Clifford Irving's Legal Novels - 02 - FINAL ARGUMENT - a Legal Thriller by Clifford Irving Page A

proof, was granted the right of the last word. A kind of coda: conclusive major chords, knells seeking doom.
    Whatever I wished privately to happen, I had the obligation to set forth the opinion of the State of Florida. It had occurred to me that if I didn’t offer rebuttal, some zealot such as Judge Eglin could move for my disbarment.
    I stood and said: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant was surprised in the act of burglary by Solomon Zide, and indeed, thinking he was threatened, may have reacted quickly and irrationally. But our common sense tells us that he carried a loaded weapon he was prepared to use. We’ve also heard testimony that after Mr. Morgan shot Solomon Zide, Mr. Smith turned on Mrs. Zide, a defenseless woman. Smith slashed her twice, in the arm and the face. That does not strike me as merely an irrational act. It strikes me as brutal, and certainly deliberate. And I ask you: Did Mr. Morgan make any effort to stop Mr. Smith from doing what he did? Did he say, ‘That’s enough, William Smith! Let’s go!’? You’ve heard Mrs. Zide testify to the contrary. The judge in his charge will tell you that our law requires that all participants in a criminal act be responsible for the actions of the other participants. Otherwise, imagine: in a bank robbery, one man would say, ‘Oh, I didn’t take any money, I was just standing there with a gun.’ If William Smith were alive, he would be equally responsible with Mr. Morgan for the death of Solomon Zide. In the same way, Mr. Morgan is equally responsible for the attack on the person of Constance Zide. The brutality of this crime is an aggravating circumstance that may outweigh any mitigating circumstances such as the defendant’s youth. Therefore the state moves for the application of the death penalty.”
    I had a seafood lunch with Toba at The Jury Room, with Connie and Neil Zide at a table on the far side of the restaurant. We went back to the courtroom and at a few minutes past 4:00 P.M. the jury announced that they had reached a decision. Filing in, they took their seats on the padded wooden chairs. The foreman rose; he was a retired electrical engineer with yellowing hair. He read from a slip of paper in his hand.
    “The jury advises and recommends to the court that it impose a sentence of life imprisonment upon Darryl Morgan without possibility of parole for twenty-five years.”
    I met Connie Zide’s eyes; she was nodding her head up and down in what I knew was relief. Toba nodded at me too, and smiled. I looked across the table at Darryl Morgan.
    There was pure hatred in his gaze. I had tried to kill him, he seemed to be thinking. Tried and failed.
    Judge Bill Eglin tapped the pen again. “I want to remind you,” he declared—his voice penetrated and instantly stilled the light murmur that had swept through the courtroom—”that I have the right to uphold or override the jury’s recommendation. This provision is a safeguard built into the law of our state, so that if a judge feels a jury has given too much weight to either aggravating or mitigating circumstances, that judge can rectify what he perceives as an error.”
    He leaned forward, a pockmarked man in his late forties, and turned toward the jurors. “I suspect y’all have cast your verdict on the basis of the defendant’s youth, although I want you to realize that by the current laws of our nation he’s considered old enough to vote. But in addition, I’m moved by Mr. Jaffe’s final argument. Prosecutor for the state correctly points out that this defendant was responsible for the acts of his accomplice, now deceased. That accomplice, Smith, attacked and might have killed Mrs. Zide. Now I ask you, is the convicted man penitent? Does he apologize for the scarring of a beautiful woman? Does he show remorse for taking the life of a beloved husband and a benefactor of this community? Does he say those simple words we all want to hear: ‘I’m sorry’? You heard his outbursts! He