“I think that is right,” Judge Flint ruled.
“Very well, if I am going to be limited in my proof I’ll pass this matter on my opening statement, ladies and gentlemen, but we expect to introduce proof and we will have a ruling on the matter as the witnesses come on the stand.
“I am not going to weary you with details. I have told you the general nature of the case so you can understand the evidence you will hear. You will hear the confession of one of the members of this conspiracy and you will hear evidence of admissions made by the defendant herself.
“We are going to ask a verdict of first-degree murder at your hands. However, as far as this trial is concerned, it is only necessary for you to determine just one thing.”
Parma held up his left index finger high above his head. “Just one thing, ladies and gentlemen,” he said, shaking the outstretched finger. “That is, whether or not the evidence in this case proves the defendant guilty of the crime of murder, the killing of Marvin Billings.
“We shall ask a verdict of guilty at your hands, a verdict of first-degree murder.”
Parma turned and walked back to his seat at the prosecutor’s table.
“Do you wish to make an opening statement, Mr. Mason?”
“No,” Mason said, “except that I wish the Court to admonish the jury that the statement of the prosecutor was inaccurate as a matter of law.”
“In what respect?” Judge Flint asked.
Mason arose and extended his left hand above his head, extending the left forefinger. “It isn’t a matter, Your Honour, of proving just one thing: whether the evidence shows the defendant guilty. It is a matter of proving two things.”
And Mason slowly raised his right hand and extended the right index finger. “It is a question of proving the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I think the Court should so advise the jury.”
“Well, I think the jury understands that in any criminal case the evidence must prove the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.”
“Otherwise the defendant is entitled to a verdict of acquittal.”
“The Court will cover that matter in its instructions,” Judge Flint said.
Mason slowly lowered his hands with the extended forefingers and seated himself.
Judge Flint repressed a smile at the skillful manner in which Perry Mason, waiving his opening statement, had nevertheless scored a telling point on the prosecution.
“Call your first witness,” Judge Flint said to the prosecutor.
“I will call Emily Dickson.”
Mrs. Dickson, a rather attractive woman in her early forties, took the oath and seated herself on the witness stand after giving her name and address.
“What was your occupation on the sixth of September?” Parma asked.
“I was the manager of the Parkhurst Apartments.”
“You were residing there in the apartments?”
“I was.”
“Did you know Dorrie Ambler in her lifetime?”
“Just a minute,” Mason said. “If the Court please, I ask that the jury be admonished to disregard that question. I ask that the prosecutor be cited for misconduct. I object to any statement intimating that Dorrie Ambler is dead. It assumes a fact not in evidence.”
“I didn’t say she was dead,” Parma said. “I merely asked the witness if she knew Dorrie Ambler during her lifetime. That’s a perfectly permissible question. I can always ask that about anybody. I could ask her if she knew you during your lifetime.”
“The inference is that the person inquired about is no longer alive,” Mason said, “and I feel the question was deliberately slanted so as to convey that impression.”
“I think so too,” Judge Flint said. “Now, gentlemen, let’s not have any misunderstanding about this. I am willing to permit the prosecution to introduce evidence of any other crime, provided that evidence is necessarily pertinent to the present question before the jury, for the purpose of showing motive or method or a general pattern within the provisions of the rule with which I am quite sure you are all familiar.
“I have ruled that there is not going to be any evidence introduced of any crime committed after the alleged crime in this case was completed.”
“I’ll withdraw the question,” Parma said with poor grace.
Judge Flint said, “I advise the jury to disregard the question and any insinuation contained in the question or any thoughts which may have been placed in your minds because of the nature of the question. I am going to state further to the prosecutor that I will declare a mistrial in the event there are any further attempts to circumvent the ruling of the Court.”
“I wasn’t trying to circumvent the ruling of the Court,” Parma said.
“Well,” Judge Flint observed dryly, “you’re too much of a veteran not to know the effect of your question. Now I suggest that you proceed, and be very careful.”
“Very well,” Parma said, turning to the witness. “Did you know Dorrie Ambler prior to the sixth of September?”
“Yes.”
“For how long had you known her prior to September sixth?”
“Approximately — oh, I guess five or six months.”
“Miss Ambler had an apartment in the Parkhurst Apartments?”
“She did.”
“Where was it?”
“Apartment 907.”
“Now I’m going to ask you if you also rented Apartment 805 prior to the twelfth day of September, and if so, do you know the name of the tenant?”
“I do now. His name is Dunleavey Jasper, but at the time he told me he was William Camas.”
“When did you rent him Apartment 805?”
“On the eleventh of September.”
“Of this year?”
“Yes.”
“I have some further questions to ask of this witness upon another phase of the matter,” Parma said, “but I will put the witness on the stand at a later date.”
“Very well,” Judge Flint said, turning to Mason. “Cross-examine.”
“Can you describe Dorrie Ambler?” Mason asked.
“Yes. She was about twenty-five or six.”
“Eyes?”
“Hazel.”
“Hair?”
“Auburn.”
“General appearance?”
“She was almost the exact image of the defendant in this case, the woman sitting there at your left.”
“Oh, you notice the resemblance, do you?” Mason asked.
“I notice a very distinct resemblance — a startling resemblance.”
“Did you ever comment on it?”
“I certainly did.”
“Would it be possible to confuse the defendant with Dorrie Ambler and vice versa?”
“It would be very possible.”
“When did you first see the defendant?”
“When she was placed in a show-up box.”
“And at that time you identified her as Dorrie Ambler, didn’t you?” Mason asked.
“Objection,” Parma said. “Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Not proper cross-examination.”
“Overruled,” Judge Flint snapped.
“Well, I had been told that I was going to be called on to pick out Minerva Minden and I told them—”
“Never mind what you told them,” Mason said. “What did they tell you?”
“That they wanted me to pick out Minerva Minden.”
“And did you tell them you had never seen Minerva Minden before?”
“Yes.”
“But they still wanted you to identify a woman you had never seen?”
“They wanted me to see if she resembled Dorrie Ambler.”
“And you saw her in the show-up box?”
“Yes.”
“And noted her resemblance?”
“Yes.”
“How close a resemblance?”
“A very striking resemblance.”