The Case of the Fenced-In Woman

Chapter 15

At one-fifteen when court reconvened, Judge Fisk said, “Mrs. Nadine Palmer was on the stand. Will you return to the stand, please, Mrs. Palmer?

“Go ahead with your cross-examination, Mr. Mason.”

Mason waited until Nadine Palmer had seated herself and was glaring at him defiantly as though daring him to do his worst.

“This woman that you saw in the swimming pool,” Mason said, “you glimpsed very briefly?”

“I saw her for some period of time, but she was moving very rapidly.”

“The only time you saw her face was when she was running toward the swimming pool, is that right?”

“That’s the only time I would have had a good look at her face.”

“You say you would have had a good look at her face — meaning that you would have had a good look at her face if you could have kept your eyes focused on it?”

“Well, she was moving very rapidly and I had a little trouble getting the binoculars... Well, I saw her.”

“And then you saw her jump in the water, swim across to the other side of the pool, bend over the hidden receptacle, and all that time she had her back to you.”

“From the time she got out of the pool, yes.”

“And while she was in the pool her face was under water.”

“Yes.”

“Now,” Mason said, “when I called on you, your hair was wet.”

“I had been in a shower.”

“Do you usually wet your hair when you’re taking a shower?”

“Sometimes. I intended to have my hair done the next day so I was careless about it.”

“You remember that I asked you for a cigarette and you told me to help myself out of your purse or handbag?”

“Yes.”

“Then when I opened it to take out a cigarette you came dashing out of the bedroom with a negligee wide open and trailing behind you. You were careless of the amount of exposure because of your haste.”

“I wanted to help you. I was being hospitable and I thought you were a gentleman.”

“And you whipped out a package of cigarettes and handed them to me?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“Now, you’re under oath,” Mason said. “Did you get those cigarettes from your handbag or did you have them in your hand when you came running out of the bedroom?”

“I had them in my hand, actually.”

“And the reason you were so anxious to get a cigarette into my hands before I reached one out of the bag is because you realized that the cigarettes in your bag were soaking wet, due to the fact that you had been in the swimming pool in your panties and bra and had taken your underthings off while they were wet and put them in the bag?”

“I object,” Ormsby said. “This is not proper cross-examination. It assumes facts not in evidence and covers matters which were not covered on direct examination.”

“I think I have the right to ask the question,” Mason said. “I think it goes to the bias of the witness.”

Judge Fisk regarded the witness thoughtfully. “I’m going to let the witness answer that question,” he said. “I’m interested in the answer myself.”

She said, “I suddenly decided that I didn’t care to have you prowling around among my personal belongings, Mr. Mason. I thought I would bring you a cigarette so you wouldn’t have to get one out of my bag.”

“You’re not answering the question,” Mason said. “Were your actions due to the fact you knew the cigarettes in the bag were wet because you had put your wet underthings in there?”

She hesitated a moment, then looked at him defiantly. “No!” she said, spitting out the word with dramatic vehemence.

Mason said, “I talked with you for a while and you accepted a ride with me, did you not?”

“Yes.”

“And while we were riding I mentioned the fact that Loring Carson was supposed to have had a girlfriend in Las Vegas?”

“Yes.”

“And you immediately asked me to let you out of the car at the first available opportunity. You wanted to be where you could get a cab just as soon as possible. Is that right?”

“That’s right.”

“And I let you out?”

“Yes.”

“And you took a cab?”

“Yes.”

“Where did you go in that cab?”

“Objected to as not proper cross-examination, calling for evidence which was not adduced on direct examination,” Ormsby said.

“I’m overruling the objection,” Judge Fisk said, “on the theory that this entire line of examination goes to possible bias on the part of the witness.”

“I had it take me to the airport.”

“Very well,” Mason said. “Now, let me ask you something else. When you went to Las Vegas did you take with you a quantity of negotiable securities made out in the name of A. B. L. Seymour and endorsed in blank by Mr. Seymour?”

“No.”

“Did you notice when you got to the Eden house that the receptacle was open?”

“Yes.”

“Did you go to that receptacle?”

“No.”

“Did you touch the receptacle?”

“No.”

“Did you take any securities from that receptacle?”

“No.”

