The Search - Presumed Innocent (1990) Discussion

[–] dutchdal 19 years ago

I thought it silly that they didn't find it either, but if you remember when the police were searching the house, Barbra asks Rusty if they are searching for the weapon. He then said that they wouldn't be looking for a weapon, which is why it wasn't in the warrant. Rusty says that the prosecution knows that Rusty is a former prosecutor, and they felt that he wouldn't have been stupid enough to bring the murder weapon home with him. Plus, he said that if the prosecution looked for the weapon and didn't find it, then they would have to admit that they didn't find it in court, which would make the prosecution's case appear weaker.

reply

[–] dcavalli 15 years ago

I thought about that too.

Either it's a plot hole, or the wife hid it after learning that Rusty was the prime suspect. After the case is dismissed, she allowed him to find it.

If the wife didn't want him to see him go to jail, wouldn't she have cleaned the blood off the hatchet?

Still, a great film. I saw it before reading the book, which I remember was skillfully written in the present tense.

I never suspected the wife.

reply

[–] wolfhunt_2000 19 years ago

Interesting explanation. The prosecutors didn't care about the truth. They were looking for an advantage at trial.

reply

[–] z4ckm0rris 19 years ago

"Interesting explanation. The prosecutors didn't care about the truth. They were looking for an advantage at trial."

That doesn't explain why they wouldn't look for a murder weapon, though. One of the above posts explains it as it was outlined in the movie. The prosecution had their physical evidence and motive (or so they thought), so there was no need to risk searching for a murder weapon and coming up empty handed.

reply

[–] wolfhunt_2000 19 years ago

The prosecutor's motive is part of the fiction. In real life, they would have torn through every drawer and compartment just to let the accused know who has the power. Ah, you got to love fiction. No?

reply

[–] bbgun5310 19 years ago

You've got to keep one thing in mind Wolf. The prosecutor in this case is not dealing with a typical murder suspect...it's a fellow prosecutor. This has to change their strategy on the entire case, including the search of the home.

reply

[–] oubrioko 18 years ago

In real life, they would have torn through every drawer and compartment just to let the accused know who has the power.

I don't think so. Sabich, was still respected by the police. In fact, Rusty knew the cop who served the warrant. He called the officer by his first name at the front door. They didn't want to rip the place apart. In real life, if a prosecutor or a cop was under investigation, he/she would likely get better treatment than most under a search warrant. If Rusty had been some nobody, THEN maybe they would tear the place apart.

They already had phone records and the fingerprinted glass (or so they thought). They also had his blood type matching that of the killer. So the search warrant was very specific. They were looking for corroborating evidence, specifically, carpet fibers from Sabich's house to compare them to fibers found on the victim's clothes and on the ropes used to tie her up. The murder weapon from the Prosecutors' standpoint, was not crucial. It certainly didn't stop them from getting a grand jury indictment.

By not producing a weapon, the prosecution would surely argue that a seasoned criminal prosecutor was too smart to leave the murder weapon where it would be found.

Now, here is the most practical reason why they didn't waste time looking for the weapon:

Tommy Molto accused Rusty Sabich of murdering Carolyn Polhemus well before the search warrant was executed. Therefore, from Nico Della Guardia and Molto's standpoint, since Sabich now knows that he is a prime suspect, he (Sabich) would have discarded the weapon well before any search was attempted. So presuming that he is guilty, why search for a weapon that you don't believe is there?

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

So the search warrant was very specific.

Exactly. It allowed them to get carpet fibers to match against what was found in her apartment, and he said as part of the warrant he had to provide a blood sample. You're only allowed to search for what is in the warrant. If you happen to find something that is out in plain sight, that's fair game. But this warrant would not have let them go down in the basement and look through the toolbox.

And as has been said, the warrant did not include looking for the weapon because they were sure they would not find it, and if they looked for it and did not find it, that could be brought up in court.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] oubrioko 16 years ago

Excellent point about search warrants.

if they looked for it and did not find it, that could be brought up in court.

