The Case of the Long-Legged Models

Chapter Seventeen

Hamilton Burger arose to make his opening address to the jury.

“In this case,” he said, “I am going to be brief and factual. It is the intention of the prosecution to avoid all dramatics and to present the case with such mathematical certainty that there can be but one inescapable conclusion.

“On the seventh day of October of this year, George Casselman met his death. Medical evidence will show you ladies and gentlemen of the jury that a revolver was placed against Casselman’s body just below the heart and slightly to the left of the median line. The trigger was pulled. The shot was what is known as a con-tact wound. That is, the muzzle of the revolver was firmly held directly against the body of the victim. In this way, the gases from the exploding shell as well as the bullet went into the victim’s body. Under those circumstances, the sound of the report would have been greatly muffled.

“The prosecution intends to show that the defendant, Stephanie Falkner, had an appointment with George Casselman. She went to keep that appointment by entering the front door of Casselman’s apartment. Sometime later she was seen surreptitiously leaving the apartment by way of the back door.

“We expect to show you that she stepped in the blood of her victim, that she went to the bathroom and tried to wash the blood from her shoe. She left a footprint etched in blood on the floor, and she left towels in the bathroom that bore traces of human blood and bits of material which came from her shoe.

“Her friend, Homer Garvin, tried to cover up the traces of her crime and did obliterate much of the evidence. For that he will in due time be tried, but enough evidence remains to convict this defendant.

“We expect to prove with mathematical certainty that the gun with which the murder was committed was in the possession of the defendant. An ingenious device was used by her attorney, Perry Mason, to confuse the issues on that point, but bear well in mind that the fatal weapon was found in her possession. Let her explain how that came about if she can.

“Mr. Perry Mason, the attorney who is representing both this defendant and Homer Garvin, has not been indicted as an accessory or an accomplice at this time. However, he has not been granted any immunity. We will ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to weigh the evidence and bring in a verdict of first-degree murder against this defendant. After that verdict is in, you may leave it to us to take such additional steps as will deal with the persons responsible for juggling evidence and obstructing the administration of justice. You are not to concern yourselves with that aspect of the case except as it shows certain things which explain the physical facts. Your sole concern is as to whether this defendant murdered George Casselman.

“We shall expect a just verdict and a fair verdict at your hands.”

Hamilton Burger turned with dignity and walked back to his seat at the counsel table.

Judge Hilton Decker looked at Perry Mason.

“Does the defense wish to make an opening statement now, or wait until later?”

“We will wait,” Mason said.

“Call your first witness, Mr. Prosecutor,” Judge Decker said.

Hamilton Burger’s chief trial assistant, Guy Hendrie, took charge and called as the prosecution’s first witness one of the radio officers who had entered the Casselman apartment and who described briefly the body on the floor, the pool of blood, and the fact that the Homicide Squad had been promptly notified.

There was no cross-examination.

The prosecution’s next witness was Sgt. Holcomb, who took the stand with an air of importance, testified to his connection with the Homicide Squad, the fact that he had arrived at the scene, had been in charge, had directed the taking of photographs, and eventually the removal of the body, that thereafter fingerprint men had been instructed to try to develop latent fingerprints.

Again there was no cross-examination.

The photographer who had taken the pictures was sworn and the various pictures were introduced in evidence, including a color picture of the bloodied footprint on the floor.

Again there was no cross-examination.

Judge Decker glanced sharply at Mason, started to say something, then changed his mind.

The autopsy surgeon testified to the nature of the wound and the course of the bullet. The wound, he explained, was what was known as a contact wound. He stated that the one shot had been almost instantly fatal, although there had been a brief period of unconsciousness during which there had been a very large internal and external hemorrhage. He identified the fatal bullet which had been recovered from the body of the decedent.

He fixed the time of death as being probably between seven o’clock in the evening of the seventh of October and midnight. He had performed an autopsy at noon of the eighth and he fixed the probable time of death as between twelve and seventeen hours prior to the autopsy although he was inclined to consider fifteen to sixteen hours prior to the autopsy as being the most logical time.