“I submit,” Mason said, “that you were the woman who dashed out of the house and into the swimming pool and swam across to the receptacle. I submit that you were not in the nude but that you were wearing your panties and bra; that you looted the receptacle of its securities, then swam back to get your clothes, taking off your wet underthings, wringing what water you could from them and putting them in your handbag.”

“I did nothing of the sort.”

“Did you,” Mason asked, “take any securities of any sort to Las Vegas with you?”

“No.”

Mason said, “I am going to show you a briefcase marked ‘P. MASON’ in gilt letters, and previously introduced in evidence as one of the People’s Exhibits, and ask you if you ever saw that briefcase before this trial started.”

“No.”

“Did you take it to Las Vegas with you?”

“No.”

“Did you arrange to have it surreptitiously put in my room in Las Vegas?”

“Oh, Your Honor,” Ormsby said, “this certainly has gone far enough afield. This is not proper cross-examination, and I resent the making of an accusation of this sort where there is absolutely no evidence to support it.”

Judge Fisk paused to give the matter thoughtful consideration. Then he said, “It is nevertheless a vital question as far as the defense is concerned. It would certainly go to the bias or motivation of the witness and I am going to permit it on that ground. Answer the question.”

“No,” she said.

Mason walked over to the counsel table and extended his hand to Della Street.

She handed him an envelope which Paul Drake had brought to court with him.

Mason approached the witness, dramatically opened the envelope, whipped open a sheet of paper divided into ten printed squares with an inked fingerprint in each square and said, “I am going to ask you whether these are your fingerprints.”

“Just a moment, just a moment,” Ormsby shouted, jumping to his feet. “I object to this procedure. This is completely irregular. Counsel has no right to make any such insinuation.”

“What insinuation?” Mason asked.

“Insinuating that this young woman has had her fingerprints taken. I object to this.”

“I will assure the Court, Counsel and the jurors,” Mason said, “that there is no intent on my part to insinuate that these fingerprints were taken by any government agency. Quite the contrary. I am simply asking this witness if these are her fingerprints.”

“That calls for a conclusion of the witness,” Ormsby said, “and it is not proper cross-examination.”

“I think it calls for a conclusion of the witness,” Judge Fisk said, frowning at Mason.

“It is perfectly permissible to ask a witness if this is her signature,” Mason said. “I am simply asking the witness if these are her fingerprints.”

“But a witness can appraise a signature simply by looking at it,” Judge Fisk said, “whereas in the matter of fingerprints it is something which calls for a somewhat expert conclusion.”

Mason said, “I’m simply trying to find out. I have no objection whatever to having the witness take her fingerprints, put them on a sheet of paper and then hand both sheets to the clerk of the court to be marked for identification. Then if it turns out these are not the fingerprints of the witness that is all there is to it.”

“But why should we do any such thing as that?” Ormsby asked.

“Because I have a right to ask the witness whether or not certain fingerprints are hers. I can ask her if a certain signature is hers, and I can certainly ask her if certain fingerprints are hers.”

“The matter is unique as far as my experience is concerned,” Judge Fisk said. “However, I am inclined to suggest that before I rule on the question the witness have her fingerprints taken and the two sheets of paper be marked for identification. Then the Court will call in an impartial fingerprint expert to determine the question.”

“That is quite all right with me,” Mason said.

“May I ask the reason for this question?” Judge Fisk asked.

“I am trying to establish something which goes to the bias and credibility of this witness, Your Honor. I cannot explain it at this time because if I did it would be disclosing my plan of attack and the witness would promptly proceed to—”

“Very well, very well,” Judge Fisk interrupted briskly. “After all, gentlemen, the jurors are present and I suggest that we have no more discussion on the subject. The Court will take a ten-minute recess. During that time the witness can have her fingerprints taken and the two pieces of paper can be marked for identification.”

“I certainly see no reason for it,” Ormsby said.

“I think we have gone into that sufficiently,” Judge Fisk said. “I want to give the defense every latitude in the field of cross-examination. Under the circumstances of this case I feel that the defense is entitled to that much consideration. In fact, it is a part of my basic policy that in every case involving a serious accusation of felony I give the defense attorney every possible latitude in cross-examining the important witnesses.

