Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Long-Legged Models

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said. “Whatever I did is not binding on the defendant.”

“The Court is inclined to overrule that objection,” Judge Decker said. “It now appears that the witness has identified the gun positively, the gun which is Exhibit Number 30.”

“What did you do with that gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“I took it to the apartment of Stephanie Falkner.”

“The defendant in this case?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And then what did you do?”

“ I didn’t do very much. I stood there like a bump on a log, while Mr. Mason recited some rigmarole to the effect that the defendant was in danger of some sort and that I was bringing her a gun that she could use for defense.”

“Now you say that Mr. Mason handed you this gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”

“On the eighth day of October of this year.”

“Where?”

“Out at my place of business.”

“Prior to that time had you handed Mr. Mason a gun?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what gun was that?”

“It was the gun we are referring to as the Junior Gun. It was identical in appearance with the one that I am now holding, which is the murder weapon, and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30.”

“You gave Mr. Mason that gun which we are calling the Junior Gun?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what did Mr. Mason do with that gun?”

“He discharged that gun.”

“You mean he fired it?”

“Yes, sir. The bullet ploughed into my desk.”

“I show you a photograph which purports to be a picture of a desk with a long furrow stretching along it, and ask you if you know what that picture represents?”

“That is the desk in my office approximately as it exists today. It is a picture of the desk immediately after Perry Mason had fired this shot into it.”

“And then what happened?”

“Then during the confusion incident to firing that shot, Mr. Mason substituted this gun, which I hold in my hand, and which is People’s Exhibit Number 30, in place of the gun I had handed him which we are calling the Junior Gun. He handed the murder gun back to me under such circumstances that I would think it was the Junior Gun and suggested that I give it to Stephanie Falkner.”

“And by so doing apparently accounted for the discharged shell in the cylinder of the gun, and also at the same time sought to establish the fact that the murder gun, Exhibit 30, had been in your possession during the time the murder had been committed? Is that right?”

“Objected to as argumentative,” Mason said, “and I assign the asking of the question as misconduct.”

“The objection is well taken,” Judge Decker said, “and the District Attorney is admonished to refrain from such questions. That is purely argumentative and calls for a conclusion of the witness as to what happened. The jurors will disregard the question and will not draw any inference from it. Now proceed, Mr. District Attorney, and please ask questions which are within the scope of the issues and are proper.”

Hamilton Burger flushed at the rebuke of the Court, turned to Perry Mason and said, “Cross-examine.”

Mason said, “You have testified that I substituted this murder gun, Exhibit 30, for the Junior Gun which you had given me?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you see me do that?”

“Certainly not. You did it when you had created so much excitement through the discharge of the Junior Gun that you were able to do it without anyone seeing you.”

“Then how do you know I did it if you didn’t see me do it?”

“It is a matter of simply putting two and two together.”

“In other words, you have reached a conclusion in your own mind as to what must have happened?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Then you are testifying not as to any fact concerning which you know, but only as to a conclusion which you have drawn from certain facts?”

“From certain inescapable facts,” Garvin said.

“But nevertheless your testimony concerning the substitution of the gun is a conclusion?”

“A conclusion based on inescapable facts.”

Mason smiled at the frowning Judge and said, “Your Honor, I move to strike out the evidence of this witness in regard to the substitution of the guns on the ground that it is a conclusion.”

“The motion is granted,” Judge Decker snapped. “It should be quite apparent that the District Attorney must have been familiar with the testimony of this witness and must have known that the witness’s testimony was based on a conclusion.”

“Just a moment, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said. “I think the Court is being unduly harsh with the prosecution on this matter. If the Court will permit me, I will again examine this witness and establish facts which, as the witness has stated, are irrefutable. They lead to an inescapable conclusion.”

“Let the jurors draw that conclusion then,” Judge Decker said. “Don’t put on witnesses who will testify as an absolute fact to conclusions which they have drawn.”

Hamilton Burger, his face flushed, turned to the witness. “You have stated that you gave Mr. Mason a gun?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You have stated that it was not this gun, the murder weapon, Exhibit Number 30, but the gun we are referring to as the Junior Gun, is that right?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How do you know the Junior Gun which you gave him was not the murder weapon, Exhibit 30?”

“I know it was not because the evidence shows that this gun which I am holding in my hand was used to kill George Casselman on the evening of October seventh of this year. It was absolutely impossible for the Junior Gun which I gave Mr. Mason to have been so used.”

“Why was it impossible?”

“Objected to,” Mason said, “as being an attempt to cross-examine the prosecution’s own witness. I move to strike out the statement that it was impossible that the gun he handed me could have been the murder weapon on the ground that that is a conclusion of the witness and is not responsive to the question.”

“The motion is granted,” Judge Decker snapped.

“But Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger protested, “I certainly am entitled to show...”

“You are entitled to show facts, and nothing but facts.”

“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said. “You gave Mr. Mason a gun?”

“Yes, sir. I gave him the weapon we are designating as the Junior Gun.”

“Where did you get that gun?”

“From a drawer in my desk.”

“Where did you get the gun before that?”

“From my father. He gave it to me.”

“When?”

“Sometime around last Christmas. I think it was a Christmas present.”

“Where was that gun on October seventh?”

“In my possession.”

“During all of the time on October seventh?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What did you do with that gun?”

“I gave it to Perry Mason.”

“And what did Perry Mason do with it?”

“He discharged it.”

“And then what happened?”

“Then Mr. Mason handed me a gun and suggested I take that to Stephanie Falkner.”

“Was that the same gun you handed Mr. Mason?”

“No.”

“Now just a moment,” Judge Decker said. “You have drawn the conclusion that it could not have been the gun? Isn’t that correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The answer will be stricken. The prosecution will kindly refrain from leading this witness into a position where an opinion or a conclusion is offered as evidence. Now just state the facts.”

“Very well, I had this gun in my possession. I gave it to Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason fired the gun. Then he handed me back a gun, and asked me to deliver that gun to Stephanie Falkner. I did.”