“Well, you went in there for a purpose, didn’t you, Lieutenant?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You were accompanied by Sergeant Elias Camp of the Las Vegas Police force?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And, to your knowledge, was I being shadowed at the time?”
“There was a plainclothes officer detailed to keep a watch on you.”
“And you had threatened to get a search warrant to search my room?”
“Yes, sir.”
“For what purpose?”
“To look for a briefcase containing securities.”
“And you found a briefcase containing securities?”
“I did.”
“And was there any other briefcase in that room, either containing securities or from which securities could have been transferred to this briefcase?”
“I... I confess that I don’t know,” Lieutenant Tragg said. “Why don’t you know?”
“Because I went there to find a briefcase containing securities and when I found what I was looking for I discontinued any further search.”
“Therefore,” Mason said, “as far as you know, and to the best of your knowledge, this briefcase, Exhibit 26-A, was the only briefcase in the room.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you,” Mason asked, “make any attempt to develop latent fingerprints on this briefcase, Exhibit 26-A?”
“We did. Yes, sir.”
“Did you find any latent fingerprints?”
“Yes. We found some of yours and some of a person who could not be identified at the moment. I assume now they may have been the fingerprints of Miss Estelle Rankin, who just left the stand.”
“Do you have those photographs of the latent fingerprints with you?” Mason asked.
“I have them in my briefcase.”
“Will you produce them, please?” Tragg produced the photographs.
“I wish to introduce these photographs as defendants’ exhibits three and four,” Mason said, “and I have no further questions of this witness.”
“No questions,” Ormsby said.
“You’re excused,” Mason said, and turned to the startled prosecutor. “That constitutes the defendants’ case, if the Court please. We have no further witnesses.”
Judge Fisk was as surprised as Ormsby. “You wish to argue the matter now?”
“We’re ready to proceed with argument right now,” Ormsby said defiantly.
“So am I,” Mason said.
“Very well,” Judge Fisk said. “Proceed with the argument.”
Ormsby walked forward to address the jurors.
“If it please the Court, and you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a peculiar case — an unusual case. It is a case involving deliberate, cold-blooded murder.
“The decedent may not have been the most perfect man on earth, but he was, nevertheless, entitled to his life. He was entitled to the protection of the law.
“The defendant Vivian Carson, finding her affection for him wearing thin, proceeded to divorce him. She felt that her husband had withheld certain securities, and it is quite possible that he had done so; in fact, the evidence would so indicate. I would be underestimating your intelligence if I tried to argue otherwise.
“That, in part, furnished the motive for the murder; that, and apparently a sudden infatuation between the two defendants. I was tempted to submit this case without argument, but I felt that I should point out certain facts to you members of the jury so that you will not be confused by any dramatic last-minute argument. I have a closing argument which will follow the defendants’ argument, so I simply want to point out at this time that despite the attack which will doubtless be made on the credibility of the witness, Nadine Palmer, she has comported herself throughout in an admirable manner. She told you frankly that while she is sure in her own mind the woman she saw jumping into the swimming pool was Vivian Carson, she is not going to make a positive identification. I think that is perhaps the best barometer of fairness that you could have in this witness.
“I submit that in view of the manner and demeanor of this witness anything that defense counsel may say, any attempt to smear this witness will be a boomerang which will damn the defendants.
“The defendants left their fingerprints on that hinged tile which covered the hidden receptacle. Those damning fingerprints, silent evidence that both of these defendants touched the inside surface of that tile.
“The testimony that their fingerprints were there is uncontradicted. You can see those fingerprints for yourselves. The photographs are in evidence. Just look at those enlarged photographs and reach your own conclusions. You don’t have to qualify as an expert to tell when fingerprints such as these match. All you need is good eyesight and good judgment.
“The defendants had their hands on the inside of that tile, on the inside of that steel-lined receptacle.
“Why?
“Ask yourselves that question. No one has attempted to give you any reasonable explanation. There can be only one logical explanation. They murdered Loring Carson and took his hidden securities. They kept the cash. They wanted to transfer the securities. Their attorney, Perry Mason, had those stolen securities with him in Las Vegas.
“Was this a coincidence?
“Don’t be naive.
“Don’t let Counsel pull the wool over your eyes.
“I ask a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder against both defendants.”
Ormsby turned and walked back to his table.
Mason arose and smiled at the jurors.
“If it please the Court and you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I find myself at something of a disadvantage. The case against the defendants is predicated upon the testimony of one witness, Nadine Palmer.
“You have the assurance of the deputy prosecutor that Nadine Palmer is a reasonable, fair woman. Because she wouldn’t identify the nude woman she saw jumping into the swimming pool as being Vivian Carson, you are told that this is an indication of her sincerity, a barometer of her integrity, and any attack on her will be a boomerang to the defense.
“The witness, Nadine Palmer, doesn’t dare to come out and say that it was Vivian Carson she saw jumping in there because she knows it wasn’t Vivian Carson and if it should turn out at a later date that the person she saw was actually someone else, she would then be guilty of perjury.
“So she hedges, she twists, she turns and evades, she equivocates, and the district attorney’s office wants you to take that as a barometer of honesty.
“If that’s a barometer of honesty, then the barometer shows a pretty low pressure.
“Why didn’t she have the integrity to come right out and say that she hadn’t been able to recognize the person she saw, that she didn’t know who it was, that she couldn’t see her face. The sudden, startling apparition of this nude woman dashing out of the house and plunging into the swimming pool caught her entirely by surprise.
“You women on the jury will know how she felt. She saw this woman entirely unclad. The spectacle was one that startled her, and before she could gather her wits enough to take a good look the woman was in the swimming pool. After that she never saw the woman’s face.
“But did she see a nude woman? Did she see anyone, or is she simply transposing her story so that she describes the part which she played in this case, and pretends that she was an impartial witness watching the event from a distance?
“Why didn’t she go to the police with what she saw? Why did she rush home and take a shower, getting her hair all wet? Why were the cigarettes in her bag soggy? I’ll tell you why. It was because she was the woman who jumped into the pool, swam over and got the securities, and presently I’m going to prove it to you; and I’m going to prove it to you by your own senses and beyond any reasonable doubt.