Erle Gardner: The Case of the Horrified Heirs

«Well, that was the substance of it.»

«I'm not asking you about the substance,» Mason said. «I'm asking you about the conversation itself. Didn't he ask her if she was positive that was her suitcase, and if she could identify the suitcase by describing the articles that were in it?»

«Yes, sir, that's right.»

«And then he asked her to open the suitcase so he could inspect those articles?»

«Yes, sir.»

«And what about the overnight bag? Did he ask her to identify that?»

«He just asked her if it was hers.»

«And she said it was?»

«Yes.»

«And then what happened?»

«He opened it.»

«That's all?»

«Well, of course, afterwards they took her away with them.»

«Now, I call your attention to a photograph in an evening edition of the newspaper published on the seventeenth, and call your attention to this picture of the defendant and the suitcase.»

«Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination,» Caswell said.

«It is preliminary only and for the purpose of bringing out part of the res gestae ,» Mason said.

«Overruled. I'll hear it,» Judge Albert announced.

«Were you present when this picture was taken?»

«Yes, sir.»

«Did you see the photographer?»

«Yes, sir.»

«Where did he come from?»

«He was hiding behind one of the pillars.»

«And when the suitcase was opened, he came out with his camera?»

«Yes, sir. He darted out from behind that pillar with his cameras all ready, and boom-boom-boom he took three pictures.»

«And then what?»

«Then he ran away.»

«If the Court please,» Caswell said, «we move to strike out all this testimony about the photographer. Not only is it improper cross-examination but it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It serves no useful purpose.»

«It serves a very useful purpose, if the Court please,» Mason rejoined. «It shows that this was no mere casual search. It shows that the officer had planned the search and anticipated what he was going to find. He had tipped off a friendly newspaper reporter and, if the Court will read the article in this newspaper, it will be seen that the reporter endeavored to reciprocate by seeing that the officer had proper publicity in return for the favor extended.»

Judge Albert smiled very slightly.

«Your Honor, I object. I object to any such statement,» Caswell said.

«It is merely by way of argument,» Mason said.

«An argument for what purpose?» Caswell asked.

«To show the relevancy of the testimony,» Mason said. «To show that the officer was acting under some specific tip, some bit of information which had been given to him; and the defense proposes to find out what that information was and who gave it to him.»

A look of fleeting dismay appeared on Caswell's features.

Judge Albert smiled and said, «I thought I appreciated the underlying purpose of the cross-examination when counsel started asking the questions. The motion to strike is denied.

«Do you have any further cross-examination, Mr. Mason?»

«No, Your Honor.»

«Redirect?»

«No, Your Honor,» Jerry Caswell said.

«Call your next witness.»

Caswell said, «I call Detective Jack Andrews.

«What is your name?» Caswell asked after Andrews had been sworn.

«Jackman, J-A-C-K-M-A-N, Andrews. I am known generally as Jack Andrews, but Jackman is my name.»

«Directing your attention to the suitcase which has been marked for identification as People's Exhibit A, when did you first see that suitcase?»

«When the defendant pointed it out to the porter who has just testified.»

«And what did you do?»

«I approached her and asked her if that was her suitcase.»

«And then what?»

«I asked her if she had any objection to my looking in the suitcase and she said she did not.»

«And then what happened?»

«I opened the suitcase.»

«And what did you find?»

«I found fifty packages of-«

«Now, just a moment,» Mason interrupted. «I submit, if the Court please, this particular question has now been asked and fully answered. The witness said he found fifty packages. As to the contents of these packages, that is another matter and calls for another question.»

«Very well,» Caswell said. «If counsel wants to do it the hard way, we'll do it the hard way. Now, did you take those packages into your possession?»

«I did.»

«And did you take steps to ascertain what those packages were, what the substance consisted of?»

«I did.»

«And what was the substance?»

«Now, just a moment,» Mason said. «At this point, we interpose an objection on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; that no proper foundation has been laid; that the property was taken as the result of an illegal search and seizure, and is incompetent as evidence in this case.

«In this connection, if the Court please, I desire to ask a few questions.»

«Very well, in connection with this objection which has been made, you may take the witness on voir dire .»

«Did you have a search warrant?» Mason asked the witness.

«No, sir, there wasn't time to get a search warrant.»

«You just went out there?»

«I just went out there, but I call your attention to the fact that I asked the defendant if she had any objection to my looking in the suitcase and she said it was all right, to go right ahead.»

«Now, just a minute,» Mason said. «You're relating the substance of the conversation. You're giving your conclusion as to what the conversation consisted of. Can you remember your exact words?»

«Well, those were virtually my exact words.»

«Did you tell her you wanted to search her suitcase?»

«Yes.»

«Now, just a minute,» Mason said. «You're under oath. Did you tell her you wanted to search her suitcase, or did you ask her if she could identify the contents of the suitcase?»

«I believe I asked her if it was her suitcase and she said it was, and I asked her if she could describe the contents and she described them.»

«And then you asked her if she had any objection to opening the suitcase in order to show you the contents she had described . Isn't that right?»

«Yes, sir.»

«But you didn't tell her you wanted to search the suitcase?»

«No.»

«She gave you no permission to search the suitcase?»

«She said it would be all right to open it.»

«She gave you no permission to search the suitcase?»

«I told her I wanted to open it and she said it would be all right.»

«She gave you no permission to search the suitcase?»

«Well, I guess the word 'search' wasn't mentioned.»

«Exactly,» Mason said. «Now, you went down to wait for this defendant at the airline terminal in response to a tip, did you not?»

«Well… yes.»

«Who gave you that tip?»

«I'm not in a position to disclose the sources of our information.»

«I think under the present rulings of the courts,» Mason said, «this witness must show that he had reasonable grounds for wanting to search that suitcase, and an anonymous tip, or one from a person he didn't know, wouldn't constitute reasonable grounds of search; therefore, the defendant is entitled to know the reasons for which he wanted to search the suitcase.»

Judge Albert frowned, turned to the witness. «Do you refuse to disclose the name of the person giving you the tip?»

«The tip didn't come to me,» Andrews said. «It came to one of my superiors. I was told that there had been a hot tip and to go down to the airport, to wait for this party and see if I could get permission to look in the suitcase. If I couldn't, I was to keep her under surveillance until a warrant could be obtained.»