Butterfield was a powerful player in the legal profession and politics in California. He socialized with State Supreme Court Justices and refused constant requests to be appointed a justice in the State Supreme Court. He loved the challenge of the fight and thought he could best serve the profession by remaining a defense attorney. Although he was not overly concerned with the money, judges make about $150,000 per year, and Butterfield charged a minimum of $10,000,000 (million dollars) per case.
He was responsible in part for the appointment of many of his colleagues to the state bench and had friends in high places! However, never in the tenure or the performance of his duties did Butterfield sway a justice from due process. Valid decisions may have been made in an effort to keep the accused in a comfortable cell, but never - ever were the individual rights compromised. There was the jury - and they made the ultimate decision.
Prosecutors wanted the trial to be held in Maine. Butterfield wanted it to be held in California. But, there is a stroke of luck in the way in the law was written. If the accused was not a legal resident of Maine, he was given the option to ask for a change of venue. A change of venue occurs when the attorneys for the defendant do not want the trial to be conducted in an area where jury selection would not be advantageous to the defense. Butterfield engaged in battle to guard against a hostile jury in Maine arguing his client would not get a fair trial if tried in Maine. Although the murders were committed there, no bodies were found.
There were going to be three distinct areas to this trial: jury selection, DNA, and cross examination. If the trial were to be held in Pacific Grove, and without bending or breaking the law, Butterfield was of the position that the process of selecting a jury would make or break the case. The jury would have to be chosen from Pacific Grove. In the elimination process, each prospective juror would have sworn under oath they would not be, or have they ever been influenced by Richard Rand’s charity.
* * *
With the need to disperse as much money as possible, Richard Rand was at heart a man where his basic core was compassion and benevolence .
In spite of the imminent charge of murder, no one made any connection to the shootings of the 2 CEO’s and the murder of the bank CEO. Could this be the “the perfect crime?” Obviously no one has, up to this point come forward with an account or information. Somebody had to know something about the shootings.
It was now time to book Richard and ask the court to set bail. In such a high profile case bail could be as much as $10,000,000 (million dollars) which amounts to one million in cash.
The judge who was knowledgeable of Richard Rand’s generosity greeted the suspect with admiration. The D.A. made an attempt to pressure the judge into denial of bail. The judge asked on what grounds.
“With that amount of money - Richard Rand was a flight risk.” the D.A. declared.
Judge Stone addressed Richard asking if he any plans to leave the immediate area. When he answered that he was committed to his charity work the judge not only dismissed the bail request, and released Richard on his personal recognizance. This infuriated the D.A. who began to admonish the judge - who quickly reminded the junior attorney that he may wish to reconsider his demeaning approach or be held in contempt.
Next was the Change of Venue hearing. Again, Butterfield cited the California rule in which the offender is given the option to remain in the state in which he is a resident. When Richard Rand arrived in Pacific Grove, purchased land and was on the tax roles and listed The Rand Ranch as his legal address - this constituted residency, thus satisfying the law.
“Venue ruling in Pacific Coast Case”
A Monterey County Circuit Court Judge has ruled on a change of venue in the murder trial of Richard Rand. After hearing arguments from the defense and prosecution, Judge George Stone ruled in favor of the defense request to prevent the trial from being taken out of Monterey County. It is an enormous victory for legendary defense attorney Daniel Butterworth.
Richard Rand, a multi millionaire who has lived in this community for 18 months was charged yesterday with the disappearance and murders of two brothers who allegedly were part of a day of boating on Marginal Lake in Ogunquit, Maine in the summer of 2010. The judge commented, “I don’t find at this stage of the proceedings the evidence warrents a change of venue.” the judge ordered.
With the change of venue issue ruling in favor of the defense, the trial has been scheduled to begin in 60 days. In California, Richmond faces life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted.
The jury selection process would now be a social issue. The citizens of Montery County would make up the 12 jurors and the alternates. One would believe this to be an easy sense of duty, but on trial was the motive of Richard Rand who, 18 months earlier was for all intents and purposes broke! It is alleged that he befriended a pair of brothers and the three men traveled to Ogunquit to gamble.
Having lost his last $2400.00 at the blackjack table he legally won $17,765,500 (million dollars) as he played his last dollar in one of the slot machines. The bulk of his estate in excess of $752,000,000 (million dollars) resulting from the sale of a separate tract of property adjoining his farm in Pacific Grove. A survey provided assay samples of gold ore on the additional 300 acres of property and he was offered $700,000,000 (million dollars) cash. The gold ore was estimated to be valued at ten billion dollars.
With the great wealth accumulated Richard Rand distributed in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars to the community. He was responsible for building a hospital, a fire and police complex, providing college educations for the high school students, constructing new schools in addition to a church. He enhanced the lives of the 300 laid off Alpha Tuna factory workers by paying off their mortgages, providing college trution for their kids, paying for auto loans and depositing $50,000 in each of their bank accounts. There was so much for the citizens of Pacific Grove to be grateful. There was not a person in the small northern California town who did not benefit from his generosity.