Again Mason failed to ask any questions on cross-examination.

At that point, Guy Hendrie recalled Sgt. Holcomb to the witness stand.

“I am showing you herewith a certain Colt revolver of .38 caliber, and I will ask you if you have seen that gun before?”

“Yes, sir. I have.”

“When did you first see it?”

“On the eighth of October, around eleven forty-five o’clock of that day.”

“Where did you first see it?”

“In the apartment of Stephanie Falkner, the defendant in this case.”

“Where was it in that apartment?”

“Lying upon a table near the center of the room.”

“Did you take or did you cause a photograph to be taken of the apartment?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“And does that photograph show where the gun was found?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you have a print of that photograph with you?”

“Yes, sir.”

Sgt. Holcomb produced a photograph.

“We ask that it be received in evidence,” Hendrie said.

“Just a moment,” Mason said, “I would like to ask a question of the witness in connection with this photograph.”

The jurors, impressed by the fact that this was the first attempt Mason had made to cross-examine a witness, turned to regard him with considerable interest.

“This photograph shows a weapon on the table, Sergeant,” Mason said.

“Yes, sir.”

“Is that the same weapon which you have identified?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Is that weapon in the same position in which you found it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Then the photograph must have been taken before the weapon was moved?”

Sgt. Holcomb hesitated a moment, crossed his legs. “Well, the weapon was picked up, examined, and then returned to the same place where it had been found.”

“Who examined it?”

“I did.”

“Anyone else?”

“Lt. Tragg of Homicide was with me at the time.”

“And of what did the examination consist?”

“We broke open the cylinder, we saw that there was an empty cartridge directly underneath the firing pin, we smelled the barrel.”

“Did you dust it for fingerprints?”

“Yes.”

“And then what?”

“Then the weapon was returned to the exact position in which it had been found so that it could be photographed.”

“And then this photograph was taken?”

“Yes, sir. That is right.”

“Now if you know,” Mason asked, “was any attempt made to connect the fatal bullet in this case with this weapon?”

“Just a moment,” Hamilton Burger said. “That is going to be proven by my next witness. I will have the ballistic expert on the stand, and he can be cross-examined.”

“That’s quite all right,” Mason said. “All I am asking this witness is whether such an examination was made?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When?” Mason asked.

“Shortly after the weapon was recovered. I don’t know exactly the time, but it was within a few hours.”

“What do you mean by a few hours?” Mason asked.

“Just a short time, a very brief interval.”

“As much as twenty-four hours?” Mason asked.

The witness hesitated.

“As much as forty-eight hours?” Mason asked.

“No, it wasn’t forty-eight hours.”

“It could have been twenty-four hours?”

“It could have been. I think it was much less.”

“Who put the weapon back on the table in the exact place where it was found?”

“I did.”

“How did you know where that exact place was?”

“I remembered it.”

“Did you mark it in any way?”

“No.”

“Now when you entered the room,” Mason asked, “and found this weapon, was the muzzle pointing toward the door or was it pointing away from the door?”

“It was on the table as shown in that photograph.”

Mason, holding the photograph so the witness couldn’t see it, repeated, “Was the muzzle pointed toward the door or away from the door?”

“At this moment, I can’t remember. I knew at the time. The photograph will show its exact position. I replaced the gun within five minutes of the time I picked it up and while its position was fresh in my mind.”

“Thank you,” Mason said, “these are all the questions I have in regard to the photograph, if the Court please.”

Hendrie said, “I now wish to offer the photograph in evidence.”

“No objection,” Mason said.

Hendrie turned to the witness. “Did the defendant make any statement to you with reference to the gun?”

“Yes, I asked her about the gun, and she said Mr. Homer Garvin had given it to her.”

“Did you have any further conversation with her?”

