“Absolutely,” she said firmly.
“Okay. Look, we’ve got an issue. One of the students I had put on the Dandridge case has had to drop out unexpectedly. We’ve got the preliminary hearing next week and we’re not as prepared as we should be. I need al hands on deck, but I don’t want anyone I have to carry. I need someone who is committed. Someone who can pul their weight without hand-holding. I would be giving this to a student with more experience than you, but”—he gave an almost imperceptible grimace in the direction of Rachel’s desk—“we don’t have the right fit right now. I’m thinking about bringing you on.” He paused and Hannah held her breath, trying hard to look cool and calm and not desperately eager.
“Look, Hannah, I’l give you a trial. Join us for the case conference at three o’clock today. Let’s see how things go.”
“Thank you,” Hannah said. “Thanks for the opportunity.”
“Let’s see if you make the grade before you thank me,” Parekh said. And he disappeared back into his office.
AT THREE O’CLOCK THE STAFF ATTORNEYS AND SEAN AND
CAMILA filed into Parekh’s office, and Hannah fol owed in their wake. She was the last to enter the room and she shut the door behind her. Robert Parekh crossed to the front of his desk and leaned back against it. Everyone else spread themselves around the room.
“Say hel o to our new teammate, Hannah Rokeby,” Parekh said.
He waved in Hannah’s direction. “Hannah, this is everyone.” He gestured to a slim dark-haired man with a close-cut beard. “Hannah, this is Jim Lehane. Jim is our senior staff attorney and he’s supervising the Dandridge case. You’l get to know everyone else in time, but after me, Jim is the boss. Got it?”
Hannah nodded. She was conscious of the surprise in the room at her sudden inclusion in the group, and of Sean and Camila’s reactions in particular, but she kept her eyes firmly on Parekh.
“Right,” said Parekh. “Some of you are new to the Dandridge case, so the purpose of this meeting is to get everyone up to speed and assign tasks. Jim’s going to start with a basic rundown of the facts of the case. After this meeting, Sean, Camila, perhaps you’d be kind enough to take Hannah out? Feed her—as far as I can see, she doesn’t leave her desk—and fil her in on everything she needs to know about how we work. She’l be taking over anything that Hazel was working on. Oh yes, for those who don’t know, Hazel wil not be available for the Dandridge case. A job interview, next week, apparently. As Hazel’s commitment to the Project is less than what I expect of our students, I’ve asked that she not return.”
A murmur passed around the room, but the reaction was fairly muted. Most people, it seemed, already knew.
“Okay, I’m going to give you a very quick rundown of the case history so far, then Jim’s going to brief you about the facts around the murder itself. After that we’l assign tasks and then we get to work.
“I’m going to assume you’re al aware of the basics—Sarah Fitzhugh was murdered in June 2007, and our client, Michael Dandridge, was convicted of her murder and sentenced to death in April 2008. From prison Michael made contact with a law firm cal ed Lovel McCain, who agreed to act pro-bono for him. Jake Lovel made any number of appeals for Michael right up until October 2018, al of which were either procedural y barred or ultimately rejected on their merits. In November 2018 Michael had exhausted his direct appeals, Jake Lovel walked away, and Michael filed an application with our office.” Parekh smiled at them al , and his charm was so thick it was almost uncomfortable.
“It didn’t take long for the application to make its way to me, and I interviewed our new client in December of last year. Michael was able to convince me pretty quickly that he had been the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.”
Hannah swal owed hard. The self-righteousness was nauseating.
“Michael told me that Sheriff Jerome Pierce beat the living daylights out of him in custody,” Parekh continued. “Got him in an interview room and beat him up, threatened him, until he confessed.
Michael says he told this to both his original attorney and to Jake Lovel , but neither Lovel nor the original defense attorney ever raised this in Michael’s defense. Why do you think that is? I mean, granted, Jake Lovel did not have a great deal of experience with wrongful conviction cases. Let’s just say that he was more enthusiastic than he was skil ed. But stil .” He looked around the room. “Anyone? Ideas?”
Camila half raised her hand, as if she was in the classroom.
“Were they concerned about believability? Do we have photographs of Michael’s injuries? Does Pierce have a record of complaints made against him?”
“No photographs,” said Parekh. “Michael was too afraid to talk until he saw the prison doctor at Sussex I prison after his conviction more than a year later. And Pierce’s discipline record is good. Two complaints from his rookie days, nothing for twenty years.”
Camila grimaced. “Maybe he’s just gotten better at covering his tracks.”
Parekh pointed at her. “Maybe. But let’s bring it back to the attorneys. Why didn’t they raise Michael’s al egations of coercion at his trial or on appeal? Yes, there would be chal enges to overcome, but to not even make an attempt?” He shook his head. “Something smel s here. Something feels off to me. Let’s bear that in mind as we move forward.
“I filed an appeal with the fourth circuit in January arguing actual innocence. By its nature that appeal was limited to the facts and arguments that had been put before the original trial court. I wasn’t permitted to put forward new evidence at that time, my arguments had to focus essential y on the failures in the original case. The fourth circuit ruled in our favor and referred the case for an evidentiary hearing, which was held over the summer break. I worked that case along with Jim and Mary Calvas. Jim, do you want to take us through what happened next?”
Jim Lehane gave a brisk nod. “We received a copy of Michael’s original attorney’s file. We took up everything we could get on discovery. We did the usual crossreferencing and double-checking.
And we found that the numbers on the evidence dockets from the crime scene weren’t sequential. One docket seemed to be missing.