Bailiff: (spinning tumbler) Judge Laryn Little

………

Judge: Now I have some motions from the Defense. Mr. Stern, you want to examine the scene of the crime, is that right?

Defense: Yes, your Honor, as part of examining the physical evidence to see if it actually proves what the Prosecution claims it proves.

Prosecution: With proviso nothing to be removed, nothing to be disturbed, no objection.

Judge: Granted. Mr. Stern, anything further?

Defense: Your Honor, we notice that Mr. Molto is listed both as a prosecutor and as a potential witness for the Prosecution. We object to that.

Judge: I take it you're speaking of where Mr. Savage responds to Mr. Molto's accusations of murder by saying "You're right?"

Prosecution: (Reading) "Yeah, you're right." Your Honor, the man admitted the crime.

Judge: Oh, c'mon, Mr. DeLaguardia, really. You tell a man he's engaged in wrongdoing, and he says, "Yeah, you're right." Now everybody knows that's facetious. We're all familiar with that. Shoot, in my neighborhood, had Mr. Savage come from those parts, he would have said, "Your mama." But in Mr. Savage's part of town, I would think they would say, "Yeah, you're right," and what they mean is, "You're wrong," just to be polite.

Attorney: Your Honor, isn't that a question for the jury?

Judge: No, on the contrary, Mr. DeLaguardia, it is first a question for the Court. Now, if you wish to use Mr. Savage's statement and risk my ruling it out of order, then I will bar Mr. Molto from prosecuting. But if he is the Prosecutor, then Mr. Savage's statement may not be offered. Then I'll see you in court in three weeks. Ernestine, show in the next bunch.

……..

Bailiff: The People vs. Rusty K. Savage, for Trial.

Prosecution: May it please the Court, the State's evidence will show that on or about April 1st of this year, Caroline Polhemus, the Deputy Prosecutor in Kendall County, was brutally murdered. The proof will show that this murder was perpetrated by her colleague, Rusty K. Savage.

……..

Defense: How are we answer this, Rusty Savage and I? Mr. DeLaguardia's case does not involve facts, but supposition upon supposition, guess upon guess. When you listen to the evidence, ask yourselves, why Rusty Savage? The finest Prosecutor of this County, a man who has devoted his life to preventing and punishing criminal behavior, not to committing it, sits here as the accused. Why?

……..

Prosecution: State calls Detective Harold Greer.

Defense: Your Honor, may we have a word at the Bench? Your Honor, this witness will testify about a bar glass. They have no bar glass.

Judge: What about this, Mr. DeLaguardia?

Prosecution: Your Honor, I learned the first time last night from Tommy--



Judge: Hold it right there. Inside, gentlemen.

D: Your Honor, I request that Mr. Savage join us in Chambers. He is an integral part of the Defense.

J: All right.

(In Chambers)

J: Molto, where is the f**king glass?

P: The police evidence room was where it's supposed to be, but they haven't been able to locate it.

J: Well, we're not going to be talking about evidence that nobody can find, not in my courtroom.

D: We have no objections to the photographs. Any testimony as to fingerprints we will object to.

J: I will reserve decision, gentlemen.

D: A little stroke of luck. Their disorganization will help us with the jury.

Savage: They'll find the glass, they always do.

……..

Judge: Ladies and gentlemen, these photographs depict horrors you may be expected to react to with disgust. But I'm instructing you that in themselves they are proof of nothing except the nature of the crime.

……..

Prosecution: Do you know the Defendant Rosat Savage?

Hogan: Sure, I know Rusty. I've known him since he was a law student. He was my second-in-command.

Q: Would you identify him? (Rusty stands.)

A: That's him.

Q: You assigned Mr. Savage to supervise the investigation in this case?

A: He volunteered, and I accepted. He promised to pursue it vigorously.

Q: Did he?

A: Not to my way of thinking, no. I got the feeling he was stalling on the investigation, and I let him know that I wasn't happy about that. He brought in his own detective to replace Harold Greer, and then he gave this new partner of his instructions to ignore evidence about telephone calls between his house and Caroline's. He tried to limit the scope of the fingerprint search so as to exclude his own. He seemed much more interested in whether I had been intimate with Caroline Polhemus than in the facts surrounding her murder.

Q: What did you tell him about you and Miss Polhemus?

A: I told him the truth, that we had been together for about three months. This, of course, was after I was divorced.

Q: At that time, or any other time, did Mr. Savage inform you that he had had a personal relationship with Miss Polhemus?

