“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I object on the ground that this is an attempt to entrap the witness and to deprive her of her constitutional rights.”
Glamis Barlow did not wait for a ruling by the Court but walked up to the diagram which had been spread out on the court blackboard.
“Just a minute, Miss Barlow,” Judge Alvord said, “do you understand that question?”
“I certainly do.”
“Do you wish to write your name upon the portion of the diagram which is indicated in the question?”
“I do.”
“Do you realize that by so doing you are giving testimony under oath as a witness in a case wherein it is quite possible you may be a codefendant by the time the case comes to trial in the Superior Court?”
“I don’t care where it is tried,” Glamis Barlow said. “I wasn’t anywhere near that room any time during the morning of the thirteenth. I slept until nearly ten o’clock and outside of leaving my room to go in the hallway and talk with Muriell Gilman I didn’t go anywhere before at least nine thirty. Then I dressed and had breakfast and left the house and didn’t go anywhere near that workroom.”
“Very well,” Judge Alvord said. “The Court is satisfied that you have been advised as to your constitutional rights. The Court doesn’t particularly approve of this procedure but I am satisfied there is no law against it. I will state to the witness, however, that even if she did not claim the constitutional privilege of refusing to incriminate herself the Court would be inclined to sustain this objection, were it not for the attitude of the witness. Go ahead and write your name on that diagram if that is what you wish to do.”
Glamis Barlow wrote her name in a firm hand on the diagram.
Hamilton Burger said gloatingly, “Now you have written your name on a section of the diagram which is labeled ‘Workroom of Defendant’ and is indicated by a rectangle with measurements to scale included in a larger rectangle labeled ‘Garage, Darkroom and Workshop.’ Is that correct?”
“That is correct.”
“And you have no difficulty in orienting yourself as to that diagram and what is indicated thereby?”
“None whatever.”
“When you say that you did not go into that room, you mean the workroom maintained by the defendant as a woodworking room in the southern portion of a house which is in back of the building at 6231 Vauxman Avenue, and which house or structure includes a woodworking shop on the south, a darkroom maintained by your mother, Nancy Gilman, immediately adjacent thereto, and is, in turn, adjoined on the north by a garage having room for three cars. Is that correct?”
“That is correct.”
“Cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said triumphantly to Perry Mason.
“No questions,” Mason said.
“Call your next witness,” Judge Alvord announced.
“Call Mrs. Lamay C. Kirk,” Hamilton Burger said.
The door of the witness room was opened and a rather plump, pleasant-faced woman in the early forties was escorted into the courtroom. She walked gracefully with a free, swinging motion of hips and shoulders, held up her right hand, was sworn, and took the witness stand.
“Where do you reside, Mrs. Kirk?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“6227 Vauxman Avenue.”
“Now, that is where, with reference to the house occupied by the defendant, Carter Gilman?”
“It is directly south of that house.”
“Are there any houses between you and the Gilman house?”
“No, sir.”
“Is there a driveway?”
“No, sir. There is a hedge which extends partway between the two houses, but the driveway to the Gilman house is on the north of their house and the driveway of our house is to the south.”
“I will ask you if you have occasion to remember the thirteenth of this month at an hour between eight and eight thirty in the morning.”
“I do.”
“What were you doing at that time?”
“I was sitting in a breakfast nook in my house.”
“Where is that breakfast nook?”
“It is on the northwest corner of the house.”
“And looking to the north from the windows of that house what do you see?”
“Well, we see a portion of our yard, a portion of the backyard of the Gilman house, a part of the back of the Gilman house; that is, the door to the screened porch on the back of the Gilman house, and we see the house which is used by the Gilmans as a garage and combination workshop and darkroom.”
“Are you familiar with that house?”
“I see it almost every day.”
“Are you acquainted with Glamis Barlow?”
“I am.”
“How long have you known her?”
“Ever since we lived on Vauxman Avenue.”
“How long has that been?”
“About two years.”
“Have you talked with Glamis Barlow?”
“Many times.”
“Did you see Glamis Barlow on the morning of the thirteenth, between the hours of eight and eight thirty a.m.?”
“I object, if the Court please,” Mason said, “on the ground that the question is leading and suggestive, on the further ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and that, at most, it is an attempt on the part of the prosecution to impeach its own witness, Glamis Barlow.”
“We’re not trying to impeach anyone,” Hamilton Burger said, “we’re trying to establish the facts in this case.”
“I would like to ask what possible connection the appearance of Glamis Barlow in this case might have with the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Carter Gilman,” Mason said.
“I’ll be glad to answer that question,” Hamilton Burger snapped. “Vera Martel was engaged in a business transaction which directly affected Glamis Barlow. We don’t know the exact nature of that business but we can prove, at least by inference, that Glamis Barlow met Vera Martel on the morning of the thirteenth and that this defendant, seated in the dining room of his home, witnessed that meeting and, hurriedly excusing himself, went to the workshop in order to talk with Vera Martel; that while the defendant was in that workshop and while Glamis Barlow was also present, the defendant strangled Vera Martel, loaded her body in the trunk of his automobile and hurriedly left the house, leaving unfinished a portion of his breakfast; that the defendant thereupon located the automobile of Vera Martel and, with the assistance of Glamis Barlow as his accomplice, drove the Martel car to the point where the body was disposed of. The defendant attempted to make the death of Vera Martel seem to be the result of an automobile accident.”
“Then it is your contention that both Carter Gilman and Glamis Barlow are responsible for the death of Vera Martel? That Glamis Barlow at least became his accessory after the fact?”
“That is a correct statement of my position,” Hamilton Burger snapped.
“Now, Your Honor,” Perry Mason said, “the vice of this sort of an examination becomes apparent. The prosecution is trying to use this Court as a means by which he can entrap the person whom he intends to name as a co-defendant in the case just as soon as this hearing has been concluded. We insist that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial whether or not Glamis Barlow was in that building at those times, unless the district attorney can positively show first that Vera Martel was there at that time, that the defendant was there at that time and that the murder took place at that time and place.”
“We intend to show it by inference,” Hamilton Burger said.
“Until the proper foundation can be laid, the question of the movements of Glamis Barlow becomes incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” Perry Mason said, “at least as far as the present question is concerned. It can now only be construed as an attempt to impeach the veracity of Glamis Barlow who was the prosecution’s own witness. They can’t impeach their own witnesses. They are bound by her testimony. That is the penalty the prosecution must pay for calling a potential defendant to the stand and forcing her to answer questions before she can have the benefit of counsel.”