“Yes, I asked her about the discharged shell in the gun and she said she knew nothing about it, that the weapon was in the same condition as when she had received it.”

“We ask that the weapon be marked for identification.”

“So ordered,” the Court ruled. “It will be People’s Exhibit Number 30, and the photograph is in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 29.”

“You may inquire,” Hendrie said.

“Did she say whether or not she had received the gun from Homer Garvin, Sr., or Homer Garvin, Jr.?”

“Just that she had received it from Homer Garvin. That was all she said.”

“Did she say when she had received it?”

“No, sir. She didn’t.”

Hamilton Burger said, “If the Court please, we expect to connect up the time element. However, in that connection, I will ask Sgt. Holcomb one question. What time did you arrive at the defendant’s apartment, Sergeant?”

“It was almost exactly eleven forty-five.”

“No further questions,” Mason said.

“Call Alexander Redfield,” Hendrie said.

Redfield, the ballistics expert, who had been cross-examined by Mason in several other cases and who had learned to be very wary indeed of Mason’s ingenuity on cross-examination, took the oath and settled himself cautiously on the witness stand.

From Hendrie’s manner, it was apparent that there was a certain feeling of exasperation on the part of the prosecuting attorney toward Redfield, that Redfield, on the other hand, knowing Mason’s ability as a cross-examiner and his knowledge of the subject of ballistics, was determined to give only such evidence as was completely unassailable.

“I show you People’s Exhibit Number 30, the weapon which has just been received in evidence. Are you familiar with that weapon?”

Redfield took the exhibit in his hands, studied it carefully, checked the serial number, then said, “Yes, I am familiar with it.”

“I show you a bullet which has previously been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 14, the fatal bullet. Are you familiar with that bullet?”

The witness took a magnifying glass from his pocket, carefully inspected the base of the bullet, then said, “Yes, sir. I am familiar with that bullet. It has my secret mark on it.”

“That bullet has already been identified as the fatal bullet,” Hendrie said. “Now can you tell us whether or not that bullet, Exhibit 14, was fired from the gun, Exhibit 30?”

“Yes, sir, that bullet was fired from this gun,” the witness said.

“Could it have been fired from any other gun?”

“No, sir. It was fired from this gun.”

“You may cross-examine,” Hendrie said.

“No questions,” Mason announced.

“Call Paul Clinton,” Hendrie said.

Paul Clinton came forward, took the stand and identified him* self as a scientific investigator in the employ of the police department. He qualified himself as an expert in the science of developing and comparing fingerprints, in making chemical tests for bloodstains, in the grouping of blood, in making various types of analysis.

“Did you have occasion to search the apartment occupied by the defendant in this case?” Hendrie asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”

“On the ninth day of October.”

“Of this year?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you find any wearing apparel in the apartment of the defendant which was stained with blood?”

“I did. Yes, sir.”

“What article did you find?”

“I found a left shoe with blood on the sole and on the heel.”

“Were you able to get enough blood to type the stain?”

“No, sir.”

“Were you able to get enough blood to determine that it was human blood?”

“No, sir. The shoe had been carefully and thoroughly washed, but chemical tests gave a typical blood reaction.”

“Do you have that shoe with you?”

“I do, yes, sir.”

“Produce it, please... This is the shoe which you found in the defendant’s apartment?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Is there anything distinctive about that shoe?”

“Yes, sir, the sole is of a certain patented composition.”

“I will ask you if you found any soiled towels in the Casselman apartment?”

“I did, yes, sir. I produce herewith one towel which I consider especially significant.”

“Why?”

“It had blood smears on it. It had been used to wipe off some bloodstained object. In addition to the bloodstains or smears, there was a very small bit of foreign matter adhering to the towel. Spectroscopic analysis showed that bit of foreign matter to have exactly the same component parts as the sole of this shoe.”

Hendrie said, “I ask to have the shoe introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 31, the towel as People’s Exhibit 32.”

“No objection,” Mason said.

“So ordered. They will be received in evidence,” Judge Decker ruled.

