Openly shaken by a judge’s threat and covered by a broad promise of immunity from prosecution, Beverly Heard appeared ready Wednesday to testify in the sexual-misconduct trial of U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds, only to ask for an overnight delay so she could talk to her mother.
Over the objection of lead prosecutor Andrea Zopp, Cook County Circuit Judge Fred Suria Jr. granted Heard’s request. She is scheduled to take the stand as the state’s first witness Thursday.
Heard made her decision to testify-she may still reconsider-after being backed into a tight corner following a legal chess match between her lawyer, Eric Dunham, and prosecutors-with defense lawyers kibitzing.
Suria had warned Heard that her continued refusal to testify would cause him to ask the state’s attorney’s office to prosecute her for criminal contempt.
“Lives stand in jeopardy,” Suria declared, referring to Reynolds and co-defendant Eddie McIntyre. “Two men’s lives and your own will never be the same.”
Reynolds, 43, is charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual abuse and solicitation of child pornography. Both defendants are charged with obstruction of justice.
Heard, 19, has been in jail for a week after refusing to testify in the trial she caused by asserting last year that Reynolds had sex with her when she was 16.
On Wednesday, she was flushed out of her attempt to use her 5th Amendment rights not to incriminate herself by a series of strategic questions by prosecutors and the grant of immunity.
The drama began at 11:32 a.m. when Suria had Heard brought from the courtroom lockup to the witness stand without the jury present.
Zopp, as she had done three straight days last week, walked to the lectern with a stack of documents and asked:
“Miss Heard, last week you indicated that you met the defendant in June of 1992. Do you recall that testimony?”
Her voice in a near-whisper, Heard responded, “Yes, ma’am, I do recall it.”
“After you met the defendant outside Morgan Park High School in June of 1992, you subsequently went to dinner with him at the East Bank Club, is that correct?” Zopp asked.
“Ma’am, I refuse to testify based upon my 5th Amendment right,” Heard said.
“And after you met the defendant, had dinner . . . at the East Bank Club, you met him again about a week or so after that and went with him to an apartment in Riverdale, is that correct?” Zopp asked.
Heard again refused to answer.
During the same line of questioning last week, Zopp stopped at that point. On Wednesday, she moved directly to the central issue of the trial, whether Heard had a sexual relationship with Reynolds.
Defense lawyers had argued in closed-door sessions with the judge that prosecutors could not ask questions about a sexual relationship until they had presented sufficient independent evidence to justify the questioning.
Suria had agreed with the defense on those occasions, but permitted Zopp to go forward this time.
“And at that apartment in Riverdale, you engaged in sexual intercourse with the defendant Melvin Reynolds, isn’t that correct?” Zopp asked.
Another refusal by Heard to answer.
“And from that time on, in June of 1992 through September of 1993, you had a relationship with the defendant in which you engaged in regular acts of sexual intercourse with the defendant Melvin Reynolds, isn’t that correct?”
When Heard again refused to respond, Zopp turned to Suria. “Judge, I think that gets us to the point where I wanted to be at.”
That point was an offer of immunity. But before Zopp could proceed, Suria found Heard in contempt of court twice for her latest refusals to answer-raising the number of contempt citations against her to 16.
Dunham then attempted a maneuver of his own, asking that Heard be released from jail because “the state has said on several occasions that they don’t need the testimony of Miss Heard and, indeed, the case is still proceeding without it.”
That brought an angry response from Zopp.
“Let’s be clear here,” she said. “This case was brought because Miss Heard did go to the police and then she went to the grand jury and told the grand jury exactly what she told the police. . . . This case is here because of what this woman did.
“So let’s not play games. Mr. Dunham knows that and Miss Heard knows that.”
Heard sat silently, wiping sweat from her forehead.
“Judge, we have a motion allowing for an order for use immunity for Miss Heard,” Zopp said.
