“What do you mean?”

  “The rounded doorknob is placed on a square spindle and held in place by a setscrew. The knob which you found on the inside of the door could at some previous time have been on the outside of the door, could it not?”

  “It could have, yes,” the witness reluctantly conceded.

  “And the print of Mr. Garvin could have been made on the outside knob, and thereafter someone wearing gloves could have conceivably transferred the outer knob to the inside?”

  “Well, of course, if you want to engage in fanciful speculation as to the things which could conceivably have happened, it could have been done.”

  “That’s all,” Mason said.

  “Now then, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said, getting to his feet, “I am going to call a hostile witness. I am going to call Homer Garvin, Sr. to the witness stand.”

  “I take it,” Judge Decker said, “you wish to be permitted to ask leading questions, on the ground that you are dealing with a hostile witness. I think, however, the better practice is to call the witness to the stand and proceed with the interrogation. Then if there are objections on the ground that the questions are leading, the Court will rule on those objections at the time they are made.”

  “Very well, Your Honor. Come forward, Mr. Garvin.”

  Garvin came forward, was sworn, and took his position on the witness stand.

  “I am going to call your attention to a shoe which has previously been marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification. I am going to ask you if that is your shoe.”

  “That is my shoe.”

  “Did you wear that shoe on the night of October seventh of this year?”

  “I did.”

  “Did you deliberately step into a pool of blood in the apartment of George Casselman in the Ambrose Apartments at number 948 Christine Drive, and thereafter place your foot over a footprint which you found etched in dried blood in that apartment?”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.

  “The objection will be overruled.”

  The witness said, “I refuse to answer.”

  “On what grounds?”

  “On the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me.”

  “Your Honor, I now ask that the shoe previously marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification be received in evidence.”

  Judge Decker hesitated a moment, then said, “There appearing to be no objection, it is so ordered.”

  “Did you enter Apartment 211 of the Ambrose Apartments at 948 Christine Drive on the night of October seventh?” Burger asked the witness.

  “Yes.”

  “At what time?”

  “Perhaps about eleven or eleven-thirty in the evening.”

  “Did you at that time by the means of a cloth or some other manner deliberately remove fingerprints from certain objects in that apartment?”

  “I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me.”

  Hamilton Burger, seeing the rapt attention of the jurors, and knowing that the answers of the witness were the psychological equivalent of affirmative answers, smiled.

  “On the seventh day of October, did you give or loan a weapon to the defendant in this case and tell her that you wanted her to have this weapon for her own protection?”

  “I did.”

  “Was that weapon the revolver which I now hand you and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30?”

  Garvin examined the gun. “I believe that is the weapon. Yes.”

  “I will ask you to describe in detail your movements on the night of October seventh.”

  “I returned from Las Vegas. I went to my office where I have a shower, a wardrobe, and some clothes. I took a shower and changed my clothes.”

  “Then what did you do?”

  Mason said, “Now, if the Court please, I object on the ground that the movements of this witness are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, except as to the two matters on which the witness has already testified; to wit, that he was in the apartment of Casselman sometime in the vicinity of eleven o’clock, and that he loaned the defendant the weapon, People’s Exhibit Number 30. Aside from that, any other activities engaged in by this witness are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

  “They may be very pertinent,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “Then show that they are pertinent by showing what you want.”

  Judge Decker frowned. “This is a very peculiar situation,” he said. “It is quite apparent to the Court what the prosecution seeks to prove by this witness, and, in view of the testimony, the time element is not too remote.”

  “However, if the Court please,” Mason said, “it is quite possible that this witness may have done certain things that might be incompetent as far as the issues in this case are concerned.”

  “The Court is going to sustain the objection,” Judge Decker said, “although it is apparently a close point. Quite evidently the witness has reached definite decisions in his own mind as to where he intends to exercise the privilege of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. The Court can very readily understand that there is no statute of limitations which has run in the matter, and this witness is facing a very real danger in that after the conclusion of this case he is to be tried on certain matters concerning which he is now being interrogated.

  “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.”

  “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.”