“This witness is a key witness, Mr. Prosecutor, and I intend to let the defense have every opportunity to probe her story by every legitimate means.”

“Very well,” Ormsby said, “we’re perfectly willing. Let Mason try all of his trickery, all of his ingenuity, all of his dramatics and—”

“That will do, Mr. Prosecutor,” Judge Fisk interrupted. “This is no time to argue the case. The Court will take a ten-minute recess. At the end of that time the two documents can be introduced and marked for identification.”

The courtroom was in a hubbub as Judge Fisk left the bench. Newspaper reporters crowded around Perry Mason asking him what he was trying to do, what his strategy was, where the fingerprints came from, how he had secured possession of them, what significance could be attached to them.

Mason parried all questions with a smiling, “No comment.”

When court was reconvened an indignant deputy prosecutor was on his feet. “Your Honor,” he said, “we have had this witness give her fingerprints to an expert from the sheriff’s office, an expert who is abundantly qualified. It now appears that there is not the slightest resemblance between the fingerprints on this card presented by Perry Mason and the fingerprints of the witness, and I submit that Perry Mason must have known that at the time. I submit that he is guilty of misconduct in taking advantage of the procedure of the court and attempting to intimidate the witness and create a false impression with the jurors.”

Mason said urbanely, “If the expert you quote is prepared to go on the stand and swear that these are not the same fingerprints I will be bound by his testimony. I will withdraw my question to the witness as to whether or not they are her fingerprints. I suggest that this cross-examination be interrupted so the expert can go on the stand.”

“Very well,” Ormsby said, seething with anger. “You may step down, Mrs. Palmer, and I’ll call Hervey Lavar.”

“Mr. Lavar is a fingerprint expert in the office of the district attorney?” Mason asked.

“In the sheriff’s office.”

“Very well,” Mason said, “I will stipulate to Mr. Lavar’s qualifications, and you may proceed with the interrogation.”

“I hand you two pieces of paper bearing fingerprints,” Ormsby said. “One of them is marked Number F-A, and one of them is marked for identification Number F-B.”

“Yes, sir.”

“I will ask you what the document F-B is, first.”

“That is a set of fingerprints made from the fingers of the witness who was just on the stand, Mrs. Nadine Palmer.”

“And what is F-A?”

“That is a set of fingerprints which was shown to the witness by Mr. Mason, asking her if those were her fingerprints.”

“Is there any similarity between any of the fingerprints on the card F-A and any of the fingerprints on the card F-B?”

“There is not.”

“Were those fingerprints made by the same person?”

“They were not.”

“Were any of those fingerprints on the card F-A the fingerprints of the person whose fingers made the prints on F-B?”

“No, sir.”

“Did the witness, Nadine Palmer, make any of the fingerprints on the card F-A, or did any of those fingerprints come from her fingers?”

“No, sir.”

“I have no further questions,” Ormsby said.

“I will waive cross-examination at this time,” Mason said. “I ask that both of the documents be marked as exhibits.”

“The prosecution doesn’t want them as exhibits in its case,” Ormsby snapped.

“Then enter them as exhibits in the defendants’ case,” Mason said, waving his hand in a gesture of generosity, indicating his utter fairness in the matter. “Put them in as defendants’ exhibit one and two.”

“Very well,” Judge Fisk said. “They may go in evidence as defendants’ exhibit one and two. Now you will return to the stand, Mrs. Palmer, for further cross-examination.”

“I have no further cross-examination,” Mason said.

“Any redirect?” Judge Fisk asked.

“None.”

“Very well, Mrs. Palmer, you are excused.”

“That’s the People’s case,” Ormsby said.

“Does the defense wish a recess?” Judge Fisk asked.

“The defense does not,” Mason said. “The defense will call as its first and only witness Estelle Rankin.”

“As your only witness?” Ormsby asked in surprise.

“As my only witness,” Mason said. “I don’t think I’ll need any more.”

Judge Fisk said, “Just a moment, gentlemen. There will be no asides, please. Miss Rankin, will you take the stand, please?”

Estelle Rankin, a tall, well-formed redhead with large brown eyes, took the stand, crossed her knees, glanced at the jurors, then turned toward Perry Mason.

“Where do you live, Miss Rankin?”