Defense: Objection, there is no proof in the record of any relationship between the Defendant and Miss Polhemus.

Judge: Well, I'm going to let the question stand, but ladies and gentlemen, Mr. DeLaguardia is asking a question based on his assumption that there was something going on between Mr. Savage and Miss Polhemus. Just because he thinks it's so, doesn't make it so. Proceed.

Q: Mr. Hogan?

A: I never would have let him handle the investigation if I'd thought he'd had an intimate relationship with the victim.



Q: Nothing further.

Defense: Have you any personal knowledge, Mr. Hogan, that there was ever a personal relationship between Mr. Savage and Miss Polhemus?

A: That's just the point, he didn't tell me.

Q: Please answer the question that I asked you. Do you remember the question?

A: I do.

Q: But you chose not to answer it?

A: I apologize, Mr. Stern. I have no personal knowledge that such a relationship ever existed.

Q: But assuming there was something to disclose, you believe he as an honest official should have informed anyone in a responsible position?

A: I do.

Q: Certainly, you would give any information you had, relevant to a case, to a member of your staff investigating the case?

A: Certainly.

Q: Mr. Hogan, you removed a file, a so-called B-file, from Miss Polhemus' office after the investigation of her murder began?

Prosecution: What's the relevance of this, Counsel?

Defense: Your Honor, the witness has testified under direct examination that Mr. Savage did not bring to his attention information that he regarded as pertinent, the Defense is entitled to explore Mr. Hogan's standards in this regard.

Judge: Subject to a later connection, I'll allow it. Continue, Counsellor.

Defense: And you gave that B-file to Mr. Savage only after he informed you that it was missing from Miss Polhermis' office, is that not true?

A: That's true.

Q: You've told us that you and Caroline were lovers?

A: For a short time, yes.

Q: B-file cases, cases involving bribery and official misconduct, are normally to the Assistant Deputy, at the time Mr. Savage, is that not true?

A: That was the usual practice, yes sir.

Q: You gave this highly sensitive matter in this B-file to Caroline Polhermis while you were sleeping with her?

A: That appears to be the time-frame. The answer to the question is yes.

Q: And were you not concerned, sir, in the midst of a nip and tuck election campaign, about word leaking out that you had secretly given a file that was in Mr. Savage's area of authority to an assistant with no experience in such matters with whom you were sleeping at the time?

A: Who knows, Mr. Stern? It was not an ideal situation.

Q: Far from it. And sir, you come to this courtroom, where the life of a man who served you faithfully for a dozen years, now hangs in the balance, and you tell us you withheld evidence from him that might have assisted him in his investigation? All right. Is it fair to say that the Chief Deputy is the person in the office in whose judgment you place the greatest confidence?

A: I regarded him as the best lawyer for the job, yes.

Q: And you gave Mr. Savage the authority to decide when and where to fire Mr. DeLaguardia?

Judge: Gentlemen, let's stop right there. (In Chambers)

Judge: What is the relevance of who fired who?

Defense: Judge, it's our theory that Mr. Savage is being framed in this case.



Prosecution: I don't believe this. Beneath contempt.

Judge: Your response has been noted. If Mr. Stern is truly going to endeavour to prove that the case against Mr. Savage has been manufactured, then I suppose this history of antagonism is relevant for those purposes. Now what about this missing B-file?

Defense: We believe it's being withheld because it contains evidence that is necessary to the Defense. So we intend to pursue this matter until we have a full understanding on how it bears on the truth.

Judge: I don't know where this is going to lead us, but I'll tell you two things. You had better be prepared for the Prosecution's response, because he is going to be entitled to a great deal of latitude in answering, because I am going to give him that.

……..

Defense: Do you recall that we spoke about a B-file that you assigned to Miss Polhemus?

Hogan: I believe I'll remember it for quite some time.

Q: Did Mr. Molto ever tell you that he was involved in this case--

Prosecution: Objection!

Judge: Objection sustained. Mr. Stern, you're playing with fire.

Q: Do you know what investigation, if any, Mr. Molto pursued--

Prosecution: I'll answer that. He took no action. He wasn't going to chase Rusty Savage's red herrings.

Judge: Mr. DeLaguardia, you will remember that you are the Prosecutor, not the witness.

Defense: Perhaps we can all learn something about red-herrings and scapegoats. That is all.

Judge: This court is adjourned for the weekend.

……..

Prosecution: Did Mr. Savage ever tell you that he had a personal relationship with Caroline Polhemus?

Detective: No.

