"Objection, hearsay," said Stein.

"Counsel, please approach the bench."

Once at the bench, the judge queried Brent, "Why is this not hearsay, Mr. Marks?"

"Your Honor, the fact of the loan is already in evidence. I am laying a foundation for the next witness, not trying to use her testimony as proof that Mr. Marsh took out the loan."

"Objection overruled."

"So, your father asked you for a loan. Then what did you do?"

"I told him I could help, of course, but I asked if I could take a look at his books and records to see if what he was asking me for would tide him over until the loan closed."

"Did he show you his books?"

"Yes."

"Did looking at the books affect your decision in any way?"

"Yes."

"How?"

"Dad had been scaling down on his business, and using some retirement income to supplement their living expenses."

"How did this affect your decision?"

"He hadn't asked me for enough money, and the amount that he needed was more than I could give."

"How was that?"

"Well, it seemed to me that what he was asking me for was not enough, as there was not enough income to sustain payments on the loan after it did close."

"Then what happened?"

"I gave him a loan of $20,000."

"Did he ever pay you back?"

"No."

"Ms. Marsh, you are executor of your father's estate, is that correct?"

"Yes."

"Can you please identify what has been marked as Exhibit 14?"

"This is the accounting of the estate, filed with the probate court."

"What assets, if any, did your father have in his estate?"

"Just the house. That was his only remaining asset."

"Thank you, Ms. Marsh."

Neither Stein nor Black opted to cross examine April. Repetition of the Marshes' poor financial situation was bad for their case, and they wanted the murder scene to fade as much as possible from the jury's memory.

44.

The next important witness would be George Marsh, speaking from the grave, but on trial would be augmentative and alternative communication, and Dr. Beverly Senlon would set the stage for playing George Marsh's video-taped testimony. Dr. Senlon was dressed demurely but attractively and spoke well to the jury, as if they were attending a consultation in her office.

"Dr. Senlon, can you please give the Court a brief summary of your professional background?" asked Brent.

"I completed my undergraduate studies in psychology at UCLA and went on to their graduate studies program, eventually receiving a PhD in clinical and forensic psychology."

"Have you testified as an expert in court before?"

"Yes, I have."

"About how many times?"

"I'd say more than ten times."

"And can you describe your current professional occupation, please?"

"I have a practice which specializes in speech pathology, providing solutions for people in need of augmentative and alternative communication."

"Have you published any papers on the subject of your specialty?"

"Yes, I have written several research papers that were published in the American Medical Journal, as well as many articles in Psychology Today.

"I am showing you a document marked as Exhibit 15. Can you identify this document?"

"It's my curriculum vitae, which lists all of my education, experience, publications, and professional associations I belong to."

Brent moved Exhibit 15 into evidence and tendered Dr. Senlon as an expert witness, and both Stein and Black waived voir dire to test her qualifications.

"Can you describe what augmentative and alternative communication is, please?"

"Yes. Augmentative and alternative communication, or AAC, is a description for methods used to supplement or replace speech or writing for those with impairments in the production or comprehension of spoken or written language. It's used by people who have a wide range of speech and language impairments, caused by any number of impairments, such as cerebral palsy, autism, ALS and Parkinson's disease."

"And how exactly is AAC used?"

"It can vary, depending on the severity of the speech impediment. If a patient has the ability to make some sounds to communicate, they are encouraged to do so, even with the use of a speech generating device. We can incorporate sign language and body language, facial expressions, or even picture boards or spelling boards, depending on the patient'smotor, visual, cognitive, language and communication strengths and weaknesses. We essentially design a customized communication system for each particular patient. It's kind of like learning a new language."

As Dr. Senlon testified, Brent checked the jury box to ascertain if any of the jurors seemed to be lost in technical confusion or boredom. All of them seemed to be relatively alert and there were no puzzled or frustrated looks on their faces.

"Was George Marsh one of your patients in need of AAC?"

"He was."

"What type of a system, if any, did you design for Mr. Marsh?"

"I designed an alternative communication system that consists of an electronic tablet application for a communication board, which requires the use of an interpreter familiar with the system. Each family member or friend of Mr. Marsh would have had to learn the system in order to communicate with him."

