“Now, Mr. Steele, you have testified that in your opinion Sheila Benton stabbed Robert Greely, holding the knife in the manner you indicated?”
“Objection,” said Dirkson. “Already asked and answered.”
“I think it was,” Crandell said, “but it would also seem to be merely preliminary. Could we attempt to dispense with overly technical objections?”
“Yes, Your Honor,” Dirkson said with poor grace.
“Answer the question,” Steve said.
“Yes,” Steele said. “That’s what I said.”
“Sheila Benton stabbed Robert Greely with that knife?”
“Yes.”
“Holding it in her hand?”
“Yes.”
“In the manner you indicated?”
“Yes.”
“Do you know how tall Sheila Benton is?”
“No, I do not.”
“Is she six feet tall?”
“I don’t know.”
“You don’t? You’re an expert technician. You’re trained to notice details. Do you mean to tell me you can’t tell if Sheila Benton is six feet tall?”
“Objection. Argumentative,” Dirkson said.
“Sustained.”
Steve turned to the defense table. “Sheila Benton. Stand up.”
Sheila stood.
“Now, Mr. Steele, I want you to look at the defendant and tell me if she is over or under six feet tall.”
“Your Honor,” Dirkson said. “I hate to keep objecting, in view of your admonition, but this is totally irrelevant and calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness.”
“It does not, Your Honor,” Steve said. “It goes to his qualifications as an expert, and it goes to show bias.”
Judge Crandell looked down at him. “Bias?”
“Yes, Your Honor. The witness is a veteran observer. Surely he can look at a girl and tell if she is six feet tall or not. However, he knows what I am getting at, so he doesn’t want to say that she’s less than six feet tall. His refusal to say so is an indication of his bias.”
Judge Crandell smiled. “The argument is adroitly framed, if somewhat farfetched. However, the question could be construed as a test of his qualifications. The objection is overruled. The witness will answer the question.”
“Is the defendant over or under six feet tall?” Winslow asked.
“I’m not sure,” Steele said.
“Thank you for a fair and impartial answer,” Steve said, sarcastically. “Now, Mr. Steele, I’m not going to bother having the defendant come up here and stand next to you, I think I’ll just let the jury judge your statement on its own.”
“Objection, Your Honor.”
“Sustained. Mr. Winslow, such remarks are uncalled for.”
“I apologize, Your Honor,” Steve said. He turned back to the witness. “Now, Mr. Steele, let me ask you this. Did you examine the vital statistics of the decedent?”
“I did.”
“And how tall was he?”
“If he can remember, Your Honor,” Dirkson put in.
Judge Crandell frowned. “Yes, if he can remember, Mr. Prosecutor. But in the event that he cannot remember, I am going to suggest that he be withdrawn from the stand until the evidence can be supplied by someone who can remember. I would like to point out that we are conducting a murder trial here, not a battle of wits between attorneys. The defense attorney is attempting to make a point here, which he has every right to do, and which the jury has every right to hear, and I would like to see the matter proceed without so many legal roadblocks.”
Dirkson slowly sat down. Judge Crandell’s rebuke had come like a slap in the face. For one sick, fleeting moment, he could feel the case slipping away from him.
“Can you recall?” Steve asked.
“Yes,” Steele said, grudgingly. “Robert Greely was five feet, eleven inches.”
“Five feet, eleven inches? Despite your reluctance to admit the defendant is under six feet tall, I think the jurors all saw her when she stood up and can judge for themselves, so-”
“One moment, Your Honor,” Dirkson said, struggling to his feet. “I am sorry to interrupt in light of what Your Honor just said, but-”
“No need to apologize,” Crandell said. “I think we both know the difference between technical objections and valid ones. Mr. Winslow, I would not like it if it seemed that you intended to take advantage of my statement so as to make improper questions to which the prosecutor has been made reluctant to object.”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
“In any event, your summation was improper. The objection will be sustained. Please rephrase the question.”
“Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Steele, you still maintain Sheila Benton stabbed Robert Greely with the knife?”
“I do.”
“To do so, wouldn’t she have to have been hanging from the ceiling?”
“Objection.”
“Sustained.”
Steve smiled. “Very well. Let me put it to you this way. You claim Sheila Benton held the knife in the manner you indicated, and stabbed Robert Greely. Would you kindly turn to the jury and tell them, in your expert opinion, just how she was able to do it, just how she was able to plunge the knife into his back so that it would end up in the position in which it was found by the medical examiner?”
Reginald Steele turned to the jury. “It is quite simple,” he said. “The victim could have been seated at the time. Or he could have been bent over. He could have dropped something on the floor. When he bent over to pick it up, the defendant could have stabbed the knife into his back.”
Steve stared at the witness. “That is your expert opinion?”
“It is.”
“Is there any evidence whatsoever that the decedent was seated at the time he was stabbed?”
“Not to my knowledge.”
“Or that he was bent over?”
“No.”
“Or that he dropped anything on the floor?”
“No.”
“You are testifying then to surmises?”
“You asked for them.”
“I asked you to justify your expert opinion. Are you telling me the only way you can justify it is with unfounded surmises?”
“That is an unfair assessment of the situation. Any theory is founded on surmises. To characterize them as unfounded is indulging in semantics.”
“But the fact remains, that you do not have one shred of evidence to back up your surmises?”
“That is true.”
“The surmises upon which you base your expert opinion?”
“That is another inaccurate assessment of the situation. My expert opinion is not based on surmises.”
“What is it based on?”
“Analysis of the evidence.”
“And the evidence in this case is the fingerprints on the knife, the fingerprints that indicate that Sheila Benton held it in the position I would characterize as being like a sword?”
“That is correct.”
“And on that evidence you base your claim, your expert opinion, that Sheila Benton murdered Robert Greely?”
“I do.”
Steve strode to the defense table. He picked up a paper bag. He reached in and pulled out a rolling pin. He strode back to the witness.
“Mr. Steele, you claim you searched the defendant’s apartment for evidence.”
“I did.”
“I hand you a rolling pin, and ask you if you ever saw it before.”
“May I ask the purpose of this testimony?” Dirkson said.
“The witness testified that he inspected the defendant’s apartment. I’m certainly entitled to test his recollection as to what he found.”
The witness took the rolling pin and turned it over in his hands.
“I can’t recognize it well enough to identify it. There was a similar one in Sheila Benton’s apartment.”
“Thank you,’ Steve said. He took the rolling pin back from the witness. “Now then, you and I have both handled the rolling pin. If you were to examine this rolling pin, could you develop the fingerprints on it and tell me which were yours and which were mine?”
“Your Honor,” Dirkson said. “I object on the grounds that this is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”
“I’m merely cross-examining him on his qualifications as a fingerprint expert,” Steve said.
“Objection overruled.”