“Yes, sir.”
“Did you at that time communicate to him the fact that you detected an odor of bitter almonds?”
“No, sir.”
“Did Dr. Granby tell you that he detected an odor of bitter almonds?”
“No, sir. There was no discussion about it.”
“Were you there when Dr. Granby signed the death certificate giving the cause of death as coronary thrombosis?”
“I was there when he announced that that was the cause of death.”
“Did you then suggest to him that perhaps there might have been some other cause?”
“Certainly not. It is not the function of a nurse to try and correct a doctor’s diagnosis.”
“Did you at that time think the diagnosis was wrong?”
“I—”
“Oh, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said, “this witness is not an expert medical witness. She is a nurse. She has had certain training. She can testify as to certain things. This question is not proper cross-examination.”
“Certainly it is proper cross-examination,” Mason said. “She is now testifying that at that time she noticed the odor of bitter almonds and that she knew the odor of bitter almonds was indicative of cyanide poisoning. It becomes important to know whether she pointed that out to the doctor, which she certainly would have done if she actually had noticed any significant odor, or whether she waited until the idea was put in her head by the police.”
“Now that is an unfair statement,” Hamilton Burger said. “There is no evidence that the idea was put in her head by the police.”
“You let me go ahead with this cross-examination and I’ll show that that’s where the idea came from,” Mason said.
“Now just a moment,” Judge Ashurst said, “this colloquy between counsel borders on misconduct on both sides. The witness was asked a question. It is true that the witness did not qualify on direct examination as being able to give an opinion as to the cause of death, but this question relates to her conduct at the time. The objection is overruled.”
“Did you point out to anyone at that time that you had detected the odor of bitter almonds?”
“No.”
“Did you at that time, prior to talking with the police or the district attorney, have any idea that the odor of bitter almonds had any significance whatever?”
“No.”
“Did you at that time think that the odor of bitter almonds was associated with cyanide?”
“Well... no, not at that time.”
“It wasn’t until afterward, when you were being questioned by the police, that they asked you if there wasn’t something that you could possibly think of that would indicate the presence of cyanide, that you made that statement?”
“Not by the police — by the prosecutor.”
“Oh, by Hamilton Burger himself,” Mason said, bowing to the district attorney. “That was when the matter first came to your mind, is that right?”
“Well, that’s the first time I reported it.”
“That’s the first time you appreciated the significance of what you had smelled?”
“Yes.”
“And Mr. Burger asked you if you hadn’t noticed something that would be indicative of poisoning by cyanide?”
“Well, yes.”
“And did Mr. Hamilton Burger further tell you that he understood the odor of bitter almonds was indicative of cyanide poisoning and ask you if you had detected that odor?”
“Yes.”
“That was before you told him you had smelled bitter almonds?”
“That brought it to my mind.”
“That was the first time that it was brought to your mind?”
“Yes.”
“And then you thought you had remembered it?”
“Then I remembered that I had smelled it.”
Mason smiled. “That’s all,” he said.
“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger snapped.
Hamilton Burger said, “If the Court please, the next witness is a hostile witness. However, it is necessary for us to call him. Dr. Logbert P. Denair, will you come forward and be sworn.”
Dr. Denair came forward, was sworn and testified to his qualifications as a physician and surgeon, his practice in psychiatry, the fact that he was acquainted with the defendant.
“Now then, on or about the fifteenth day of September of this year did the defendant consult you professionally?”
“Yes.”
“Did you at that time decide she was suffering from severe feelings of guilt?”
“Objected to,” Mason said, “as calling for a privileged communication, as betraying the confidential relationship existing between a doctor and a patient.”
Judge Ashurst thought for a minute, then said, “The objection is sustained.”
“Did you at that time suggest to the defendant that it would be advantageous if you should give her a so-called truth serum test?”
“Same objection,” Mason said.
“Same ruling.”
“Did you on or about the seventeenth of September administer a drug to the defendant?”
“I did.”
“Was the object of that drug to overcome the so-called defense mechanism which would prevent a patient from disclosing facts which the patient might consider as damaging?”
“It was.”
“Did you at that time have a tape recorder present?”
“I did.”
“Did the patient at that time make a statement which was recorded on the tape recorder?”
“Now if the Court please,” Mason said, “I object to that on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; that it conclusively appears the patient was under the influence of drugs so that anything that was stated at that time would be the figment of a drugged imagination; on the further ground that it calls for the betrayal of a confidential communication and on the further ground that if there is any confession or admission contained in that tape recording there is no proper foundation laid inasmuch as there has been no proof of the corpus delicti.”
“Now then,” Judge Ashurst said, “we’re getting to the crux of the legal situation which, of course, the Court has generally understood would arise during the course of this trial. I think that the argument should take place outside of the presence of the jury. However, the Court will observe that the question as it is now asked does not call for an answer which would justify all of the objections that were taken. As I understand it, the prosecution intends to show that such a tape recording was made and then dismiss the doctor. It then wishes to produce the tape recording as an admission of the defendant and ask that it be played to the jury.”
“That is correct, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.
“But,” Mason said, “we’re going to have to face all of these facts and we may as well face them now.”
“I think I will overrule the objections at this time until we have all of the preliminaries out of the way,” Judge Ashurst ruled.
“Did you make such a tape recording?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“I did.”
“What was done with that tape recording?”
“It was placed in my safe.”
“What happened to it after that?”
“It was turned over to the police by my nurse. The police served a search warrant on her and searched the office and took possession of the tape recording.”
“I show you a spool of tape on which there is a notation in red pencil, presumably in your handwriting, stating, ‘Interview with Nadine Farr, September 17th,’ and ask you if that notation was made by you?”
“It was. Yes, sir.”
“And it was made on the spool of tape recording on which the words of Nadine Farr were recorded?”
“Yes, sir.”
“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger said triumphantly.
“Just a few questions,” Mason said. “At the time the tape recording was made Nadine Farr was your patient?”