“Las Vegas, Nevada.”

“Did you live there on the fifteenth of March of this year?”

“I did.”

“What was your occupation?”

“I worked evenings running a gift shop.”

“Can you tell us something of the merchandise handled by that gift shop?”

“Ornate leather goods, curios, a small line of toilet accessories, postcards of various sorts, souvenirs of Las Vegas, and a line of magazines and cigars and cigarettes. Also a certain amount of luggage.”

“On the evening of March fifteenth did you receive an order from a bellboy for a briefcase?”

“From the bell captain, yes, sir.”

“What time was that?”

“It was nine forty-five in the evening.”

“Would you know that briefcase if you saw it again?”

“Yes.”

Mason said, “I call your attention to the People’s Exhibit 26-A and ask you if you have ever seen that briefcase before.”

The witness took the briefcase, turned it over in her hands and said, “Yes. That is the briefcase that I sold at that time.”

“And up to the hour of nine forty-five on the evening of March fifteenth that briefcase had been in the stock of the curio shop and general store where you were working?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You’re positive.”

“Positive.”

“That’s all,” Mason said. “Cross-examine.”

Ormsby arose with something of a sneer. “As far as you know, Miss Rankin, this briefcase, People’s Exhibit 26-A, could have been ordered by Mr. Mason that night simply for the purpose of confusing the police. The negotiable instruments which were found in it by the police could well have been taken by Mr. Mason from another briefcase.”

“Objected to,” Mason said, “on the ground it calls for a conclusion of the witness. The prosecution purported to show that this particular briefcase with negotiable securities was brought by me from Los Angeles. I have a right to show where it came from.”

“But that evidence doesn’t mean a thing,” Ormsby said. “It was merely an assumption by a witness.”

“I suggest,” Mason said, “Counsel can argue the case to the jury, and I submit that it does mean a great deal because I was being shadowed while I was in Las Vegas by a member of the Las Vegas Police Department.”

“There’s nothing in the evidence to show that,” Ormsby said. “And anyway the point is immaterial.”

“Well, then I’d like to recall Lieutenant Tragg for further cross-examination and establish that I was under constant surveillance,” Mason said.

“My case is closed. You can’t reopen it to cross-examine a witness now,” Ormsby protested.

“Very well,” Mason said affably. “I have such complete confidence in the integrity of Lieutenant Tragg I’ll call him as my witness.”

Lieutenant Tragg came forward, puzzled.

Mason said, “Referring you to People’s Exhibit 26-A, Lieutenant Tragg, the briefcase which was found in my room. Who found that briefcase?”

“I did.”

“Did you notice any other briefcase in the room?”

“No, sir, I didn’t. But there was a suitcase in the room.”

“I’m talking about a briefcase,” Mason said. “Was there any other briefcase in the room?”

“Not in plain sight.”

“Well, you went in there for a purpose, didn’t you, Lieutenant?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You were accompanied by Sergeant Elias Camp of the Las Vegas Police force?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And, to your knowledge, was I being shadowed at the time?”

“There was a plainclothes officer detailed to keep a watch on you.”

“And you had threatened to get a search warrant to search my room?”

“Yes, sir.”

“For what purpose?”

“To look for a briefcase containing securities.”

“And you found a briefcase containing securities?”

“I did.”

“And was there any other briefcase in that room, either containing securities or from which securities could have been transferred to this briefcase?”

“I... I confess that I don’t know,” Lieutenant Tragg said. “Why don’t you know?”

“Because I went there to find a briefcase containing securities and when I found what I was looking for I discontinued any further search.”

“Therefore,” Mason said, “as far as you know, and to the best of your knowledge, this briefcase, Exhibit 26-A, was the only briefcase in the room.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you,” Mason asked, “make any attempt to develop latent fingerprints on this briefcase, Exhibit 26-A?”

“We did. Yes, sir.”

“Did you find any latent fingerprints?”

“Yes. We found some of yours and some of a person who could not be identified at the moment. I assume now they may have been the fingerprints of Miss Estelle Rankin, who just left the stand.”

“Do you have those photographs of the latent fingerprints with you?” Mason asked.

“I have them in my briefcase.”

“Will you produce them, please?” Tragg produced the photographs.

