“I so understand. Proceed.”
“Your Honor, my first witness will be Samuel Dixon.”
Dixon, duly sworn, took the witness stand, stated that he was a radio-car officer and had been such on the third of the month when he received a call to go to Siglet Manor Apartments and investigate at Apartment 326. On arriving there he had found both defendants in the apartment. The younger, Eva Martell, was excited and somewhat hysterical, but the older one, Adelle Winters, was quite calm and collected. They had shown him a body which they said was that of a man named Robert Hines.
“Where was this body?”
“Seated in a chair in the bedroom, rather slumped forward, the head inclined over toward the right shoulder. There was a hole almost in the center of the forehead. There were powder marks visible around the hole, indicating that it was a bullet hole. There had been some hemorrhage. The man was in his shirt sleeves. His coat had been removed and hung over the back of the chair in which the body was slumped.”
“Did the defendants make any statements to you in regard to the identity of the dead man or how they happened to discover him?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What were those statements?”
“Signed statements?” Mason interrupted.
“The statements I am referring to at this time were not signed,” Gulling said.
Mason said, “I understand, Your Honor, that the defendant signed certain statements. If that is so, the statements themselves are the best evidence.”
“The statements I am now asking for are merely oral statements which were made to this witness,” Gulling said.
“Objection overruled.”
“May I ask if these statements are considered by the prosecution to be in the nature of admissions? Or are they confessions?”
“I fail to see that that makes any difference.”
“If they aren’t either one, I shall object to them as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”
“They are statements.”
“Very well. Then I shall object to them on the ground that no proper foundation has been laid.”
“They are not confessions, if that is what you mean. They are statements — admissions.”
“Objection overruled,” Judge Lindale said.
“Yes,” the witness went on, “both defendants made statements. They said that they’d been employed by Mr. Hines to live in this apartment. The defendant Eva Martell said she had been instructed to take the name of Helen Reedley.”
“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I would like to be heard upon my objection. After all, there is no proof of the corpus delicti as yet. We have merely the body of a dead man. It seems that the orderly way would be to show the identity of this man and some medical testimony indicating that death was the result of violence. For all that has appeared so far, the man may have died of heart trouble.”
“With a bullet in his forehead?” Gulling asked sarcastically.
“Oh,” Mason said, “so there was a bullet in his forehead! That changes the situation.”
“Yes, there was a bullet.”
“I would like to cross-examine the witness about that bullet for the purpose of proving the corpus delicti before these other questions are asked.”
“This witness didn’t see the bullet,” Gulling said.
“Then how did he know there was a bullet?”
“The autopsy surgeon told him so!” Gulling shouted — and then flushed before Judge Lindale’s smile. He went on more calmly. “Very well,” he said, “I will prove the corpus delicti. If you will step down, Mr. Dixon, I’ll ask to have Helen Reedley sworn.”
With obvious reluctance Helen Reedley took the witness stand—
“Were you acquainted during his lifetime with Robert Dover Hines?” Gulling asked.
“I was.”
“Did you see him on the third of this month?”
“I did not actually see him on that date, but I talked with him.”
“On the telephone?”
“Yes.”
“You had, however, seen him prior to that time?”
“Many times, yes.”
“You were familiar with him? You know who he was?”
“Yes, I do.”
“You rented an apartment at the Siglet Manor Apartments, number 326?”
“I did, yes.”
“You had given Mr. Hines permission to occupy your apartment?”
“Temporarily, yes.”
“And did you on the fourth day of this month, at the request of the police, go to the morgue?”
“I did.”
“And there you saw the body of a man?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know that man?”
“Yes.”
“Who was it?”
“Mr. Hines.”
“Robert Dover Hines?”
“Yes.”
“The same person to whom you had given permission to occupy your apartment?”
“Yes.”
“Cross-examine,” Gulling said.
“When you gave Mr. Hines permission to occupy your apartment, you gave him a key to the apartment?” Mason asked.
“Yes.”
“And what was your object in giving him this key and permission to occupy the apartment?”
“Just a moment, Your Honor,” Gulling said, “that is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper cross-examination. This witness is called purely for the purpose of establishing the identity of the deceased, and that is all.”
“Then why ask her if she had given the deceased permission to occupy her apartment?” Mason asked.
“It shows why he was there.”
“Exactly,” Mason said. “That is what I’m trying to show — why he was there.”
“I didn’t mean it that way, Your Honor,” Gulling said.
Mason said, “I did, Your Honor.”
“If the Court please,” Gulling exclaimed angrily, “I don’t want to have all these extraneous matters dragged into this case. If Mr. Mason has any defense he wishes to produce, he is at perfect liberty to do so. But, so far as my case is concerned, I merely want to show the identity of the dead man, the manner in which he met his death, and the fact that there is more than a probability that these defendants brought about that death in a deliberate, cold-blooded manner and for the purpose of perpetrating a theft.”
“Then by all means,” Mason said, “the court should know the reason why the defendants were in the apartment, and the reason why Hines was in the apartment.”
“As a part of your case, if you want — not as a part of mine,” Gulling snorted.
“Perhaps,” Mason said, “I can clear up the situation by pointing out to the Court that the witness has been asked about the permission she gave Hines to occupy her apartment. If that permission was in writing, then the writing itself is the best evidence and should be introduced. If the permission was oral, then — under a well-established rule of law — when the prosecution introduces a part of a conversation I have a right to introduce it all.”
Gulling was unmistakably angry now. “We’ll be here all winter, Your Honor, if all these minor matters are going to be dragged into the case.”
“I don’t think it’s exactly a minor matter,” Judge Lindale ruled. “I would have said that it was part of the defendant’s case, were it not that the witness has been asked about something that obviously was a conversation. I will rule that if this was a part of the conversation, counsel has a right to show all of the conversation on cross-examination. I would suggest you reframe your question, Mr. Mason.”
“Very well,” Mason said. Turning to the witness, he smiled. “You have stated that you gave Robert Hines permission to occupy your apartment?”