Q: Did Mr. Savage at any time order you not to get the telephone company records of calls from his home?

A: He never ordered me, no sir. He asked me.

Q: He asked you not to get those records? And did you oblige him?

A: Well, I was taken off the case before I got to those records.

Q: You did or did not get those records?

A: No sir, I did not. We had a lot of higher-priority items on our minds.

Q: One of the high-priority items was getting fingerprint analyses of fingerprints found in Caroline Polhemus' apartment. Who was communicating with the fingerprint lab?

A: Mr. Savage.

Q: Did you ask him to expedite the reports?

A: Yes sir, I did.

Q: And what did he say, if anything?

A: He said he forgot.

Q: He forgot. Rusty forgot. Would it be fair to say that the two of you, by working together, have formed a personal friendship?

A: I suppose so, yes.

Q: Were you assigned to the case initially?

A: No sir, Harold Greer initially handled the case.

Q: Has Mr. Savage ever expressed to you any reservations about Harold Greer's abilities?

A: Everybody I know thinks of Harold Greer as a top-grade cop.

Q: Do you know who decided to replace Harold Greer and bring you on this case?

A: Mr. Savage.

Q: Do you feel . . . . (to Recorder) withdrawn. To your knowledge, does the Defendant have a closer personal relationship with anyone on the police force than he does with you, Detective Pranzer?

A: Not that he's mentioned, no.

Q: So it's fair to say, Detective, is it not, that you are the person on the police force the least likely to suspect Mr. Savage of murder?

A: I would never believe that. Never.

Q: Thank you for your cooperation in answering what must have been painful and difficult questions for you, considering your relationship to the Defendant. Nothing further.

Defense: You made reference to a theory you were developing that Caroline Polhemus might have been the victim of a revenge killer, someone she had once sent to jail?

A: Yes sir, we thought of that as our most likely case.

Q: And to identify possible suspects, you reviewed the files of cases she had prosecuted and was currently prosecuting going back several years, is that correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Were you able to find all those files?

A: No sir, a file was missing.

Q: This was a so-called B-file that was withheld from you and Mr. Savage until Mr. Savage requested it personally from Mr. Hogan, is that correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: It involved allegations--

A: Let's move on. Counsel has been warned about this riding off in all kinds of directions

Q: No further questions, Detective.

A: No redirect, your Honor.

……..

Prosecution: State offers as evidence from suit coat in bedroom closet in Defendant's home, a hair identified by police crime lab as that of the deceased. The skirt of the deceased contaminated with fiber identified as Zorak 5, a carpet fabric found in the home of the Defendant. Report of Forensic Chemist identifying blood type and semen from the vagina of the deceased as type A. Report of results of blood test of Rosat Savage, identifying his as blood type A. The shirt of the deceased, contaminated with fiber identified as Zorak 5, carpet fabric used in the Defendant's home. Your Honor, the State now calls Detective Morrison--

Defense: Your Honor, this relates to the missing evidence. (In Chambers)

Defense: Judge, I hope you're not considering allowing them to proceed with the fingerprint evidence in the absence of the glass. If so, we certainly would like to be heard on that question.

Judge: I understand that. You may want to do some research into this issue, Mr. Stern. You hit the books tonight, and I'll listen to you tomorrow. (to Prosecution) And if I were you, I'd roll up my shirt-sleeves and get down to that evidence room myself and find that glass.

……..



Defense: Your Honor, before we begin our presentation, I would like to make--

Judge: Make a motion for dismissal?

Defense: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Sit down, Counsellor. I have reflected on this case at length, ladies and gentlemen. Now, I understand the Prosecutors have suspicions. Perhaps Mr. Savage was there that night. The state might be entitled to that inference and if the Prosecutors had ever found that glass, I might be more convinced. Before yesterday, I might even have said there were reasonable grounds for those suspicions. But now, I'm not so sure. After yesterday, there is no proof of motive here. There is no concrete evidence that there ever was an intimate relationship. There is no effective proof as far as I am concerned, that would give a reasonable person grounds to believe that Mr. Savage had carnal relations with Miss Polhemus on the night of her death. In point of fact, there's not one shred of direct proof that Mr. Savage murdered Miss Polhemus. So under these circumstances, I cannot allow this trial to continue. Mr. Savage, you are discharged, sir, and I cannot begin to tell you how sorry I am that any of this has taken place. Not even the pleasure of seeing you free can make up for this disgrace to the cause of justice. I wish you Godspeed. Case dismissed.



END