“I wish to introduce these photographs as defendants’ exhibits three and four,” Mason said, “and I have no further questions of this witness.”

“No questions,” Ormsby said.

“You’re excused,” Mason said, and turned to the startled prosecutor. “That constitutes the defendants’ case, if the Court please. We have no further witnesses.”

Judge Fisk was as surprised as Ormsby. “You wish to argue the matter now?”

“We’re ready to proceed with argument right now,” Ormsby said defiantly.

“So am I,” Mason said.

“Very well,” Judge Fisk said. “Proceed with the argument.”

Ormsby walked forward to address the jurors.

“If it please the Court, and you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a peculiar case — an unusual case. It is a case involving deliberate, cold-blooded murder.

“The decedent may not have been the most perfect man on earth, but he was, nevertheless, entitled to his life. He was entitled to the protection of the law.

“The defendant Vivian Carson, finding her affection for him wearing thin, proceeded to divorce him. She felt that her husband had withheld certain securities, and it is quite possible that he had done so; in fact, the evidence would so indicate. I would be underestimating your intelligence if I tried to argue otherwise.

“That, in part, furnished the motive for the murder; that, and apparently a sudden infatuation between the two defendants. I was tempted to submit this case without argument, but I felt that I should point out certain facts to you members of the jury so that you will not be confused by any dramatic last-minute argument. I have a closing argument which will follow the defendants’ argument, so I simply want to point out at this time that despite the attack which will doubtless be made on the credibility of the witness, Nadine Palmer, she has comported herself throughout in an admirable manner. She told you frankly that while she is sure in her own mind the woman she saw jumping into the swimming pool was Vivian Carson, she is not going to make a positive identification. I think that is perhaps the best barometer of fairness that you could have in this witness.

“I submit that in view of the manner and demeanor of this witness anything that defense counsel may say, any attempt to smear this witness will be a boomerang which will damn the defendants.

“The defendants left their fingerprints on that hinged tile which covered the hidden receptacle. Those damning fingerprints, silent evidence that both of these defendants touched the inside surface of that tile.

“The testimony that their fingerprints were there is uncontradicted. You can see those fingerprints for yourselves. The photographs are in evidence. Just look at those enlarged photographs and reach your own conclusions. You don’t have to qualify as an expert to tell when fingerprints such as these match. All you need is good eyesight and good judgment.

“The defendants had their hands on the inside of that tile, on the inside of that steel-lined receptacle.

“Why?

“Ask yourselves that question. No one has attempted to give you any reasonable explanation. There can be only one logical explanation. They murdered Loring Carson and took his hidden securities. They kept the cash. They wanted to transfer the securities. Their attorney, Perry Mason, had those stolen securities with him in Las Vegas.

“Was this a coincidence?

“Don’t be naive.

“Don’t let Counsel pull the wool over your eyes.

“I ask a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder against both defendants.”

Ormsby turned and walked back to his table.

Mason arose and smiled at the jurors.

“If it please the Court and you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I find myself at something of a disadvantage. The case against the defendants is predicated upon the testimony of one witness, Nadine Palmer.

“You have the assurance of the deputy prosecutor that Nadine Palmer is a reasonable, fair woman. Because she wouldn’t identify the nude woman she saw jumping into the swimming pool as being Vivian Carson, you are told that this is an indication of her sincerity, a barometer of her integrity, and any attack on her will be a boomerang to the defense.

“The witness, Nadine Palmer, doesn’t dare to come out and say that it was Vivian Carson she saw jumping in there because she knows it wasn’t Vivian Carson and if it should turn out at a later date that the person she saw was actually someone else, she would then be guilty of perjury.

“So she hedges, she twists, she turns and evades, she equivocates, and the district attorney’s office wants you to take that as a barometer of honesty.

“If that’s a barometer of honesty, then the barometer shows a pretty low pressure.

“Why didn’t she have the integrity to come right out and say that she hadn’t been able to recognize the person she saw, that she didn’t know who it was, that she couldn’t see her face. The sudden, startling apparition of this nude woman dashing out of the house and plunging into the swimming pool caught her entirely by surprise.

“You women on the jury will know how she felt. She saw this woman entirely unclad. The spectacle was one that startled her, and before she could gather her wits enough to take a good look the woman was in the swimming pool. After that she never saw the woman’s face.