That announcement sent the lawyers and Suria into chambers for a closed session. Back in court at 12:12 p.m., Suria signed the order of immunity.
He then turned to Heard and explained that the grant of immunity protected her only from prosecutions for perjury committed on the stand relating to the Reynolds case or prosecutions for other unrelated crimes based solely on admissions she might make in her Reynolds testimony.
Suria also cautioned her that should she continue to refuse to answer questions, she would be in danger of facing prosecution for criminal contempt and a potential penalty of 6 months in prison for each of the 16 contempt counts.
Heard’s eyes widened and she appeared shaken. When she stared at Dunham, seated several feet away in the empty jury box, her attorney sat like a sphinx.
Finally, Suria asked if she wanted to consult with Dunham and she nodded yes before they were taken from the courtroom. Heard came back to the stand at 3:21 p.m., and Suria asked, “Do you understand the grant of immunity?”
“Yes, sir,” Heard said.
“Do you intend to answer all the questions put to you by the state?” he asked.
Heard was silent, staring at Dunham, who had resumed his perch in the jury box and made no movement or response.
“May I speak to my lawyer?” Heard asked.
Dunham walked to the witness stand, and they whispered for about five minutes before Dunham asked for a meeting with the other lawyers in Suria’s chambers.
That lasted only three minutes, and when the parties emerged, the situation had changed. Zopp had agreed to expand the grant of immunity to transactional immunity. The term refers to much broader legal protection that would bar prosecution of Heard for any crimes except perjury concerning testimony.
With the stage set for a major high point, Heard was sent from the courtroom and Suria ordered the jurors brought in so she could be formally called to the stand in their presence.
But Dunham asked that her appearance be delayed so that Heard could talk to her mother, Barbara Ennis.
“We’re here,” Zopp protested. “We’ve met his position. . . .”
Suria granted Dunham’s request.
But when she returns to court Thursday, Heard will find herself in a difficult spot:
– Another refusal to testify would mean prosecution for criminal contempt.
– If she testifies that she never had sex with Reynolds, she opens herself to a prosecution for perjury, based on her testimony under oath to the grand jury.
– If she is willing to take that risk and deny having sex with Reynolds as a minor, the trial will move to another level.
A denial would open the door for Zopp and co-prosecutor Colleen Hyland to confront her with the grand jury transcript. Defense lawyers could then counter with Heard’s recantation given under oath to a court reporter Dec. 28.
Perhaps even more significant, Heard’s testimony would likely give the prosecution the opportunity to bring in another woman who has said she had sex as a teenager with Reynolds.
Earlier, Heard’s first attorney, Dan Wolff, was ordered by Suria to testify about three statements by Heard regarding her charges.
Wolff said that until he was fired by Heard last fall, she had been cooperating with authorities, appearing twice before the grand jury. He also suggested that it was Heard’s mother who began to persuade Heard to recant her allegations.
Wolff’s testimony contradicted defense arguments that prosecutors had put Heard in a hotel and away from her mother as part of a plan to coerce the teenager into continuing with an investigation she wanted to stop.
But according to Wolff, it was he, not the state’s attorney’s office, who suggested Heard be moved to a hotel. In an answer limited by the restrictions of attorney-client privilege, Wolff told Zopp:
“I talked to Beverly Heard and she told me of a situation that was taking place between her and her mother and we discussed where she should live. And pursuant to that conversation, I asked your office to put her up in a hotel.”
Wolff didn’t elaborate on the witness stand, but outside of court, he said the situation he referred to involved “problems with her mother.”
Wolff told the jury that when he was hired last summer by Heard and Ennis, he was given affidavits signed by Heard recanting her allegations. Wolff testified he never passed those recantations on to authorities as requested by Ennis.
Outside of court, he said he held on to the documents because “in my opinion, those documents could have at that time been evidence of criminal conduct. I believed that in light of what I knew at the time, that these documents could be part of some obstruction.”
