Quinn began to get in his stride. He had more assurance and was showing some of the qualities that had given him a reputation as an up-and-coming trial lawyer.
By the time they started putting on evidence, most of the impression that Irvine had made on the jury with his opening argument had vanished. The jurors were interested and curious. They kept looking over the lawyers, the witnesses, the defendant, and above all Elizabeth Endicott.
After all, she was a public figure, the wealthy head of an oil empire, a mysterious woman who had kept to herself after the tragedy but who was now charged with having engaged in surreptitious meetings with a lover, a lover who in turn was hiding from the police.
The jurors prepared to enjoy all of the spicy details.
Irvine put on witnesses and went very briefly through the necessary preliminaries: the fact of death, a surveyor who introduced a diagram of the premises, a photographer who showed photographs, an autopsy surgeon who had made a post-mortem examination showing that Karl Carver Endicott had been killed by a .38 caliber bullet, which had been fired into the back of his head, a bullet which had almost protruded from the forehead of the dead man.
The slug had been recovered and was introduced in evidence. The shot had been fired from such a distance that there were no powder burns. It was the opinion of the witness that the shot had been fired “a matter of feet” from the deceased at a time when the decedent had his back turned to the murderer.
Mortimer Irvine looked at the clock, then said dramatically, “Call Helen Manning to the stand.”
Helen had dolled herself up. Aside from a few extra pounds, she was one good-looking babe and she knew it. You only needed one look at her as she got on the witness stand to know that the thing had worked in reverse. Instead of her dazzling Mortimer Irvine, he had turned loose his charm on her and had wrapped her around his finger.
She was like a well-trained dog on a leash doing exactly what was expected. She told her story in a low, throaty voice, that is, the story she wanted to tell.
She testified she had worked for Mr. Endicott for some years. She had finally decided to resign because the work was rather heavy for her, she wanted a change, and frankly there was a situation in the office that she didn’t want to bother Mr. Endicott with, but which made it unpleasant for her. She was a highly competent secretary. She could get a position anywhere, and she chose to leave Mr. Endicott’s employ. Mr. Endicott was very much concerned over her departure. He tried to find out what was wrong. He offered to make any adjustments that he could make, but she steadfastly refused to tell him why she was leaving because the young woman whom it was difficult for her to get along with was supporting a sick mother and needed the job. She wasn’t a very good secretary anyway, and would have had difficulty getting other employment, whereas Helen was thoroughly competent, well trained and could go out and get a job anywhere.
She had a letter signed by Mr. Endicott expressing his concern at losing her services, stating definitely that she was leaving of her own accord and recommending her very highly.
At about the time she was severing her connection with the office, she had “been told” that the defendant John Dittmar Ansel had been sent into the Brazilian jungle on a suicide expedition. She had, unfortunately, believed this story and communicated it to Mrs. Endicott.
“And what did Mrs. Endicott say?” Irvine asked.
Quinn had his assurance back. He was on his feet with a roar. He accused the district attorney of misconduct. He objected to the question. He moved to strike out the entire evidence of the witness. Anything that had been communicated to Elizabeth Endicott was not evidence against the defendant and the district attorney knew it. This was an insidious attempt to prejudice the jury. It constituted prejudicial misconduct. Quinn assigned it as such, and asked the Court to disregard the statements of the witness and to admonish the district attorney.
Judge Lawton took rather a serious view of the matter. He called Irvine to account. “Just what is the position of the prosecution in this matter?” he said. “How do you contend that any communication made to Mrs. Endicott is binding in any way upon the defendant?”
“We propose to show that Mrs. Endicott communicated what she had learned to the defendant,” Irvine said.
“You are prepared to show that?”
“Well, by inference,” Irvine said.
Judge Lawton’s face colored. “Do you have first person evidence that will support that inference, Mr. Prosecutor?”
Irvine hedged. “Well, Your Honor, I think certain events speak for themselves. I think that the jurors should be permitted to draw an inference.”
“I asked you a direct question,” Judge Lawton interrupted. “Do you have first person, definite evidence which will give facts from which such an inference can be supported — as a matter of law now, not on a hope-so basis but on a legal basis?”
Irvine ran his hand around his collar. “I dislike to disclose my case in advance,” he said. “If the Court will bear with me in this matter, I feel certain that it will be connected up.”
“How?” Judge Lawton snapped.
“By circumstances and by the defendant’s own admission,” Irvine said.
Judge Lawton said, “It is up to the trial court to control the order of proof. I feel that this testimony could be highly prejudicial unless it is connected up. Before any more questions are asked of this witness, I suggest that you put on any evidence you may have showing how you propose to connect up this statement, how you propose to bring it home to the defendant.”
“If the Court please, I’m not finished with this line of testimony,” Irvine said.
“You’re finished with it as far as this Court is concerned, and as far as this witness is concerned, until you show how you are going to connect it up,” Judge Lawton said. “The Court controls the order of proof and the Court intends to protect the rights of the defendant in this matter. The Court feels that something is required other than the assurance of the prosecutor that the matter is going to be connected up.”
“Very well,” Irvine said, “may I withdraw this witness for a moment and put on another witness?”
“That witness is for the purpose of connecting up the testimony of this witness?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
“Very well,” Judge Lawton said. “Now let’s have no misunderstanding in the records as to what is happening. The motion is before the Court to strike the entire testimony of this witness from the record. A motion is before the Court to instruct the jury to disregard the questions and answers of this witness and to admonish the district attorney for prejudicial misconduct. The Court reserves the ruling upon all of those motions until the testimony of this next witness.
“You are at liberty to leave the witness stand temporarily, Miss Manning, but don’t leave the courtroom. Your testimony is not concluded. You are to be cross-examined upon your testimony. You are temporarily withdrawn so that the prosecutor may call his next witness.
“Now then, Mr. District Attorney, put on the witness by whom you hope to connect up this testimony with the defendant.”
“Very well, Your Honor,” Irvine said with poor grace. “Call John Small Ormsby.”
Ormsby looked new all over. He had new shoes, a new ready-made suit, a new necktie and a new haircut. He looked a bit uncomfortable.
Ormsby, it turned out, was serving a sentence in the county jail. He had been convicted of having marijuana cigarettes in his possession. He had copped a plea and was serving a six months’ sentence. He had ingratiated himself to the officers, had become a trusty, had been placed in the cell with John Dittmar Ansel, and had had a conversation with Ansel.