Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Shapely Shadow

Mason walked across the courtroom, stood looking out of the window regarding the traffic on the street far below with unseeing eyes.

The courtroom again filled with spectators. The bailiff entered. A buzzer summoned the jurors.

Throughout the courtroom was the air of tense expectation which comes before a crucial battle.

“Everybody stand up,” the bailiff said.

Judge Seymour came in from his chambers, walked over to the bench and seated himself. The bailiff’ tapped the gavel. Everyone sat down.

“The jurors are all present, the defendant is in court,” Judge Seymour said. “You may proceed with your case, Mr. Mason.”

“If the Court please,” Mason said, “a matter of some considerable importance has occurred to me during the recess. I would like to recall one of the prosecution’s witnesses for further cross-examination.”

“What witness?” Judge Seymour asked.

“Mrs. Carlotta Theilman.”

Judge Seymour glanced down at the prosecution table.

Hamilton Burger arose. “If the Court please,” he said with quiet dignity, “I believe this is the first time Your Honor has presided in a case where Mr. Mason was representing a defendant. I have been in dozens of those cases. This is all a part of a virtually stereotyped procedure. Counsel always waits until it suits his convenience and then asks to recall a witness for cross-examination, thereby giving undue emphasis to the questions that he asks and thereby frequently securing a much-needed delay.

“In the present case it is quite obvious that defense counsel wants the benefit of a delay in determining whether to put the defendant on the stand or not. I can sympathize with him in his problem, but we have our work to do, the Court has its work to do and the taxpayers are entitled to some consideration. I submit that the purpose of this request for cross-examination is simply to obtain further delay and attempt to stall the case until the hour of the noon adjournment so that counsel can delay his decision whether he wants to put the defendant on the stand or not.”

Judge Seymour said, “I feel that it is incumbent upon defense counsel to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses at one time and not piece-meal. Of course, the Court has it in its discretion to permit a witness to be recalled for further cross-examination even after the prosecution has rested, but the procedure would be irregular and I would be inclined to allow it only in most exceptional circumstances. And since those circumstances do not appear at the present time, I see no reason for granting the motion.”

“May I be heard, Your Honor?” Mason asked.

“Yes, certainly, Mr. Mason. I never wish to preclude argument on the part of counsel.”

“If the Court please,” Mason said, his voice vibrant with sincerity, “this is a case which depends upon circumstantial evidence. One of the items of circumstantial evidence which the prosecution will rely upon in presenting the case to the jury is the identity of this twenty-dollar bill, number... let me see that exhibit, please, Mr. Clerk.”

“There’s no need to delay matters while counsel takes up more time reading the number of that bill into the record,” Hamilton Burger said. “There’s only one twenty-dollar bill introduced in evidence and we don’t need all this red tape and rigmarole which will simply result in further delay.”

“The Court is inclined to agree with the prosecution,” judge Seymour said. “What about the twenty-dollar bill, Mr. Mason?”

“I want to examine Mrs. Carlotta Theilman and ask her if, after my secretary and I were driven to the airport by the police, after she got the taxi driver to take her to the casino, she didn’t pay off the taxi driver with a twenty-dollar bill.”

“What if she did?” Hamilton Burger said. “That doesn’t mean anything.”

“It means a great deal,” Mason said. “It means that this twenty-dollar bill is now established to have been one of the twenty-dollar bills that was in the suitcase at the time it was placed in the locker FO82 at the Union Depot.

“If the defendant had that twenty-dollar bill in her possession, the prosecution is going to claim that it means she was doing the blackmailing, that she was the one who fabricated the letters, that she was the one who secured delivery of that suitcase; that when Mr. Theilman found out about what had happened, she had no alternative except to murder him.

“That twenty-dollar bill therefore becomes a very damning bit of evidence in the case. It is a most important piece of evidence.

“Now, if I can show in any way that the witness Dudley Roberts, the taxi driver, secured or could have secured that twenty-dollar bill from Mrs. Carlotta Theilman, then the entire case of the prosecution is greatly weakened; in fact, it may collapse.”

Judge Seymour frowned thoughtfully, visibly impressed by the argument.

“Oh, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said, “this is the same old story, the same old grandstand. Now, if the Court please, even if there is anything to counsel’s wild theory that Mrs. Carlotta Theilman did give the taxi driver a twenty-dollar bill, it still doesn’t mean anything. Mrs. Carlotta Theilman had no access to that suitcase. She had no opportunity to get one of those twenty-dollar bills. She hadn’t even seen the decedent. She hadn’t been in touch with him. She had only been in touch with the decedent’s secretary, the defendant in this case.

“If, however, she did pay him with a twenty-dollar bill and counsel wishes to establish that fact, it is part of an affirmative showing which counsel should make on defense and as a part of his case. We have no objection whatever to his calling Mrs. Carlotta Theilman as his own witness. He can call her right now if he wants to, as his first witness.”

Judge Seymour said, “I think that is correct, Mr. Mason. I think that’s probably the best way of looking at it.”

“May I be heard in response to that statement, Your Honor?” Mason asked.

“Certainly.”

Mason said, “The district attorney well realizes that there are certain aspects of this case which give the defendant certain technical advantages and of which he would like to deprive the defendant. If it should appear as a part of the prosecution’s case that the cab-driver was paid with a twenty-dollar bill by Mrs. Carlotta Theilman, then it no longer is conclusive proof that the defendant had in her possession any of those twenty-dollar bills which were in that suitcase. And since the case of the prosecution is founded so greatly upon circumstantial evidence, I would then have an opportunity to move the Court to advise the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal.

“The Court is fully familiar with the rule of law that if the circumstantial evidence can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt, the courts are obligated to accept such interpretation.”

Judge Seymour thought for a moment, suddenly said, “Very well. This court is a temple of justice. It is not bound by strict red tape or arbitrary rules of procedure. Those rules of procedure, on the other hand, are designed primarily and solely to bring about the administration of justice. I am going to permit the defense to recall Mrs. Carlotta Theilman. You will take the stand, Mrs. Theilman.”

Judge Seymour turned to Perry Mason and said, “And, Mr. Mason, I think I will limit your questions to the one point which you have brought up.”

“Very well, Your Honor,” Mason said.

Hamilton Burger in exasperation looked at the courtroom clock.

A deputy located Mrs. Carlotta Theilman and she returned to the stand.

“You have already been sworn and are still under oath,” Judge Seymour said. “Now, Mr. Mason, you may ask that question.”