  “Yes, sir,” Garvin said. “I told her that I felt Casselman had killed her father, and that I was afraid he might try to kill her. I felt that she was in danger and I gave her this weapon so that she could protect herself. I told her to keep it in her possession at all times because I felt that I was in a position to develop a case against Casselman which would enable the authorities to arrest Casselman for the murder of her father and to prosecute him.”

  Mason said, “Thank you. That is all.”

  “No questions,” Hamilton Burger snapped.

  “Now, if the Court please,” Mason said, “I move to strike out the entire testimony of the witness Garvin.”

  “On what grounds?” Judge Decker asked.

  “On the grounds that there is no evidence whatsoever showing that the defendant knew of the things Garvin was doing or had any inkling of what he intended to do. She is not bound in any way by anything he might have done in the mistaken belief that he was aiding her.

  “Let us suppose that for some reason this witness had decided in his own mind that I had killed George Casselman. In order to protect me, he went to the Casselman apartment. He found that Casselman had been murdered but there was no evidence to indicate that I had committed the murder. I had not communicated with him in any way. I had not asked him to do anything. He tried to protect me by removing certain evidence. I certainly am not bound by the fact that he removed that evidence.”

  Hamilton Burger on his feet said, “Just a moment, Your Honor, Just a moment! I want to be heard on this. There are certain peculiar conditions existing in that Casselman apartment. The doorknobs were wiped clean of fingerprints. The footprint of a woman’s shoe, which the evidence now shows to be the defendant’s shoe, was obliterated by this witness. We have a right to show the physical conditions in that apartment and how they occurred.”

  “You have a right to show the physical conditions,” Judge Decker said. “You have the right to show that someone wiped the latent fingerprints from the doorknob. But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to show that this was done by some friend of the defendant unless you can show that the defendant had some knowledge of the action and acquiesced therein, or suggested the action in some way.”

  “Exactly, Your Honor,” Mason said, and sat down.

  Judge Decker frowned. “This entire matter is highly unusual. It has been presented in a most unusual manner, and the Court is willing to confess that when the stock objections as to testimony being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial were made almost as a matter of routine, the Court didn’t realize exactly what was in the mind of counsel. The Court feels that counsel should have elaborated upon this point at that time.”

  “If I had done so,” Mason said, “and the Court had sustained the objection, the prosecution would have achieved a notable triumph in that the inference would have been plain to the jurors who would have felt that evidence was being withheld on a technicality.”

  “Well, there is certainly a part of this witness’s evidence that is pertinent,” Judge Decker said. “He gave the defendant the gun. He testified that, when he gave the defendant the gun, it was fully loaded. He has testified that later on that same evening he saw the gun for the second time, and that at that time it had one empty cartridge in the cylinder.”

  “We will not include that evidence in our motion to strike,” Mason said. “Nor do we include evidence as to the shoe being that of the defendant. But we do object to all questions asked the witness as to his entering the apartment of George Casselman and we move that that portion of the evidence be stricken.”

  “The Court is inclined to go along with you on that point, Mr. Mason. However, it is now approaching the hour of the evening adjournment. The Court will take the matter under advisement until tomorrow morning. In the meantime, the Court will take a recess until ten o’clock tomorrow morning, during which the jurors are instructed not to form or express any opinion as to the merits of the case, not to discuss the evidence, or permit anyone to discuss it in their presence. The jurors will refrain from reaching any opinion until the case has been finally submitted. Court will take a recess until ten o’clock.”

  Chapter 18

  Hamilton Burger saved his surprise witness for the morning.

  “Call Homer Garvin, Jr.,” he said as soon as court had reconvened and it was stipulated the defendant was in court and the jurors were all present.

  Junior Garvin came forward, his lips a tight line of determination.

  He was sworn, gave his name and address, and established his relationship as the son of the witness, Homer Garvin, who had previously testified.

  “Now,” Hamilton Burger said, holding an extended finger in front of the witness, “I am going to ask you to listen very carefully to my questions and to answer those questions, and not to volunteer any information. It has been established that your father purchased three guns, identical in appearance, caliber and make. For convenience in the testimony we have designated the gun which he gave you as the ‘Junior Gun,’ the one which he had in his holster early in the evening of October seventh of this year as the ‘Holster Gun,’ and the one which he had in his locked safe as the ‘Safe Gun.’ Do you understand these designations?”