Despite the excitement of the spectators and the decorum of the Court, there was a burst of laughter.
The judge pounded with the gavel for a moment, then suddenly smiled, and himself seemed to have some difficulty in refraining from laughing. However, he said, “That will do. Sit down, Miss Carroll. The Court will consider this matter in an orderly way.”
Staunton Irvine said, “Your Honor, I feel that Merton Ostrander’s comments are very definitely in order. While it is true that I am representing the defendant in this action, I have known Merton Ostrander for years and can vouch for...”
“What are you here for?” the judge interrupted.
“Why, Your Honor, I’m trying to see that justice is done.”
“You’re supposed to be representing this defendant,” the judge said.
“I am, Your Honor, but I cannot help but state that I have known Merton Ostrander and can vouch for his integrity.”
“You don’t have to vouch for anyone’s integrity,” the judge said. “You’re supposed to be representing this defendant, and if there’s any explanation for what’s happened that makes him blameless, you’re supposed to call that explanation to the attention of the Court.”
“Even if I know that it is too absurd to be tenable, Your Honor? I too wish to point out the same point which was previously raised, that there was another person present in that house, and...”
Rob Trenton suddenly pushed his chair back, got to his feet. “Your Honor,” he asked, “do I have the privilege of making any comment?”
“Not as long as you have an attorney to represent you.”
“Do I have the privilege of discharging that attorney?”
“You do if you wish,” the judge said.
Trenton turned to the attorney. “You’re discharged,” he said.
“I resent that,” Irvine said. “I’ve consistently endeavored to protect your interests in a way that...”
“Never mind talking about what’s gone before,” Trenton said. “I want to conduct my own defence from now on, and in order to do it I have to discharge you. Therefore, you’re discharged. Do you understand that?”
“I understand it, but I feel that such action, particularly taking place as it does in a public manner, is derogatory to my professional dignity and reputation and...”
“All right,” the judge interrupted, “you’re discharged. Now, young man, you want to say something. What is it?”
Trenton said, “I want to ask Dr. Dixon some more questions.”
“Go right ahead. The Court also has a few questions it would like to have answered. This procedure is probably a little irregular, but we’re going to try and get to the bottom of this thing.”
Trenton said to Dr. Dixon, “Are there any further facts you have, Doctor, which shed any light on what happened?”
Dr. Dixon’s voice was deadly cold in its scientific accuracy. “There are several things. In the first place one wonders why the bullets, exhibits one and two, did not go entirely through the body. They very conveniently remained lodged in the vital organs.
“If you will examine these bullets carefully you will find certain marks upon them which are virtually identical, yet which were not made by the grooves or lands of the barrel of the weapon, exhibit three.
“It seems obvious that these are the marks made by pliers; that the bullets were first extracted from the cartridge cases so that some of the powder charge could be removed, that the bullets were then replaced in these weakened cartridge cases and then fired into the body of the deceased.
“It will be remembered that the fire was out shortly after midnight, that the authorities did not find and inspect the boat until well after daylight.
“I may further state that this morning I recovered a bullet from one of the piles on the little wharf to which the houseboat had been moored. That bullet was apparently a fresh bullet and it had been fired from the automatic which has been introduced in evidence as People’s exhibit number three. I personally examined that bullet and compared it with a test bullet under a comparison microscope, and as a result, I know that it was fired and fired recently from the same weapon.
“The Court will also note that in the event the deceased met his death at some appreciable interval after the fire started, the death was outside of the territorial limitations of this state, because the boat, according to the testimony of witnesses, and according to surveys that I have made very carefully, drifted out into the current and then across the stream where it lodged on a sandbar which is actually outside of this state.”
“Isn’t there a statute providing for joint jurisdiction in crimes which occur within a reasonable distance of state boundary?” the judge asked.
“I’m a doctor, not a lawyer,” Dr. Dixon said.
The district attorney said, “There are several statutes. I don’t know whether they cover this case or not. There is a statute that when a person intending to commit a crime does anything in this state which culminates in the commission of a crime without the state, the effect is the same as though the crime had been committed entirely in this state, and there’s also a statute providing that when an offence is started without the state but is consummated within the boundaries, even though the defendant was out of the state at the time of the commission of that crime, the defendant is liable just as though he were in this state.”
Rob Trenton said, “Well, Your Honor, I’m neither a doctor nor a lawyer, but it seems to me that the conditions mentioned by the district attorney have not been met in this case. If Harvey Richmond was killed by bullets fired before the fire took place, that murder may well have taken place in this state, but if he was killed by fire, even despite the fact there had been a previous blow on the head, it’s a question of where the man was killed.”
“Or whether the fire was set deliberately,” the judge said.
The judge pursed his lips, frowned and once more scratched his head, then suddenly turned to the district attorney and said, “Mr. District Attorney, as I understand it, the Court has the power in this case to bind the defendant over for trial and then, in the event it wishes to do so, release him on bail, or the Court has the power to dismiss the case entirely. Now, as I understand it, if the case is dismissed, that doesn’t constitute any bar to arresting this man all over again in the event there should be other evidence uncovered which connects him with the crime.”
“No,” the district attorney said somewhat dubiously, “I don’t suppose it would be any bar, but of course, there is the moral effect, Your Honor. And murder is not a bailable charge.”
“Also,” the judge pointed out, “there’s another thing you want to take into consideration, Mr. Prosecutor, and that is that if the Court binds this man over on this charge, and then you uncover evidence which points to someone else, the fact that an order was made binding this defendant over is also going to have a moral effect. If I were in your shoes I’d rather just forget about this thing for a while and make a further investigation.”
“Of course, Your Honor,” the district attorney said, “Dr. Beaumont is thoroughly convinced as to the cause of death.”
“Of course he is,” the judge said, “and I’m not saying anything against Dr. Beaumont. He made a post-mortem until he found what he thought was the cause of death, and then he quit looking because he had found what he was looking for — or he thought he had; but if he’d looked a little farther, he’d have found the same things Dr. Dixon did and probably would have reached the same conclusions.
“The thing that the Court wants to point out to all concerned is the fact that if it hadn’t been for Dr. Dixon entering the picture and performing a further investigation which disclosed these peculiar facts, which I take it are uncontroverted, the defendant in this case would have been bound over for murder, would undoubtedly have been convicted of first-degree murder and probably executed. The fact that Dr. Dixon performed a further post-mortem points a lesson that I don’t think we should overlook, not any of us.