Rusty Sabich's legal representation by Alejandro Stern

Rusty Sabich’s legal representation by Alejandro Stern combines longstanding professional trust with the guarded uncertainty of a murder defense. Stern gives Rusty concrete legal and practical direction, then asks him to help examine the evidence against him; yet he never puts the case’s most direct question to his client. Their relationship is built not on a declaration that settles Rusty’s guilt or innocence, but on the work of preparing for trial while that question remains unspoken.

Retainer and Professional History

Within three or four hours of a strange meeting in Raymond Horgan’s office, Rusty retained Stern, whom he calls Sandy. Their first consultation lasted thirty minutes. Stern set a $25,000 retainer against fees of $150 an hour for work outside court and $300 an hour for time in court. He agreed, as a courtesy, to return the balance if there was no indictment. Those terms establish the representation as both a serious financial commitment and a developing legal contingency: the money, like the defense itself, is tied to what happens next.

The arrangement is not between strangers. Rusty has done business with Stern for more than a decade and has tried about half a dozen cases against him. He describes Stern as someone who has always been able to accept his word, whether the matters they handled were grave or inconsequential. That history supplies a basis for confidence, but it does not make the present case ordinary. Rusty is now the accused, and their former professional familiarity must operate inside the limits of a defense relationship.

Counsel’s Instructions and the Work of Defense

Stern’s early advice is practical and restrictive. He tells Rusty not to discuss the charges with anyone, particularly not to make more angry speeches to prosecutors; to avoid reporters; and not to quit his job. He also promises confidence that Rusty’s background will help bring the matter to a favorable resolution. The guidance addresses the hazards surrounding a public criminal accusation as well as the legal case itself: Rusty must stop trying to answer the accusations on his own and leave the defense to a disciplined process.

Stern does not offer reassurance in place of assessment. He tells Rusty that the evidence overall is very damaging, even while identifying the advantages available to them and recognizing that questions raised by the circumstances could matter in a circumstantial case. He then insists on a detailed review: Rusty is to identify every flaw and defect in the evidence and in each witness’s account, with the material examined repeatedly rather than postponed. The purpose is not simply to find a general weakness. Each point the prosecution cannot explain may make its case harder to sustain and improve the defense’s opportunities for acquittal.

That preparation becomes collaborative, though Stern retains authority over it. Jamie Kemp brings a heavy cardboard box of documents and reports, with witness statements in the back, from the Kindle County Building to the small conference room at Stern’s offices. Stern summons Kemp into the discussion because it may generate discovery motions. To limit his expenses, Rusty is allowed to assist with research and investigation, but only under Stern’s direction. He and Kemp share the work of a junior lawyer, a role Rusty finds more satisfying than expected. The arrangement turns the defendant’s knowledge and professional abilities into working resources while making clear that counsel, not the client, directs the defense.

Trust, Disclosure, and the Unasked Question

Stern’s professional discretion is most visible in what he does not ask. He has inquired about details of the case, and once asked Rusty, without ceremony, whether he had had a physical relationship with Carolyn Polhemus. Rusty answered yes. But Stern has never asked whether Rusty killed her. Rusty notes that the same direct question has gone unasked by everyone else, including Barbara, despite her repeated expressions of belief in his innocence. People close to him either cling to him or appear repelled, but do not voice the question they plainly have in mind.

Rusty reads Stern’s restraint in two ways. It fits the lawyer’s formal, measured manner, but Rusty also suspects that Stern may avoid asking because he is uncertain whether he wants to hear the answer. The hesitation matters in a relationship founded on a history of taking Rusty at his word: their past trust survives, but it is now shadowed by the possibility that a client’s account may not be true. Rusty reflects on lying as a pervasive expectation in criminal proceedings, where defendants may lie to protect themselves or others. Against that bleak understanding, the unasked question is not proof of Stern’s disbelief; it marks the boundary of what their professional trust can resolve.

The B File and Rusty’s Declaration

As trial preparation begins, Rusty raises a possible alternative explanation for the case against him: he may have been set up. He tells Stern that Carolyn appears to have been connected to a case involving a bribed deputy prosecutor, and that Tommy Molto was the prosecutor on that case. Rusty then discloses the B file and explains that its contents are grand-jury secrets he had previously kept to himself. When Stern asks where his investigations led, Rusty admits they went nowhere and stopped the day he left. The disclosure gives counsel information relevant to Rusty’s suspicion, but it does not supply a completed investigation or establish that the theory is true.

Rusty says he wanted Stern to know because the circumstances do not feel coincidental to him. He finally states plainly that he is innocent, describing the admission as something his residual pride had prevented him from saying before. Stern reaches over and pats his hand, responding with deep, practiced sadness. Rusty recognizes that the lawyer has heard such fervent declarations many times. The gesture offers sympathy, not a finding of fact: it does not confirm Rusty’s claim, nor does Stern challenge it. Their representation therefore continues on two tracks at once—scrutiny of the damaging evidence and attention to a client’s insistence that he did not commit the crime.

Significance of the Relationship

The relationship gives the defense a practical method and an emotional tension. Stern sets limits on Rusty’s public conduct, controls the investigation, and turns close examination of circumstantial evidence into a strategy. At the same time, the long professional history cannot eliminate the uncertainty that surrounds every defense lawyer’s reliance on a client’s account. Rusty’s disclosure of the B file and his eventual statement of innocence deepen the candor between them, but the decisive question remains unspoken. Their alliance is thus neither uncomplicated faith nor open distrust: it is a working partnership required to proceed without certainty about the truth it is trying to defend.