“We will not include that evidence in our motion to strike,” Mason said. “Nor do we include evidence as to the shoe being that of the defendant. But we do object to all questions asked the witness as to his entering the apartment of George Casselman and we move that that portion of the evidence be stricken.”
“The Court is inclined to go along with you on that point, Mr. Mason. However, it is now approaching the hour of the evening adjournment. The Court will take the matter under advisement until tomorrow morning. In the meantime, the Court will take a recess until ten o’clock tomorrow morning, during which the jurors are instructed not to form or express any opinion as to the merits of the case, not to discuss the evidence, or permit anyone to discuss it in their presence. The jurors will refrain from reaching any opinion until the case has been finally submitted. Court will take a recess until ten o’clock.”
Chapter Eighteen
Hamilton Burger saved his surprise witness for the morning.
“Call Homer Garvin, Jr.,” he said as soon as Court had reconvened and it was stipulated the defendant was in Court and the jurors were all present.
Junior Garvin came forward, his lips a tight line of determination.
He was sworn, gave his name and address, and established his relationship as the son of the witness, Homer Garvin, who had previously testified.
“Now,” Hamilton Burger said, holding an extended finger in front of the witness, “I am going to ask you to listen very carefully to my questions and to answer those questions, and not to volunteer any information. It has been established that your father purchased three guns, identical in appearance, caliber and make. For convenience in the testimony we have designated the gun which he gave you as the ‘Junior Gun,’ the one which he had in his holster early in the evening of October Seventh of this year as the ‘Holster Gun,’ and the one which he had in his locked safe as the ‘Safe Gun.’ Do you understand these designations?”
“Yes, sir.”
“It now appears without contradiction that during the evening of October Seventh your father gave the defendant Stephanie Falkner the gun we have described as the Holster Gun, that he later on went to the safe and put the gun we have referred to as the Safe Gun in his holster.
“It also appears that one of these three guns was the murder weapon and it is now in Court as Exhibit Number 30. You understand these facts?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Very well. I now want to ask you about the weapon your father gave you which we will refer to as the Junior Gun. I am going to ask you whether on the 8th day of October of this year you gave Mr. Perry Mason this gun?”
“I did.”
“Did Mr. Mason have it in his hands?”
“He did. Yes, sir.”
“Did Mr. Mason do anything with that gun?”
“Yes.”
“What?”
“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.
“I propose to connect it up,” Hamilton Burger said.
“I think we should have something more than the District Attorney’s statement that he proposes to connect it up,” Mason said. “I would like to ask the witness a question simply on that phase of the case.”
“Very well,” Judge Decker said.
“Was that gun,” Mason asked, “the one we are referring to as the Junior Gun, the same gun which I now show you and which has been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 30?”
The witness looked at the gun, said, “Definitely not. It was a gun exactly like this, in appearance, but it wasn’t this gun.”
“In that case, if the Court please,” Mason said, “anything that the witness might have done with any other gun is certainly not binding on this defendant, and is entirely outside the issues of this case.”
“I think that is correct,” Judge Decker said. “The objection is sustained.”
Hamilton Burger said angrily, “Well, I’ll get at it in another way. You see this gun People’s Exhibit Number 30?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Have you ever seen that gun before?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When?”
“Perry Mason handed it to me.”
“When?”
“On the eighth day of October of this year.”
“And what did you do with that gun?”
“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said. “Whatever I did is not binding on the defendant.”
“The Court is inclined to overrule that objection,” Judge Decker said. “It now appears that the witness has identified the gun positively, the gun which is Exhibit Number 30.”
“What did you do with that gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“I took it to the apartment of Stephanie Falkner.”
“The defendant in this case?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And then what did you do?”
“I didn’t do very much. I stood there like a bump on a log, while Mr. Mason recited some rigmarole to the effect that the defendant was in danger of some sort and that I was bringing her a gun that she could use for defense.”
“Now you say that Mr. Mason handed you this gun?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“Yes, sir.”
“When?”
“On the eighth day of October of this year.”
“Where?”
“Out at my place of business.”
“Prior to that time had you handed Mr. Mason a gun?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And what gun was that?”
“It was the gun we are referring to as the Junior Gun. It was identical in appearance with the one that I am now holding, which is the murder weapon, and which is marked People’s Exhibit Number 30.”
“You gave Mr. Mason that gun which we are calling the Junior Gun?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And what did Mr. Mason do with that gun?”
“He discharged that gun.”
“You mean he fired it?”
“Yes, sir. The bullet ploughed into my desk.”
“I show you a photograph which purports to be a picture of a desk with a long furrow stretching along it, and ask you if you know what that picture represents?”
“That is the desk in my office approximately as it exists today. It is a picture of the desk immediately after Perry Mason had fired this shot into it.”
“And then what happened?”
“Then during the confusion incident to firing that shot, Mr. Mason substituted this gun, which I hold in my hand, and which is People’s Exhibit Number 30, in place of the gun I had handed him which we are calling the Junior Gun. He handed the murder gun back to me under such circumstances that I would think it was the Junior Gun and suggested that I give it to Stephanie Falkner.”
“And by so doing apparently accounted for the discharged shell in the cylinder of the gun, and also at the same time sought to establish the fact that the murder gun, Exhibit 30, had been in your possession during the time the murder had been committed? Is that right?”
“Objected to as argumentative,” Mason said, “and I assign the asking of the question as misconduct.”
“The objection is well taken,” Judge Decker said, “and the District Attorney is admonished to refrain from such questions. That is purely argumentative and calls for a conclusion of the witness as to what happened. The jurors will disregard the question and will not draw any inference from it. Now proceed, Mr. District Attorney, and please ask questions which are within the scope of the issues and are proper.”
Hamilton Burger flushed at the rebuke of the Court, turned to Perry Mason and said, “Cross-examine.”