“I take it,” Judge Decker said, “you wish to be permitted to ask leading questions, on the ground that you are dealing with a hostile witness. I think, however, the better practice is to call the witness to the stand and proceed with the interrogation. Then if there are objections on the ground that the questions are leading, the Court will rule on those objections at the time they are made.”
“Very well, Your Honor. Come forward, Mr. Garvin.”
Garvin came forward, was sworn, and took his position on the witness stand.
“I am going to call your attention to a shoe which has previously been marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification. I am going to ask you if that is your shoe.”
“That is my shoe.”
“Did you wear that shoe on the night of October 7th of this year?”
“I did.”
“Did you deliberately step into a pool of blood in the apartment of George Casselman in the Ambrose Apartments at Number 948 Christine Drive, and thereafter place your foot over a footprint which you found etched in dried blood in that apartment?”
“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.
“The objection will be overruled.”
The witness said, “I refuse to answer.”
“On what grounds?”
“On the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me.”
“Your Honor, I now ask that the shoe previously marked People’s Exhibit 33 for identification be received in evidence.”
Judge Decker hesitated a moment, then said, “There appearing to be no objection, it is so ordered.”
“Did you enter Apartment 211 of the Ambrose Apartments at 948 Christine Drive on the night of October seventh?” Burger asked the witness.
“Yes.”
“At what time?”
“Perhaps about eleven or eleven-thirty in the evening.”
“Did you at that time by the means of a cloth or some other manner deliberately remove fingerprints from certain objects in that apartment?”
“I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer may incriminate me.”
Hamilton Burger, seeing the rapt attention of the jurors, and knowing that the answers of the witness were the psychological equivalent of affirmative answers, smiled.
“On the seventh day of October, did you give or loan a weapon to the defendant in this case and tell her that you wanted her to have this weapon for her own protection?”
“I did.”
“Was that weapon the revolver which I now hand you and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30?”
Garvin examined the gun. “I believe that is the weapon. Yes.”
“I will ask you to describe in detail your movements on the night of October 7th.”
“I returned from Las Vegas. I went to my office where I have a shower, a wardrobe, and some clothes. I took a shower and changed my clothes.”
“Then what did you do?”
Mason said, “Now, if the Court please, I object on the ground that the movements of this witness are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, except as to the two matters on which the witness has already testified; to wit, that he was in the apartment of Casselman sometime in the vicinity of eleven o’clock, and that he loaned the defendant the weapon People’s Exhibit Number 30. Aside from that, any other activities engaged in by this witness are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”
“They may be very pertinent,” Hamilton Burger said.
“Then show that they are pertinent by showing what you want.”
Judge Decker frowned. “This is a very peculiar situation,” he said, “It is quite apparent to the Court what the prosecution seeks to prove by this witness, and, in view of the testimony, the time element is not too remote.”
“However, if the Court please,” Mason said, “it is quite possible that this witness may have done certain things that might be incompetent as far as the issues in this case are concerned.”
“The Court is going to sustain the objection,” Judge Decker said, “although it is apparently a close point. Quite evidently the witness has reached definite decisions in his own mind as to where he intends to exercise the privilege of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. The Court can very readily understand that there is no Statute of Limitations which has run in the matter, and this witness is facing a very real danger in that after the conclusion of this case he is to be tried on certain matters concerning which he is now being interrogated.
“Under the circumstances and in view of the situation, I think the Court will narrow the examination, particularly in view of the fact that the testimony of this witness is being used to build up a case against the defendant. It is quite possible that certain things he might have done cannot be considered as being binding upon the defendant unless there was some unity of purpose or unless the actions were a part of some pact or design which had been mutually agreed upon.”
“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said, “we’ll prove some of these activities by other witnesses.”
Hamilton Burger engaged in a whispered conference with Hendrie, then said, “Where did you get this gun which has been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 30?”
“I owned a sporting goods store among some of my other investments. While I was the owner of that sporting goods store I withdrew three guns from the stock.”
“And what did you do with those weapons?”
“I kept two for myself. I gave one to my son.”
“And those you kept for yourself?”
“I customarily carried a gun with me. I also kept a spare gun in my office. When I was absent I locked this gun in the safe.”
“Let’s put it this way,” Hamilton Burger said. “Let’s call the gun which you gave your son the ‘Junior Gun,’ let’s call the gun you put in your safe the ‘Safe Gun,’ and the gun which you carried in your holster the ‘Holster Gun.’
“Now I will limit this question to certain specific activities. Isn’t it a fact that after you gave the defendant the Holster Gun you returned to your office, unlocked your safe and put the Safe Gun in your shoulder holster?”
“Is there any objection?” Judge Decker asked.
“No objection to that question,” Mason said.
“Well,” Judge Decker said, “it seems to me... However, if there is no objection, I will permit the answer.”
“Did you do that?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“Yes, sir, I did.”
“That very evening?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When did you do that?”
“About... I would say about ten-fifty-five.”
“Then did you return to the apartment of the defendant after that?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Now, then, after you had returned to the apartment of the defendant, did you have occasion to again see the Holster Gun, which is now Exhibit Number 30?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Where was it?”
“It was on the bed of the defendant, under the pillow.”
“Did you at that time examine the gun?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you have it in your hands?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And did you, at that time, notice that since the time you had given the gun to the defendant the gun had been fired?”
“Objected to as leading and suggestive, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.
“The objection is overruled.”
“It is further objected to that it calls for the conclusion of the witness.”
“On that ground,” Judge Decker ruled, “I think perhaps there should be some further examination for the purpose of laying a foundation.”
“I will put the question this way,” Hamilton Burger said. “Was there something about the weapon when you saw it that second time at the defendant’s apartment which caused you to make a detailed inspection of the cylinder of the weapon?”