In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

30 Patty Takes the Stand In an early episode of the television crime drama NYPD Blue, a defense attorney prepping a police witness declares, “The truth and a trial have about as much to do [with each other] as a hot dog and a warm puppy.” Trials are about strategy. They are about marshaling evidence and arguments . They are about who can present the stronger case or make the other side’s case seem weaker. But in terms of getting at the truth, trials may be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy, the worst possible approach, except for all the others that have been tried. Schwaemle, who throughout the trial had special agent Feagles at her side, used her opening remarks to lay out what happened, from Patty’s point of view: the assault, the terror, the knife at her throat in the middle of the night, the inability to see her attacker. Tellingly, she spent as much time describing the events of October 2, when Patty recanted under pressure from the police. She was told that nobody believed her—not the SANE nurse, not her daughter, not her boyfriend. “They persuaded her that she was all alone in this.” The police even lied about an imaginary test for latex residue. And so, “in despair,” she told the detectives what they wanted to hear. But, the very next day, she returned to her original account, which was substantiated with the discovery of semen that was ultimately traced to Joseph Bong. The path to this trial, said Schwaemle, “has had some twists and turns in it, but it’s about to come to an end.” That would happen when the jury found Joseph Bong guilty as charged. Eisenberg began with a point-blank declaration of his client’s innocence : “Joseph Bong did not sexually assault [Patty]. He did not break 229 into her house, and he did not take anything from her.” Like Schwaemle, he intended to make Patty the centerpiece of his case—except his goal was not to empathize with her but discredit her. This alleged victim, he said, had changed her story again and again “to suit her needs.” The details of the alleged assault were all wrong. She had this crazy idea it would be good to help the man ejaculate, thinking, who knows why, that he would then leave. The condom appeared “out of nowhere” and disappeared into the same place. There was blood on the pillow but not in the closet or on her clothes. She implicated another suspect and became “more and more convinced” it was him. Bong “does not even come close to the physical description” she gave of the perpetrator. The police version of the recantation was “100 percent the opposite of what [Patty] says.” There was a good reason his client’s DNA was found in Patty’s bed, which Eisenberg would explain in time. And then, he told the jury, “You will find Joseph Bong not guilty of these charges.” The jury was excused for the night. The following day was Patty’s turn to testify and Eisenberg’s chance to destroy her credibility. Beforehand , in a conference room across the hall, Mark Kerman warned Patty’s mother and other family members and friends that the defense attorney would say things so “offensive” they’d want to jump up and object , which of course they shouldn’t do. When Patty joined the gathering , he said the verdict could go either way but “whatever happens, Judy and I believe you. We won’t stop believing in you.” He also warned that some Madison detectives were so reluctant to admit they were wrong “they may even try to help the defense.” Patty actually testified twice, the first time for a few minutes before the jury was brought in. Eisenberg wanted to keep out that she offered to take a lie detector test when police confronted her on October 2, so Patty was sworn in to relate the circumstances under which she made this offer. Eisenberg asked if she thought a lie detector test would be “admissible” in court; she had no idea, saying only that she considered them reliable. Eisenberg said the standard set by case law required a belief in the test’s admissibility. Nichol, after recessing to his chambers to review the law, decided to allow this in, over Eisenberg’s continued objections . Requiring a belief in admissibility, the judge ruled, was “too much to expect of a lay...

Share