“No, sir. Not angry.”
“You didn’t give him a copy of your book when you received it.”
“Simple forgetfulness. I didn’t give the library its copy, either.”
Ninheimer smiled cautiously. “Professors are notoriously absentminded.”
Defense said, “Do you find it strange that, after more than a year of perfect work, Robot EZ-27 should go wrong on your book? On a book, that is, which was written by you, who was, of all people, the most implacably hostile to the robot?”
“My book was the only sizable work dealing with mankind that it had to face. The Three Laws of Robotics took hold then.”
“Several times, Dr. Ninheimer,” said Defense, “you have tried to sound like an expert on robotics. Apparently you suddenly grew interested in robotics and took out books on the subject from the library. You testified to that effect, did you not?”
“One book, sir. That was the result of what seems to me to have been-uh-natural curiosity.”
“And it enabled you to explain why the robot should, as you allege, have distorted your book?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Very convenient. But are you sure your interest in robotics was not intended to enable you to manipulate the robot for your own purposes?”
Ninheimer flushed. “Certainly not, sir!” Defense’s voice rose. “In fact, are you sure the alleged altered passages were not as you had them in the first place?”
The sociologist half-rose. “That’s-uh-uh-ridiculous! I have the galleys-”
He had difficulty speaking and Prosecution rose to insert smoothly, “With your permission, Your Honor, I intend to introduce as evidence the set of galleys given by Dr. Ninheimer to Robot EZ-27 and the set of galleys mailed by Robot EZ-27 to the publishers. I will do so now if my esteemed colleague so desires, and will be willing to allow a recess in order that the two sets of galleys may be compared.”
Defense waved his hand impatiently. “That is not necessary. My honored opponent can introduce those galleys whenever he chooses. I’m sure they will show whatever discrepancies are claimed by the plaintiff to exist. What I would like to know of the witness, however, is whether he also has in his possession Dr. Baker’s galleys.”
“Dr. Baker’s galleys?” Ninheimer frowned. He was not yet quite master of himself.
“Yes, Professor! I mean Dr. Baker’s galleys. You testified to the effect that Dr. Baker had received a separate copy of the galleys. I will have the clerk read your testimony if you are suddenly a selective type of amnesiac. Or is it just that professors are, as you say, notoriously absent-minded?”
Ninheimer said, “I remember Dr. Baker’s galleys. They weren’t necessary once the job was placed in the care of the proofreading machine-”
“So you burned them?”
“No. I put them in the waste basket.”
“Burned them, dumped them-what’s the difference? The point is you got rid of them.”
“There’s nothing wrong-” began Ninheimer weakly.
“Nothing wrong?” thundered Defense. “Nothing wrong except that there is now no way we can check to see if, on certain crucial galley sheets, you might not have substituted a harmless blank one from Dr. Baker’s copy for a sheet in your own copy which you had deliberately mangled in such a way as to force the robot to-”
Prosecution shouted a furious objection. Justice Shane leaned forward, his round face doing its best to assume an expression of anger equivalent to the intensity of the emotion felt by the man.
The judge said, “Do you have any evidence, Counselor, for the extraordinary statement you have just made?”
Defense said quietly, “No direct evidence, Your Honor. But I would like to point out that, viewed properly, the sudden conversion of the plaintiff from anti-roboticism, his sudden interest in robotics, his refusal to check the galleys or to allow anyone else to check them, his careful neglect to allow anyone to see the book immediately after publication, all very clearly point-”
“Counselor,” interrupted the judge impatiently, “this is not the place for esoteric deductions. The plaintiff is not on trial. Neither are you prosecuting him. I forbid this line of attack and I can only point out that the desperation that must have induced you to do this cannot help but weaken your case. If you have legitimate questions to ask, Counselor, you may continue with your cross-examination. But I warn you against another such exhibition in this courtroom.”
“I have no further questions, Your Honor.”
Robertson whispered heatedly as counsel for the Defense returned to his table, “What good did that do, for God’s sake? The judge is dead-set against you now.”
Defense replied calmly, “But Ninheimer is good and rattled. And we’ve set him up for tomorrow’s move. He’ll be ripe.”
Susan Calvin nodded gravely.
The rest of Prosecution’s case was mild in comparison. Dr. Baker was called and bore out most of Ninheimer’s testimony. Drs. Speidell and Ipatiev were called, and they expounded most movingly on their shock and dismay at certain quoted passages in Dr. Ninheimer’s book. Both gave their professional opinion that Dr. Ninheimer’s professional reputation had been seriously impaired.
The galleys were introduced in evidence, as were copies of the finished book.
Defense cross-examined no more that day. Prosecution rested and the trial was recessed till the next morning.
Defense made his first motion at the beginning of the proceedings on the second day. He requested that Robot EZ-27 be admitted as a spectator to the proceedings.
Prosecution objected at once and Justice Shane called both to the bench.
Prosecution said hotly, “This is obviously illegal. A robot may not be in any edifice used by the general public.”
“This courtroom,” pointed out Defense, “is closed to all but those having an immediate connection with the case.”
“A large machine of known erratic behavior would disturb my clients and my witnesses by its very presence! It would make hash out of the proceedings.”
The judge seemed inclined to agree. He turned to Defense and said rather unsympathetically, “What are the reasons for your request?”
Defense said, “It will be our contention that Robot EZ-27 could not possibly, by the nature of its construction, have behaved as it has been described as behaving. It will be necessary to present a few demonstrations.”
Prosecution said, “I don’t see the point, Your Honor. Demonstrations conducted by men employed at U. S. Robots are worth little as evidence when U. S. Robots is the defendant.”
“Your Honor,” said Defense, “the validity of any evidence is for you to decide, not for the Prosecuting Attorney. At least, that is my understanding.”
Justice Shane, his prerogatives encroached upon, said, “Your understanding is correct. Nevertheless, the presence of a robot here does raise important legal questions.”
“Surely, Your Honor, nothing that should be allowed to override the requirements of justice. If the robot is not present, we are prevented from presenting our only defense.”
The judge considered. “There would be the question of transporting the robot here.”
“That is a problem with which U. S. Robots has frequently been faced. We have a truck parked outside the courtroom, constructed according to the laws governing the transportation of robots. Robot EZ-27 is in a packing case inside with two men guarding it. The doors to the truck are properly secured and all other necessary precautions have been taken.”
“You seem certain,” said Justice Shane, in renewed ill-temper, “that judgment on this point will be in your favor.”
“Not at all, Your Honor. If it is not, we simply turn the truck about. I have made no presumptions concerning your decision.”
The judge nodded. “The request on the part of the Defense is granted.”