“But did she see a nude woman? Did she see anyone, or is she simply transposing her story so that she describes the part which she played in this case, and pretends that she was an impartial witness watching the event from a distance?

“Why didn’t she go to the police with what she saw? Why did she rush home and take a shower, getting her hair all wet? Why were the cigarettes in her bag soggy? I’ll tell you why. It was because she was the woman who jumped into the pool, swam over and got the securities, and presently I’m going to prove it to you; and I’m going to prove it to you by your own senses and beyond any reasonable doubt.

“You ladies and gentlemen of the jury are mature people; you weren’t born yesterday; you know the habits of the police — when they have decided on a suspect, they marshal all the evidence indicating the guilt of that suspect, and all too frequently ignore evidence pointing to anyone else.

“I submit to you that the witness, Nadine Palmer, plunged in that swimming pool after she had learned the hiding place of the securities; that she put those securities in a plastic bag; that she started to swim back to get her clothes and found that Loring Carson had caught a glimpse of her as she jumped into the pool. Loring Carson ran back out of the house, and as Nadine Palmer tried to emerge from the swimming pool he grabbed her head and tried to hold her under water until she surrendered the bag of securities.

“How do we know this?

“Because both of Carson’s shirt sleeves were wet to the elbow. He didn’t get both arms wet opening the hinged tile. And when he reached for that hidden mechanism which raised the tile he did just what Lieutenant Tragg did when he reached for it. He did the only natural thing to do; he rolled up his right shirt sleeve.

“But even if he hadn’t rolled up his sleeves he couldn’t possibly have got his left arm wet reaching for that hidden release ring.

“The way he got both arms wet was by trying to grab a swimmer and hold her while she was in the pool. The swimmer got away from him.

“So what did Loring Carson do? He went into the house, found where she had left her clothes and stood guard over them, knowing that the swimmer wouldn’t dare go out in public attired only in filmy wet underthings.

“And presently I am going to prove to you that this swimmer was not the mysterious nude Nadine Palmer says she saw, but was Nadine Palmer herself.

“She was trapped. So she quietly went into the kitchen side of the house, picked up a knife and, in her bare feet, walked gently and silently to the fence where Loring Carson was standing over her clothes and with his back to the fence, and plunged that knife into his body.

“That one act disposed of everything that stood in her way, stood between getting possession of the securities and having a fortune in her own name on the one hand or being apprehended as a culprit on the other.

“So then the witness, Nadine Palmer, plunged into the swimming pool, again went under the barbed-wire fence, returned to the pile of clothes she had left in the living room on the bedroom side of the house and, in the presence of the corpse, stripped herself of her wet underwear, put it in her purse, put on her outer garments and then, and not until then, retraced her steps up the hill to where she had left her car, carrying the stolen securities with her.

“After regaining possession of her car, she went back to her apartment and was changing her clothes when I arrived. She was panic-stricken, particularly when she realized she had inadvertently given me an opportunity to see that the cigarettes in her handbag were soaked with water.

“She suddenly realized that she had to do something to account for a period of financial transition. She had been a woman in modest circumstances, getting along on a small salary, and now suddenly she had blossomed into wealth. How could she account for this wealth?

“I mentioned Las Vegas and that gave her the idea she needed. She would go to Las Vegas and cut a wide swath at the gambling tables. People wouldn’t know whether she was winning or losing over the long haul. Subsequently she could appear with this money and claim she had won it at the tables of Las Vegas.

“But she was too smart to bother with the securities because those could be traced, so what did she do? She put them in a briefcase, had the name ‘P. MASON’ stamped on the briefcase, took that briefcase to my room and planted it. Then she tipped off the authorities that I had a briefcase full of securities which had been given to me by my clients, the defendants in this case.

“Now, I can’t prove that irrefutably and beyond all reasonable doubt because I am but one man; I am an attorney; I do not have the organization of the police, I do not have their facilities, I do not have their numbers, I cannot as an individual count on the cooperation of the Las Vegas police.

“However, if I can’t prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, I can prove it to you to your satisfaction so that it will at least raise a reasonable doubt in your minds, and once I do that you must acquit the defendants. That is the law.

