Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Long-Legged Models

“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.”