“Now I’m going to call your attention to the photograph, Exhibit Number 12, which has been received in evidence. I am going to ask you if you have made a careful study of that photograph?”

“I have. Yes, sir.”

“What did you find from your study?”

“I found that there are evidences of this color photograph of two footprints. There is the evidence of a shoe with a fairly high heel which has been covered with a metal plate held in place by four brads.

“Subsequent investigation convinced me that this heel plate bore the number ‘thirty-three.’ In part, the numbers which had been stamped into this plate are obliterated but in this photograph which I hold in my hand, it is possible to detect faint traces of the number thirty-three. This footprint made with the heel print bearing the number thirty-three has been almost obliterated by the footprint of a man wearing a much larger shoe and this footprint had been superimposed upon the other print at a time considerably later than the making of the first print.”

“Can you tell how much later?”

“I would say probably two or three hours later.”

“Referring now to the article of wearing apparel, the shoe which you found in the defendant’s apartment, and which has been received in evidence as Exhibit Number 31, have you been able to determine whether this particular shoe which you hold in your hand made the bloody print which you have testified to finding underneath the print made by the larger shoe?”

“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I object to that question as calling for a conclusion of the witness in a manner which invades the province of the jury. It is for the jury to determine whether this shoe made that print, if it should appear there is any print there, and the witness is not testifying purely to a figment of the imagination.

“This witness can testify as to what he has found. He can testify as to an opinion in connection with the legitimate field of expert evidence, but he cannot invade the province of the jury.”

Judge Decker said, “Let me see that photograph and the shoe please.”

The judge studied the photograph and the shoe for some seconds, then said, “the objection will be sustained. The jurors can and will draw their own conclusions. This witness can testify only as to the facts from which such conclusions can be drawn.”

The prosecution took the ruling with poor grace. “If the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said ponderously getting to his feet and frowning with displeasure, “this witness has qualified himself as an expert.”

“He may give his opinions as to collateral matters,” Judge Decker ruled. “He may set forth the various factors in this case, but on the question of whether this identical shoe made this identical print which the witness claims he has been able to decipher from the photograph, the Court feels it would be invading the province of the jury to permit an answer to the question.

“The Court may point out that, while the witness contends there were two footprints visible in the photograph, that very point may be contested by the defense.”

Hamilton Burger slowly sat down.

Hendrie resumed the examination. “You have testified that the second print, the one made with the man’s shoe, and which covers the first print, was made some two hours later?”

“I would say approximately two or three or perhaps four hours later.”

“How can you determine?”

“There are certain changes in blood which take place when the blood leaves the body. Blood will coagulate in some three minutes or less. After it has coagulated or clotted it can be restored to liquid form by pressure or by certain types of agitation. In this case it is my opinion that the person wearing the man’s shoes stepped in the pool of blood after it had coagulated and that the track which was made thereafter shows distinctly certain characteristics which indicate the condition of the blood, a condition which, in my opinion, would probably indicate an interval of some time, probably two or three hours.”

“Have you examined a man’s shoe which could have made the Covering track shown in this photograph?”

“I have.”

“Do you have that shoe with you?”

“I do.”

“Will you produce it please?”

The witness delved into his bag and produced a shoe.

“Is there something distinctive about this shoe?”

“There is.”

“In what way?”

“There is a relatively new rubber heel on the shoe and there is a little defect in that rubber heel which can be noticed here and the same defect in exactly the same place can be seen in this photograph of the track.”

“Have you tested this shoe for blood?”

“I have. Yes, sir.”

“Did you find blood on it?”

“Yes, sir. My chemical tests showed the presence of blood.”

“Those tests are responsible for the discoloration of the shoe?”

“That is right.”

“Where may I ask did you get this shoe?”

“From a suitcase, the property of Homer Garvin, Sr.”

Hendrie said, “May we have this shoe marked People’s Exhibit Number 33 for identification. Now, Mr. Clinton, did you examine the Casselman apartment for latent fingerprints?”