It was going to be easier said than done to pick a jury not biased in his favor, but this is exactly how Butterfield and associates anticipated their request to keep the trial in Pacific Grove would proceed.
Authorities in Maine were gnashing your teeth at the manouvering by Butterfield but realized it could have gone their way just as quickly and made preparations to have their suspect Gambler moved to a county jail in Montery County.
Jury selection was to begin in two weeks and Butterefield prepared for a quick trial. It was a gamble and with ‘here say’ evidence and no bodies, the burden of proof would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
* * *
Bonni Martone entered the courtroom with a splendor and elegance capturing everyone’s attention. She was a stunningly attractive lady of Italian-American heritage. Her salt and pepper hair created the impression she was proficiently experienced in years of practice. Wearing a twenty five hundred dollar suit, she was a bouquet of luxurious $400.00 an ounce perfume - just a hint of fragrance but nothing too alluring. The courtroom was silent as she walked toward the bench to greet Judge Stone.
She was responsible for jury selection in the Robert Blake murder trial, and was hired by the Cochran firm to assess potential witnesses in the O.J. Simpson trial. If one remembers the Kennedy Au Pair trial in Palm Beach she was involved with jury selection. In the three cases mentioned, all were acquitted!
A no nonsense lawyer, she possessed the charm as soft and loving as a mother with a newborn, and in a split second could be so cold and calculated that ice cubes wouldn’t melt in her mouth. She was fearless, bold, unafraid and daring. Experienced veteran lawyers knew enough to keep their mouths shut when she was challenging a potential jurior. If she demonstrated a fondness for you, you were considered one of her few friends. If you crossed her, you were forever on her “unlikable” list.
The first potential juror,
a young pharmaceutical sales representative was asked the following by Bonni:
“Do you personally know Richard Rand, have knowledge of his generosity, or have you ever benefited personally from Mr. Rand?” she asked.
“I do not personally know Mr. Rand, I do have knowledge of his generosity, and yes, I have benefited from the generosity of Me. Rand.” the prospective juror replied.
“Has your quality of life been changed for the better? Have you directly benefited from Mr. Richmond’s financial generosity?” again, she asked.
“Everyone in this town has benefited in some way by Mr. Rand’s financial kindness! With new police cruisers, fire trucks, and especially fully equipped EMT ambulances how can anyone not have benefited.” the young man emphatically responded.
“So, you do not know Mr. Rand personally which is the question I originally asked you?”
The attorney for the prosecution objected to the inclusion on the argument that if he benefited even indirectly from the defendant’s money he should be disqualified.
The judge agreed with the prosecution and moved to disqualify the juror.
Bonni then referred to an earlier case in a small town of 57 residents - all blood related - were asked to select a jury in a murder trial. With the case to be heard in the tiny town it was imperative a jury be selected or have the case dismissed for lack of a sufficient jury. In a landmark decision, 12 people were eventually selected to sit on the jury. The theory was that justice would be served even if all were related.
Again, Judge Stone ruled in opposition to her reference.
Once again, Bonni objected, and with the argument that if the rule, based on a California case was upheld by the State Supreme Court it should be allowed in this instance. The judge called a short recess and asked council to enter his chambers.
“I can see that we are going to have a long and hard-bitten session here are we not councilor?” the judge said directing his attention to Bonni.
“Your honor, I will challenge every juror as forcefully and intensely as necessary in order to select a jury!” the young lawyer said hovering on the brink of insubordination.
The judge commented that he to get his backlogged docket moving along and suggested that the firm of Butterfield Lowehthal and Martone adhere to his rules or he will make life very difficult for the defense team.
“Your honor! That sounds like a direct threat! With that attitude, I can and will if pushed, depose you! I’m not about to be bullied by a judge whose only motivation is to clear his docket!” the female attorney said standing her ground.
Even the prosecuting attorneys were stunned at her response. In Monteray County, judges are appointed and not elected. This made for a slight acquiescence on part of the judge. Bonni Martone was not only a hardened defense attorney but married to the Chief Justice James Arthur Martone of the California Supreme Court. It was Chief Justice Martone who made the appointments and with Judge Stone a ‘next in line’ candidate for appointment to the State Supreme Court he was given no choice but to consent to Bonni’s rationale.
The judge agreed to admit the juror and was in part put on notice that his political lifeblood was also on trial. From that point on, there were several heated arguments between attorney Martone and Judge Stone but she always held her ground and in the end the judge was frequently submissive to her demands. The poorly paid state’s prosecutors were totally at a disadvantage.