Senlon next described her app with the aid of the overhead projector. So far, no jury members appeared to be lost; they even looked interested.

"Mr. Marsh had been so incapacitated from the injuries he sustained in the attack, that the only part of his body he could move was his eyes. He had no ability to make any facial expressions, so I had to design a system of communication using symbols that he could point to with his eye movements. This required training on the part of Mr. Marsh as to which symbols to point to, and whomever would interpret what he was saying, which was initially going to be me."

"Dr. Senlon, were you present during the deposition of George Marsh in this case?"

"I was."

"And did you interpret Mr. Marsh's communications for the court reporter with the use of the system you have just described?"

"I did."

Brent completed his questioning of Dr. Senlon, and it was time to feed her to the sharks for cross-examination.

"Dr. Senlon," asked Joe Stein, "As a speech pathologist, you're familiar with American Sign Language, are you not?"

"Yes, I am."

"And isn't it true that American Sign Language is an alternative language to speaking that is standardized; meaning each symbol used will mean exactly the same thing to any person who sees it?"

"Yes."

"Isn't it also true, Dr. Senlon, that augmentative and alternative communication is not a standardized form of communication?"

"Objection," said Brent, "Argumentative."

"Overruled, you may answer."

"I don't understand the question."

"Isn't it true, Dr. Senlon, that the symbols used for augmentative and alternative communication are different from patient to patient; they are not standardized like the gestures in American Sign Language are?"

"Yes, that is true."

"So, it also stands to reason, does it not, that your interpretation of Mr. Marsh's testimony really cannot be verified by anyone except for you, isn't that correct?"

"At this point, yes."

"So then, by interpreting for Mr. Marsh, you are asking the jury to accept your opinion as to what he is trying to communicate to you, isn't that so?"

"Objection!" said Brent, "Argumentative."

"Sustained."

Brent next asked the judge for permission to present the video-taped deposition of George Marsh. The judge agreed, and instructed the jury as to what a deposition was, and how the video tape would be used in Court. It was accompanied by the written transcript of the deposition for each juror to follow. The predicate act of murder hung on the last sentence that George Marsh composed in the deposition, "It was him!" and that was not what anyone would call a solid piece of testimony. Nevertheless, it was the only shot they had, so Brent paid close attention to the jury when the last of the tape was played.

It was a message from the past. Hopefully, the jury could formulate some kind of a feeling for the man, who was now just an image on the television screen. The man who had been a loving husband, a strong father. The man whose life had been destroyed in the name of greed. It was the dry and cold message from the grave that closed the second day of the trial of Marsh v. Prudent Bank.

45.

Detective William Branson was the next witness to take the stage. He dutifully outlined the crime scene and showed the gruesome photographs.

He testified that the case was never solved, but it was recently reactivated when a private investigator brought forth some possible new evidence that was currently being evaluated in cooperation with the FBI.

"Objection, Your Honor, unfair surprise," said Stein.

"Counsel, please approach."

When all were present at the bench, Stein objected to the mention of new evidence that was being evaluated because it had not been provided to the defense in discovery. The judge asked, "Mr. Marks, was this witness made available for deposition?"

"Yes, Your Honor."

"Then why are we hearing about this new evidence for the first time at trial?"

"Because it's new evidence, Your Honor. Recent physical evidence that has been obtained is being analyzed for its DNA makeup now, under supervision of the FBI. This witness is not presenting that new evidence."

"Yes, but he's talking about it."

"Your Honor, if you will simply allow me to connect it up later, and, if the new evidence does not materialize, I will stipulate to strike the testimony."

"That's not going to work, Your Honor," said Stein. "The defense is entitled to examine all evidence, so that a defense may be presented."

"I'm afraid Mr. Stein is right, Mr. Marks. I'm going to sustain the objection."

The lawyers took their seats.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you will disregard Detective Branson's testimony about possible new evidence being found."

That was another blow to the weakest link in Brent's case. In short order, Stein took over on cross-examination and destroyed Detective Branson.