“I did.”

“What did you find?”

“The doorknobs of all doors had been carefully wiped by someone so that there were no latent fingerprints on any of the knobs with one exception.”

“And that exception?”

“The back door. There was a left thumb print on that back door without anything else in the line of a latent fingerprint appearing on it.”

“Do you know whose fingerprint it was that was found on the door of this apartment?”

“Yes. sir.”

“Whose was it?”

“The fingerprint of Mr. Homer Garvin.”

“Cross-examine,” Hendrie said turning to Perry Mason.

Mason said, “How do you know that the room had been wiped clean of fingerprints?”

“Because normally there are fingerprints in every room. There are latent fingerprints some of which are smudged, some of which can be developed so that they can be identified. But when one finds a complete absence of fingerprints, it indicates that someone has removed all fingerprints, particularly from objects like doorknobs.”

“When was this done?” Mason asked.

“I can’t tell you when it was done.”

“You found a fingerprint on the knob of the back door?”

“Yes, sir. A left thumb print.”

“And you were able to identify that?”

“I did. Yes, sir. It was the left thumb print of Homer Garvin.”

“Senior or Junior?”

“Senior.”

“When was it made?”

“I can’t tell you.”

“Was it made before the murder was committed?”

“I don’t know. I do know that it was made after the knobs had been wiped clean of fingerprints, and since there was only the one fingerprint on all the doorknobs, I know that the cleaning of these objects for fingerprints must have been done while Mr. Garvin was in the room.”

“How do you know that?”

“Because there were no other fingerprints. If he had entered the room after the knobs had been cleaned, there would have been fingerprints on the knobs where he had entered the room, where he had touched the doors, but, since there was only the one absolutely perfect fingerprint, which had been made by pressure of the thumb against the knob of the door, I know that the articles had been wiped clean at a time when he was in the room.”

“This fingerprint was on the knob of the back door?”

“Yes, on the knob of the back door.”

“Wasn’t it possible that someone could have wiped the finger-prints from the inside of the knobs and that Mr. Garvin, coming up the back stairs of the apartment and finding the apartment door slightly open, had decided to close it, that he had reached in and, in doing so, had touched his thumb to the knob in this manner?”

“No, sir. That fingerprint was deliberately left on the doorknob. It was not in a position where a person would have normally placed his hand to close the door.”

Mason said, “Someone could have reversed the doorknobs, could they not?”

“What do you mean?”

“The rounded doorknob is placed on a square spindle and held in place by a setscrew. The knob which you found on the inside of the door could at some previous time have been on the outside of the door, could it not?”

“It could have, yes,” the witness reluctantly conceded.

“And the print of Mr. Garvin could have been made on the outside knob, and thereafter someone wearing gloves could have conceivably transferred the outer knob to the inside?”

“Well, of course, if you want to engage in fanciful speculation as to the things which could conceivably have happened, it could have been done.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

“Now then, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said, getting to his feet, “I am going to call a hostile witness. I am going to call Homer Garvin, Sr. to the witness stand.”

“I take it,” Judge Decker said, “you wish to be permitted to ask leading questions, on the ground that you are dealing with a hostile witness. I think, however, the better practice is to call the witness to the stand and proceed with the interrogation. Then if there are objections on the ground that the questions are leading, the Court will rule on those objections at the time they are made.”

“Very well, Your Honor. Come forward, Mr. Garvin.”

Garvin came forward, was sworn, and took his position on the witness stand.

“I am going to call your attention to a shoe which has previously been marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification. I am going to ask you if that is your shoe.”

“That is my shoe.”

“Did you wear that shoe on the night of October 7th of this year?”

“I did.”

“Did you deliberately step into a pool of blood in the apartment of George Casselman in the Ambrose Apartments at Number 948 Christine Drive, and thereafter place your foot over a footprint which you found etched in dried blood in that apartment?”

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.

“The objection will be overruled.”

