back on the line the second time that he mentions to the operator that he’s Senator Steele. Once that comes out, the cops know exactly where to go. When they get there, they find Sharon Steele with thirty-nine stab wounds all over her body laying dead in the middle of the bathroom floor.”
The table went quiet. Carver sorted through the empty mussels, looking for another and not finding it. The clinking of shells in a bowl of broth was an odd counterpoint. The guy at the next table coughed and I glanced over at him. He was bald, with a thick moustache and touristy street clothes. He looked as out of place as I felt. Then the waiter arrived with the food and I took a bite of the best damned ham and cheese sandwich I’ve ever had. A twenty-two dollar ham and cheese sandwich. Both immoral and awesome at the same time.
Finally, Carver said, “But here’s where it gets messy.” He grinned, “No pun intended. First, the cops never find the murder weapon. The prosecutor argued that the injuries were consistent with a normal kitchen knife, which Steele had, but none of the knives in Steele’s kitchen had any trace of blood on them, and none were missing. And the time of death was such that Steele wouldn’t have had time to go anywhere to dispose of a knife. She was still warm and had blood running out of her when the cops got there. Of course, Steele says the killer took the knife with him. But the prosecution argued that Steele washed off one of his own kitchen knives and just put it away when he was through. They were apparently solid steel knives that would have been easy to clean. That’s problem one.”
“Second, there were no signs of forced entry. But an EMT looked at Steele’s head and found signs of a minor injury. Steele said it was from being pushed down, but the doctor testified that it was also consistent with a blow from a struggle, much as he presumably would have had with his wife while he stabbed her.”
“There’s another odd fact,” Reilly added, putting a crust of bread in his mouth and speaking as he chewed. “Steele had a wound on his hand that he claims he got when the intruder slashed at him. But again, there was testimony that the wound would have been consistent with Steele cutting himself when his hand slipped on the bloody knife.”
Carver interrupted. “So anyway, they interview Steele, he tells this bullshit story, and they arrest him the same night. Now, he offered his story at trial, but he had no evidence to support it, other than his interpretation of these facts. I mean, he just took the stand and told a story that, and this is how the prosecutor referred to it in his closing argument, a story that sounds too much like The Fugitive to be taken seriously.”
I agreed, the story had always sounded ludicrous to me, even as a kid, only vaguely following the drama on T.V. “What’s the motive?” I asked. “Money?”
“No, that’s just it,” Reilly responded. “There’s no motive. She had money, her family was wealthy, but he didn’t get anything. The kids are taken care of by a family trust, but he got nothing and never stood to get anything. There was no insurance. The two had split up briefly about eighteen months before, but they reconciled quickly and everyone said they were completely happy.”
Carver leaned back in his chair and waited for a few seconds after Reilly finished. Then he said, “So anyway, this case has been floating around the courts for years. Direct appeals in state courts, state habeas petitions. It’s finally time for Steele to file a federal habeas petition, and the court asked us to do it. Pro bono, of course.” Carver sneered a little on pro bono and then asked, “Have you studied habeas in school?”
I said I hadn’t. Carver glanced at Reilly in a way that suggested it was Reilly’s job to fill the new guy in, and then Carver said, “Well, look. It’s like an appeal, but it’s not. It’s a challenge to the process that convicted you.”
I was lost, and looked it. Carver leaned forward and said, “We’re not going to argue that Steele is innocent — you can never win on that — we’re arguing that he didn’t have a fair trial. Generally you argue ineffective assistance of counsel. That’s probably what we’re