Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Long-Legged Models

“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?”