Well said.

reply

[–] Topher88 16 years ago

I fail to see the logic of how looking for the weapon and not finding it hurts the prosecution's case.

They're assuming Rusty is smart enough to throw the weapon away before he gets home. So, if they look for it and don't find it they can say: "He threw it away before he got home." But if they do find it: the case is open and shut. It's over.

I fail to understand the logic that by not looking for the murder weapon the prosecution is protecting its case. Whether they looked for it or not, having no murder weapon linked to the accused is going to have a small piece of ammunition for his or her defense.

reply

[–] ca01007 16 years ago

A word to the wise: don't become a lawyer.

Let's get dangerous!

reply

[–] oubrioko 16 years ago

I fail to understand the logic that by not looking for the murder weapon the prosecution is protecting its case.

>>>>> Spoiler Alert!!! <<<<<<

Rusty Sabitch already knows he is a suspect. Tommy Molto already accused Rusty of killing Carolyn Polhemus right to his face. Prosecutors/investigators were afraid that they would not find the weapon in Sabitch's house. Had they made an effort to search for the weapon and not found it, the defense would argue to the jury that prosecutors and police are desperate: After an exhaustive search, all they found was 'so-called' matching carpet fibers. . . kind of a letdown after failing to find the murder weapon. Just because you know that a murder weapon exists (or existed), doesn't mean that you automatically know where to look. Given the suspect in this case, and his expertise in this area, they didn't believe that the murder weapon could have been so easily found.

Prosecutors want jurors to focus on the evidence that they have presented. They do not want jurors focusing on a key piece of evidence that they spent a considerable amount of effort looking for, but could not find. This could aid a guilty defendant, helping them to seem innocent. It adds a tangible element of reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, the old cliche applies here: 'all the defense really needs is for one juror to believe that there is reasonable doubt.' A good defense attorney will make investigators justify every single action they took against his/her client. The more evidentiary trails that prosecutors chose to follow that ended up cold, the more reasonable doubt.

There is another important reason why investigators are careful with search warrants where the suspect will likely be able to afford a venerable defense. What if the suspect is actually innocent? If you collect carpet fibers, and they don't match, that is exculpatory evidence. It may lead you to decide to move on to a new suspect. As long as you properly justified the search, no problem. However, if you go all the way, and collect fibers and search thoroughly for the murder weapon (subsequently turning the house inside-out) finding nothing, and no matching fibers, its far worse. It looks like you have it in for an innocent person, and you might have some explaining to do in front of the judge who granted the warrant.

Nico Della Guardia and Molto felt that if they had evidence of an affair, Rusty's semen, matching carpet fibers, and the fingerprinted glass (that later disappeared), then they would have a strong case based on both circumstantial and physical evidence. It was a good case against Sabitch, until they failed to produce the fingerprinted glass. Once this occurred, the corrupt Judge Larren Lyttle was able to throw out the case in-part, to protect himself. Sure, they would have loved to have found that murder weapon, but what would make them think that it could have been so easily found? Remember, they thought that it was Rusty Sabitch, the savvy, seasoned prosecutor, that killed Carolyn Polhemus. Later, we find out that technically, they were wrong.

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

well, the hammer was hidden in the bottom of a toolbox in that dark basement. sometimes i find things i didn't know i had in the basement years after losing them. granted, no bloody hammers.

The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.-James Madison

reply

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 7 years ago

The wife looked burnt/spaced out so maybe she didn't have the ability to foresee the future and she was establishing HER dominance over her husband.

Spoiler alert for them spoil sports out there! Y'all like spoiled milk, stop crying over it!

reply

[–] ca01007 15 years ago

Let's not forget something else: Scott Turow, the author, was a prosecutor before entering private practice. In all of his novels that I've read but one, he has always expounded upon some element of the legal system, and he does a pretty good job of it. This is {was?} a law in the United States--of that I have no doubt. People here are questioning the plotting and the writing, but they don't think enough to question the legal system. Don't harp as to why Turow used this in his novel, ask why this law has been written into the legal system. For all we know, Turow may be scratching his head over the practicality of this law as well.

Let's get dangerous!

reply