Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Dubious Bridegroom

Mason varied his usual courtroom technique by asking only the most vague and general questions.

District Attorney Covington, suddenly suspicious, whispered a warning to Jarvis, forced Jarvis to continue with a long line of searching questions until gradually it dawned on Covington that the district attorney’s office was apparently being maneuvered into the position of trying to get a hand-picked jury, while the defense seemed casually willing to accept any twelve men who were fair.

Questions concerning the death penalty removed four jurors from the box, but their places were filled, and Mason, smiling, seemed to treat the entire matter as being a mere procedural formality preliminary to an acquittal.

Nettled, District Attorney Covington took over some of the examination himself, and finally, late that afternoon when a jury had been impaneled, the thoroughly exasperated district attorney realized that Mason had outgeneraled him, because the lawyer, swiftly exercising those peremptory challenges for which no reason need be given, showed that he had somehow acquired a thorough knowledge of the characters and backgrounds of the prospective jurymen.

“Do you care to make an opening statement, Mr. District Attorney?” Judge Minden asked.

It had been understood that Jarvis was to make the opening statement, but Covington, angry and flustered, was on his feet in front of the jury, telling them that he expected to prove that the defendant, Edward Charles Garvin, had, as the result of an illegal divorce, found himself faced with a bigamy prosecution, involved in a hopeless maze of domestic entanglements, and so had conceived the idea of extricating himself by the simple but deadly expedient of pulling the trigger of a revolver.

“I expect to show you, ladies and gentlemen,” Covington said, his voice crisp with denunciation, “that this man deliberately lured his wife into a midnight appointment, an appointment from which he had carefully planned she should never return alive. A cold-blooded, deliberate, well-planned, skillfully executed murder which might never have been uncovered had it not been...”

A tug at his coattail from Samuel Jarvis made Covington realize suddenly he was telling too much. He paused, cleared his throat, said, “had it not been for the efforts of the police of this county, working in friendly co-operation with those of Los Angeles County.

“I shall not, however, ladies and gentlemen, dwell at any great length upon the evidence. I propose to show that the defendant fled from the United States to Mexico, where he sought haven and sanctuary from a charge which his wife had placed against him, and...”

“Just a moment,” Mason interrupted cheerfully, “Your Honor, I object to any attempt on the part of the prosecution to introduce evidence of any other independent crime for the purpose of discrediting the defendant, and charge the remarks of the district attorney as prejudicial misconduct. I ask that the Court admonish the jury to disregard the remarks.”

“If the Court please,” Covington said angrily, “this is an exception to the general rule. This is a case where the charge of bigamy which was placed against the defendant by his wife is the motive for the murder. That is something counsel for the defense knows very well. It is a case where we are permitted to introduce evidence of another crime. We are forced to do so in order to prove our motive. It was because of this crime that the defendant fled to Mexico and because of it that he decided to murder his wife, and make himself a widower, so that he could then go through another marriage ceremony with the woman with whom he had become infatuated.”

“Same objection,” Mason said, cheerfully, “same assignment as misconduct.”

Judge Minden said, testily, “Well, of course, Mr. District Attorney, I don’t know what the evidence is going to disclose, but it would seem to me that you’re anticipating a legal point. Wouldn’t it be better to reserve this matter until the time comes when you wish to put in your evidence, and then we can have an objection from the defense, the jury can be excluded during argument, and the Court can then make an intelligent ruling? This is, in a way, approaching the subject by the back door, and the Court is hardly in a position to make an intelligent ruling. It may be part of the res gestae but in order to determine that point we should first find out what the circumstances are.

“I think it would be much better if you simply stated to the jury what you expected to prove in regard to the motions and activities of the defendant at the time the murder was committed and then left these legal questions to be disposed of in an orderly manner.”

“Very well, Your Honor,” Covington conceded with poor grace. “If the Court wishes me to adopt that procedure, I shall do so.”

“Under the circumstances,” Judge Minden said, “and for the purpose of protecting the rights of the defendant, the Court will admonish the jury not to pay any attention to any remarks which have been made at this time by the district attorney concerning the commission of another crime.”

Covington, angrily realizing that he had been placed in a position where it looked as though he had attempted improperly to influence the jury, blurted, “That is about all, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this defendant committed the murder, that it was a dastardly, premeditated, cold-blooded murder, and I’m going to ask for a conviction of first degree murder without recommendation. In other words, I’m going to ask for the death penalty for this defendant.”

Covington turned and glowered in anger at Edward Garvin, then at Perry Mason. He sat down abruptly, whispered to Jarvis, “Damn his supercilious smirk! I’ll make him take this case seriously before so very long.”

“Proceed with your case,” Judge Minden said, “or does the defendant wish to make an opening statement at this time?”

“Oh, if the Court please,” Mason said, casually, “I’ll make a very brief opening statement.”

He got up from his chair, walked over to the rail in front of the jury box, glanced impressively at the jurors, and took a deep breath as though about to launch upon some elaborate summation of the case.

The jurors, aware of Mason’s reputation as a trial lawyer in another jurisdiction, many of them seeing him for the first time, surveyed him with friendly interest.

Mason said, “If the Court please, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury.” He paused dramatically for a moment. Then his face softened into a smile and he said, “He can’t prove it.”

And then, before the jurors or the district attorney realized that this was all of his opening statement, Mason turned and walked back to the defense table.

One or two of the jurors smiled. A slight ripple of mirth developed in the courtroom and was silenced by the judge’s gavel.

“Proceed,” Judge Minden said to the district attorney, but those who noticed the judge’s countenance saw there was a slight twinkle even in His Honor’s eye.

Covington leaned over to Sam Jarvis. “You go ahead and prove the corpus delicti, Sam,” he said in a hoarse whisper. “I’m going out and get some air. We’re going to tear this damned shyster limb from limb. When he gets done with this case the reputation he’s built up as being a legal wizard will be as tattered as a rag doll that a dog has been shaking to pieces. You go ahead, Sam, and — dammit, rip the sawdust out of him.”

Then Covington, striding with the outraged dignity of a man who has seldom encountered anyone with sufficient temerity to stand up and encounter his wrath, barged down the aisle of the courtroom, while his assistant started in with the long line of preliminary proof.