Throughout the jury selection, the lady lawyer began to take freedoms that perhaps she was to be treated with “out of the ordinary” respect. There was a point or two where the judge advised her that he was in command of his courtroom and despite her threats of ruin and damnation to his career, he would rule according to his experience and not her “looked down on attitude.” She was a fist full of dynamite and from time to time had to have her wings clipped.
As a final result the defense and prosecution each won 6 levelheaded jurors. The alternate jurors were also split evenly at 3 and 3. This made for a very out of the ordinary and uncommon circumstance.
Each time the prosecution looked as though they were on a down slide, they would pull something out of their bag of tricks and shake the very core of the defense. Their lead lawyer was a young eager attorney not easily intimidated by the other side. Lawyers are like a used car salesman; you never humiliate your challenger because based on your skill as a prosecutor or defense attorney one may be working for the other following the outcome of a trial.
This is how good law firms advance to outstanding law firms. The dirtier the better! It’s all about billable hours. Butterfield began their rise by billable hours. Once they achieved the status of being the best of the best of the very best, only the senior partners: Butterfield, Lowenthal and Martone charged by the case. There were 97 additional attorneys in their firm and billable hours was the firm’s life blood.
There are very few high priced firms like Butterfield who made it to the top by being nice guys. In the case of billable hours, if a client thinks he or she is of importance to the attorney assigned your case or the attorney to whom you are paying the $10,000,000 (million dollars) - think again! Most attorney’s could give a rat’s butt about who you are when the door slams against your ass as you leave their office.
They work on the principle that if you can build the cash coffers you will have enough money in your corporate account for that bonus for which all attorneys live and in many cases the promotion to partner based on how much revenue you can generate. Attorneys don’t always approach a case with admiration. They often listen to the basics and in many of the higher priced firms your case is handed over to a paralegal.
An attorney who is admired and respected by a firm one day can be a curse if a case goes bad. This is why most attorney’s sign a non complete clause. Although one cannot be prevented from earning a living at his or her profession, can you imagine how injurious it would be if an attorney was allowed to take their work from one firm to another.
* * *
With Hank Gambler in custody in a California jail awaiting trial his lawyer was a young court appointed attorney whose previous experience was a degree in ‘inexperience’. Richard Rand was out on personal recognizance, the defense team and prosecutors in place, it was time for the trial to begin.
The news media was camped out in every nook and cranny and available piece of real estate. Gossip magazines and tabloids were represented by their reporters, and people were allowed entrance into the courthouse by means of a lottery. In order to accommodate as many viewers as possible, the lottery was only good for a one day admittance to the trial. A total of 75 spectators were allowed into the courtroom each day.
The first bailiff entered the packed courtroom with Hank Gambler wearing a suit and tie. Butterfield was pleased with this approach by the prosecution which often backfired because it was inclined to show overconfidence as in “wearing a prison suit is beneath my client’s integrity!” The second bailiff entered with Richard Rand wearing an out of the ordinary orange jump suit with large letters on the back identifying the prisoner as being from CBP - California Bureau of Prisons. A collective groan ruptured the previously hushed courtroom. It was a strategy used by the defense to show sympathy and humiliation. When Butterfield first met Richard he nixed the wearing a suit and tie.
Opening arguments were described by the prosecution who wanted to convict both Hank Gambler and Richard Rand. The prosecuting attorney got up from his chair.
Strangely, he removed a small recipe card from his pocket from which he began to read the charges - giving the impression he was unfamiliar and inexperienced with the case. This delighted Butterfield and sent a message to the jurors that a key element in the trial has been breached: the lack of preparation and due process!
State’s attorney’s do not have the financial means to generate lengthy and costly investigations. There is public outcry that many of those indicted - especially in the case of
minorities - were wrongfully convicted due to a simple “budget cut.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, what we will prove in this trial is that the defendant Richard Rand deliberately calculated and carried out the murders of brothers Philip Whitmore and Tavis Whitmore on August 5, 2010. We will show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused planned the execution of the deceased.” the prosecutor read from a prepared speech.
The prosecutor continued: “Furthermore, Richard Rand solicited Mr. Hank Gambler with a cash offer of $100,000 to assist in the disappearance of the bodies.” Mr. Gambler has admitted taking part in disposing of the bodies, but contends that it was Mr. Rand who carefully and systematically initiated the plan.” It was a brief opening statement.
Defense attorney Daniel Butterfield rose from his chair directing his charismatic approach and captivating smile straight into the face of each juror. Intentionally standing inches from the jury box, his steel blue eyes enlisting their endorsement.
“Here we have Mr. Hank Gambler who has admitted to his participation in the disappearance of two men. A convicted felon who spent time in prison for the transportation of illegal foreign subjects. Who claims he received $100,000 in cash from my client for his assistance in the disappearance and is now by all standards a tax dodger. We will prove beyond a doubt that my client was never on that boat! There is not even the word “beyond reasonable doubt” - we will prove that my client was never in that motel room - period! Butterfield remarked.