The witness said, “I refuse to answer.”

“On what grounds?”

“On the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me.”

“Your Honor, I now ask that the shoe previously marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification be received in evidence.”

Judge Decker hesitated a moment, then said, “There appearing to be no objection, it is so ordered.”

“Did you enter Apartment 211 of the Ambrose Apartments at 948 Christine Drive on the night of October seventh?” Burger asked the witness.

“Yes.”

“At what time?”

“Perhaps about eleven or eleven-thirty in the evening.”

“Did you at that time by the means of a cloth or some other manner deliberately remove fingerprints from certain objects in that apartment?”

“I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me.”

Hamilton Burger, seeing the rapt attention of the jurors, and knowing that the answers of the witness were the psychological equivalent of affirmative answers, smiled.

“On the seventh day of October, did you give or loan a weapon to the defendant in this case and tell her that you wanted her to have this weapon for her own protection?”

“I did.”

“Was that weapon the revolver which I now hand you and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30?”

Garvin examined the gun. “I believe that is the weapon. Yes.”

“I will ask you to describe in detail your movements on the night of October 7th.”

“I returned from Las Vegas. I went to my office where I have a shower, a wardrobe, and some clothes. I took a shower and changed my clothes.”

“Then what did you do?”

Mason said, “Now, if the Court please, I object on the ground that the movements of this witness are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, except as to the two matters on which the witness has already testified; to wit, that he was in the apartment of Casselman sometime in the vicinity of eleven o’clock, and that he loaned the defendant the weapon People’s Exhibit Number 30. Aside from that, any other activities engaged in by this witness are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

“They may be very pertinent,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Then show that they are pertinent by showing what you want.”

Judge Decker frowned. “This is a very peculiar situation,” he said, “It is quite apparent to the Court what the prosecution seeks to prove by this witness, and, in view of the testimony, the time element is not too remote.”

“However, if the Court please,” Mason said, “it is quite possible that this witness may have done certain things that might be incompetent as far as the issues in this case are concerned.”

“The Court is going to sustain the objection,” Judge Decker said, “although it is apparently a close point. Quite evidently the witness has reached definite decisions in his own mind as to where he intends to exercise the privilege of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. The Court can very readily understand that there is no Statute of Limitations which has run in the matter, and this witness is facing a very real danger in that after the conclusion of this case he is to be tried on certain matters concerning which he is now being interrogated.

“Under the circumstances and in view of the situation, I think the Court will narrow the examination, particularly in view of the fact that the testimony of this witness is being used to build up a case against the defendant. It is quite possible that certain things he might have done cannot be considered as being binding upon the defendant unless there was some unity of purpose or unless the actions were a part of some pact or design which had been mutually agreed upon.”

“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said, “we’ll prove some of these activities by other witnesses.”

Hamilton Burger engaged in a whispered conference with Hendrie, then said, “Where did you get this gun which has been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 30?”

“I owned a sporting goods store among some of my other investments. While I was the owner of that sporting goods store I withdrew three guns from the stock.”

“And what did you do with those weapons?”

“I kept two for myself. I gave one to my son.”

“And those you kept for yourself?”

“I customarily carried a gun with me. I also kept a spare gun in my office. When I was absent I locked this gun in the safe.”

“Let’s put it this way,” Hamilton Burger said. “Let’s call the gun which you gave your son the ‘Junior Gun,’ let’s call the gun you put in your safe the ‘Safe Gun,’ and the gun which you carried in your holster the ‘Holster Gun.’

“Now I will limit this question to certain specific activities. Isn’t it a fact that after you gave the defendant the Holster Gun you returned to your office, unlocked your safe and put the Safe Gun in your shoulder holster?”

“Is there any objection?” Judge Decker asked.

“No objection to that question,” Mason said.

“Well,” Judge Decker said, “it seems to me... However, if there is no objection, I will permit the answer.”

“Did you do that?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“Yes, sir, I did.”

