Arthur is aghast that Chance’s calumnies of the first edition, clumsily addressed in the second edition, have actually been exacerbated by the inclusion of a chapter on the murder trial of R. v. Angelina Santos. The assertion in the book that during that time Arthur dallied with a pair of “women for hire” has aggravated Margaret. He decides to set the record straight or at least put his actions in context by writing his own memoir of the famous trial which took place 56 years earlier in 1966.
He heads to his spartan cabin near his home, places paper in his aged typewriter and writes of his stalwart defence of Miss (it is well before Ms.) Santos in Fort Thompson (Fort Tom), near the Yukon border in northeastern British Columbia. She is a 20 year old Filipina immigrant.
A domestic servant, she is charged with murder for shooting her employer, Frederick C. Trudd, with his rifle. She alleges he had raped her three days earlier. The local townspeople have raised $15,000 for the defence, a major fee in the 1960’s. The community despised Trudd.
Arthur’s section head, Alex Pappas, considers her doomed. Fueled by several double Scotches (he did not quit drinking until 1987) Arthur vows:
“If she goes down it won’t be because I didn’t fight for her”.
At the same time Pappas, with Arthur’s aid, is preparing for the murder trial of Vancouver’s richest man, Herb MacIntosh.
Arthur, raised in one of Vancouver’s wealthiest neighbourhoods, by a pair of university professors, recognizes he is ill-equipped to understand life in the distant forests of northern British Columbia.
Arthur is dismayed by his client’s honesty:
But I would find it awkward relating to a client who, apparently, was incapable of telling lies. Most of my defendants hadn’t suffered that handicap.
She is a Catholic woman of great faith. She refers to her unborn child as a “beautiful miracle”.
She remembers little of the crucial moments before shooting Trudd. A prison doctor believes she has repressed these memories.
She is a woman without guile which disconcerts the young Arthur.
Unfortunately, the socially awkward inhibited Arthur does not conduct a detailed discussion with Angelina concerning the rape and its aftermath.
The case draws one of the province’s newest judges, Wilbur Kroop, a combative Federal prosecutor before ascending to the bench. Arthur and Justice Kroop have an intense mutual disdain.
Prosecuting will be an aggressive, though lazy, loudmouth from Vancouver, Ed Santorini. He will be assisted by a young lawyer, Clara Moncrief.
Heading north for the trial, Arthur’s flight is cancelled and he unwisely takes the bus. It is a 30 hour ride beset by breakdowns and belligerent adults and crying children.
Arthur spends the days before the trial in Fort Tom working to build a defence.
He is beguiled by the comely Miss Moncrief. Will he venture into a relationship with a Crown?
His client believes God will stop the government from taking away her baby if she is convicted of murder.
Occasionally the plot drifts back to 2022 where Arthur’s memories of 1966 are aided by the mouse nibbled transcript of the trial his law firm unearthed from its archives.
Ridden with anxiety - few lawyers are any different before a trial - Arthur appears mentally unready for a capital murder trial but, when Order is called, he rises and becomes the experienced barrister of 5 years at the bar.
While Angelina had told Arthur only “God will decide her guilt or innocence” she does plead not guilty.
Shortly after the trial begins the Crown plays the recording of Angelina’s call to the RCMP:
“Please come. I think I shot Mr. Trudd and he’s dead.”
The reason for the title of the book is made clear through those two sentences.
The Crown case proceeds with Arthur engaged in skilful cross-examinations. It is a challenge to question those either experienced with testifying, police officers, or having expertise, doctors, but there are opportunities when they are arrogant or careless.
No one writes trial evidence better than Deverell.
I found Arthur’s doubts and hesitations about calling a witness who might identify an alternative killer misguided. No defence lawyer can worry about the consequences to a legitimate alternative. His/her duty is to advocate for their client. If your client’s interests are secondary you must withdraw as counsel.
It took me awhile, though I was ahead of Arthur, to figure out there would be a mighty twist because of the pregnancy.
Arthur’s quick wit and willingness to tread over legal boundaries makes the trial entertaining. There are consequences.
In the end, Arthur faces the greatest challenge of defence lawyers. Should Angelina testify?
I was shaking my head at Arthur’s hubris at the end of the trial. If found guilty of murder the sentence was bound to be that Angelina was to hang though Arthur certainly knew that the Federal Cabinet had commuted all death sentences as a matter of policy since 1963. With hanging no longer the punishment Angelina would have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
His address to the jury is mesmerizing though it would have faced valid objections over raising facts not in evidence.
The Long-Shot Trial is another excellent Deverell mystery. The trial is riveting. The stretching of trial proprieties was present but not over done. Deverell is a master craftsman of legal mysteries. Arthur Beauchamp is a barrister nonpariel.
****
I really like the idea of the story (the trial) within the story (Beauchamp reading the book, and Margaret's reaction to it). Like you, Bill, I enjoy a book where a trial is depicted well. And Beauchamp is nothing if not an excellent trial lawyer. It's an interesting case, too, and Deverell's writing is excellent. I'm pleased, but not surprised, that you enjoyed this so well.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. I wish I could be as eloquent as Arthur is in court. I think Deverell would have been very interesting to watch in court in real life.
DeleteI read an earlier book by this author, on your recommendation, and absolutely loved it, so maybe time for another! I see he's written a few since the one I read.
ReplyDeleteMoira: Thanks for the comment. Deverell is an excellent writer and portrays trials both skilfully and with minimal deviation from reality.
Delete