“You will notice in the exhibits in this case, exhibits of the briefcase containing certain latent fingerprints which the police say they were not able to identify. You will notice the photographic record of the fingerprints on the steel receptacle and on the lid of that receptacle that there are circled fingerprints which the police have determined, or at least they say they have determined, were the fingerprints of my clients.

“I am now going to ask you to take this fingerprint exhibit containing the known fingerprints of Nadine Palmer, fingerprints which have been testified to by the prosecution’s expert as being her fingerprints, take those exhibits to the jury room and there compare the recorded fingerprints of Nadine Palmer with the fingerprints shown on those photographs which the police have not been able to identify; fingerprints which they say were badly smudged on the one hand, or could not be identified on the other.

“You don’t need to be fingerprint experts to make this comparison. It is simply a question of looking for points of similarity. The police have shown you how this was done on the charts which were introduced showing the fingerprints of the defendants which were found on the lip of the tile — and of course the fingerprints of the defendants were found there. Why shouldn’t they be? This was a house that was owned by the two defendants. Vivian Carson owned one-half, Morley Eden owned the other. What would you do if you returned to your house and suddenly found a tile in the swimming pool was actually the lid of a hidden receptacle? Wouldn’t you wonder what had been put in there? Wouldn’t you go and bend over it and inspect it?

“The prosecution has claimed to show you that those were the fingerprints of the defendants on that receptacle, but they can’t show you when they were made.”

Mason paused dramatically. “They can’t show you whether they were made before the murder or afterward. They can’t show you whether they were made before Loring Carson came to that house or not. They can’t show you whether those fingerprints weren’t made the night before when the defendants first discovered the hiding place of those securities and then waited to bait a trap for Loring Carson. By that simple act when Loring Carson came to that receptacle he could be apprehended and brought into court and forced to account for this fraudulently concealed community property, and be judged guilty of contempt because of the concealment of assets.

“Let’s assume they tried that. Let’s assume that something went wrong with their plan and suddenly, and to their consternation, they found Loring Carson murdered.

“Now then, ladies and gentlemen, I have here twelve magnifying glasses. I am going to leave these with the clerk of the court. The Court will instruct you that you are entitled to take the exhibits in this case with you and consider them in your deliberations. All I ask you to do is to take these photographs and the undisputed fingerprints of the witness Nadine Palmer and—”

“Just a moment, just a moment,” Ormsby shouted. “I assign these remarks as misconduct. The jurors can’t constitute themselves as fingerprint experts. Fingerprinting is a science. It is something which only a competent observer can do.

“Now then, if there’s any question about it we’ll reopen the case and let the sheriff’s fingerprint expert demonstrate that the fingerprints which the police couldn’t identify are not identifiable; that they don’t have enough points of similarity to identify them with the prints of anyone. We can’t have these jurors going in and making a hit-and-miss comparison. Why, even a fingerprint expert can’t tell from only a limited number of points of similarity whether—”

“Now, just a minute,” Judge Fisk interrupted. “You’ve made your objection and your assignment of misconduct. The Court is inclined to think the situation is somewhat irregular, but the Court realizes that Mr. Mason is right, the jurors have the right to take these exhibits with them and I don’t know that we can place any limitation on what the jurors do with those exhibits.”

“Thank you, Your Honor,” Mason said, and he turned to the jurors and bowed. “You will remember that the prosecutor himself has told you in his opening argument that all you need to compare fingerprints is good eyesight and good judgment.

“The Court will instruct you that if, after you have studied all of the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the defendants, you must acquit. I thank you.”

Mason sat down.

Ormsby, on his feet, throwing caution and discretion to the winds, angry and enraged, shouted and bellowed at the jurors, pounded the table, pointed a finger of scorn at Mason, accused him of unprofessional practice, stated that he hadn’t called a fingerprint expert to show that the fingerprints which hadn’t been identified by the police were those of Nadine Palmer because he was afraid to.

Mason sat and smiled, first at Ormsby, then at the jurors. It was the smile of a man who can afford to be magnanimous in victory; a man who is watching the hysterical rantings of a person going down to defeat and knowing it.

The jurors were out two hours and a half, then returned a verdict finding both defendants not guilty.