“That very evening?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When did you do that?”

“About... I would say about ten-fifty-five.”

“Then did you return to the apartment of the defendant after that?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, then, after you had returned to the apartment of the defendant, did you have occasion to again see the Holster Gun, which is now Exhibit Number 30?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where was it?”

“It was on the bed of the defendant, under the pillow.”

“Did you at that time examine the gun?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you have it in your hands?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And did you, at that time, notice that since the time you had given the gun to the defendant the gun had been fired?”

“Objected to as leading and suggestive, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.

“The objection is overruled.”

“It is further objected to that it calls for the conclusion of the witness.”

“On that ground,” Judge Decker ruled, “I think perhaps there should be some further examination for the purpose of laying a foundation.”

“I will put the question this way,” Hamilton Burger said. “Was there something about the weapon when you saw it that second time at the defendant’s apartment which caused you to make a detailed inspection of the cylinder of the weapon?”

The witness hesitated, crossed his legs.

“You’re under oath,” Hamilton Burger thundered at him, “and there’s nothing in this question which calls for evidence which will incriminate you in any way. I am asking you if you, for some reason, made an examination of that weapon.”

“Yes, sir. I did.”

“What did you find?”

“I found that the cylinder contained an exploded cartridge,” the witness said.

“What was the condition of the gun when you gave it to the defendant earlier in the evening?”

The witness hesitated. “It was fully loaded,” he said at length.

“You know that of your own knowledge?”

“Yes.”

“How do you know it?”

“Because just prior to leaving Las Vegas, I had reloaded the gun with fresh ammunition. I had reason to believe that I might, later on in the day, be in a position of some danger.”

“And the reason that you went to the apartment of George Casselman later on that evening was that you had reason to believe the defendant might have used the weapon which you gave her to kill George Casselman? Isn’t that right?”

“Objected to, if the Court please,” Mason said, “on the ground that the question is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and I assign the asking of that question as prejudicial misconduct on the part of the prosecution. This defendant is not bound by any reasoning or any ideas or any surmises or anything else which may have been in the mind of this witness.”

“The objection is sustained,” Judge Decker ruled. “The prosecution certainly should realize that the thoughts within the mind of this witness are not binding upon this defendant. This entire matter is being developed in an exceedingly unusual way. The Court, is mindful of the fact that this is not a case against this witness, but is a case against this defendant, and that her guilt or innocence can only be established by certain pertinent rules of evidence. The jurors are instructed to completely disregard this question by the District Attorney, and also any inference which may have been drawn from that question by the jurors. Proceed, Mr. District Attorney.”

“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger said, smiling triumphantly.

“Just a moment,” Mason said. “I have one question on cross-examination. Why did you give the defendant what the District Attorney has referred to as the Holster Gun, the gun which is now Exhibit Number 30?”

“Because,” Homer Garvin said, “she had at one time been engaged to my son, Homer Garvin, Jr. I had looked forward to having her in the family as a daughter-in-law, and then when it turned out that the engagement had been broken, I suddenly realized — I realized that I loved her.”

Stephanie Falkner, sitting behind Mason at the bar, suddenly put a handkerchief to her eyes and started sobbing.

“Now then,” Mason said, “I will ask you one more question. Prior to the evening of October seventh of this year, had you uncovered information which led you to believe that George Casselman had been the one who had murdered Glenn Falkner, the father of the defendant?”

The effect upon the jurors was electrical.

“Your Honor, Your Honor!” Hamilton Burger shouted, getting to his feet, gesticulating. “That question is absolutely incompetent, the asking of that question is misconduct on the part of the attorney for the defense. It is not proper cross-examination. It is no part of the case. It has no bearing in any way. The prosecution is not bound by anything this witness may have thought.”

“The objection is sustained,” Judge Decker said.

Mason smiled. “Now then did you on the evening of October seventh communicate to the defendant in this case the fact that in your opinion George Casselman had killed her father?”

“The same objection,” Hamilton Burger shouted.

“Same ruling,” Judge Decker said.

“Just a minute,” Mason said. “The prosecution called for part of a conversation which took place when this witness gave the defendant the gun. I am now asking this witness if something to this effect was not said when the gun was given to the defendant. In other words, when the prosecution calls for part of the conversation, I have a right to call for all of it.”

“The witness may answer the question,” Judge Decker ruled, “with the understanding that it will be limited to any statement which was made as part of the same conversation concerning which testimony was given on direct examination.”

“Yes, sir,” Garvin said. “I told her that I felt Casselman had killed her father, and that I was afraid he might try to kill her. I felt that she was in danger and I gave her this weapon so that she could protect herself. I told her to keep it in her possession at all times because I felt that I was in a position to develop a case against Casselman which would enable the authorities to arrest Casselman for the murder of her father and to prosecute him.”

Mason said, “Thank you. That is all.”

“No questions,” Hamilton Burger snapped.

“Now, if the Court please,” Mason said, “I move to strike out the entire testimony of the witness Garvin.”

“On what grounds?” Judge Decker asked.

“On the grounds that there is no evidence whatsoever showing that the defendant knew of the things Garvin was doing or had any inkling of what he intended to do. She is not bound in any way by anything he might have done in the mistaken belief that he was aiding her.

“Let us suppose that for some reason this witness had decided in his own mind that I had killed George Casselman. In order to protect me, he went to the Casselman apartment. He found that Casselman had been murdered but there was no evidence to indicate that I had committed the murder. I had not communicated with him in any way. I had not asked him to do anything. He tried to protect me by removing certain evidence. I certainly am not bound by the fact that he removed that evidence.”

Hamilton Burger still on his feet said, “Just a moment, Your Honor. Just a moment! I want to be heard on this. There are certain peculiar conditions existing in that Casselman apartment. The doorknobs were wiped clean of fingerprints. The footprint of a woman’s shoe, which the evidence now shows to be the defendant’s shoe, was obliterated by this witness. We have a right to show the physical conditions in that apartment and how they occurred.”

“You have a right to show the physical conditions,” Judge Decker said. “You have the right to show that someone wiped the latent fingerprints from the doorknob. But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to show that this was done by some friend of the defendant unless you can show that the defendant had some knowledge of the action and acquiesced therein, or suggested the action in some way.”

“Exactly, Your Honor,” Mason said, and sat down.

Judge Decker frowned. “This entire matter is highly unusual. It has been presented in a most unusual manner, and the Court is willing to confess that when the stock objections as to testimony being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial were made almost as a matter of routine, the Court didn’t realize exactly what was in the mind of counsel. The Court feels that counsel should have elaborated upon this point at that time.”

“If I had done so,” Mason said, “and the Court had sustained the objection, the prosecution would have achieved a notable triumph in that the inference would have been plain to the jurors who would have felt that evidence was being withheld on a technicality.”

“Well, there is certainly a part of this witness’s evidence that is pertinent,” Judge Decker said. “He gave the defendant the gun. He testified that, when he gave the defendant the gun, it was fully loaded. He has testified that later on that same evening he saw the gun for the second time, and that at that time it had one empty cartridge in the cylinder.”

“We will not include that evidence in our motion to strike,” Mason said. “Nor do we include evidence as to the shoe being that of the defendant. But we do object to all questions asked the witness as to his entering the apartment of George Casselman and we move that that portion of the evidence be stricken.”

“The Court is inclined to go along with you on that point, Mr. Mason. However, it is now approaching the hour of the evening adjournment. The Court will take the matter under advisement until tomorrow morning. In the meantime, the Court will take a recess until ten o’clock tomorrow morning, during which the jurors are instructed not to form or express any opinion as to the merits of the case, not to discuss the evidence, or permit anyone to discuss it in their presence. The jurors will refrain from reaching any opinion until the case has been finally submitted. Court will take a recess until ten o’clock.”