“And what happened?”
“She wanted me to take her to the Double Take Casino, and I took her there.”
“She paid you?”
“Of course she paid me. I was running a taxicab.”
“And how did she pay you?”
“In money,” the cabdriver said angrily.
“What I am trying to get at,” Mason said, “is whether she paid you the exact amount, or whether she gave you a bill and you had to make change.”
“She gave me — I don’t remember. She may have had the exact change. I think she gave me some one-dollar bills. I’m not sure.”
“Couldn’t she have given you this twenty-dollar bill?”
“I tell you,” the witness said, “I only had the one twenty-dollar bill in my pocket. I remember you gave me a twenty-dollar bill and told me to keep it. The next morning the police asked me to look through my pockets for twenty-dollar bills and to give them the numbers of the bills. I had this one bill in my pocket and I gave them the number and they had me write my initials on it and took the bill and gave me two tens in place of it.”
“Now, if this woman who was at the motel, whose name, by the way, is Mrs. Theilman, had given you a twenty-dollar bill when you took her to the casino and you had given her change for that bill, and then when you had a steak that night you had paid for it with one of the twenty-dollar bills you had in your pocket, it is possible that this bill could have been given you by Mrs. Theilman. Isn’t that right?”
The witness said, “Sure, that’s right. And if John D. Rockefeller had given me a million dollars, I’d have been a millionaire.”
The courtroom broke into laughter.
Judge Seymour tapped his pencil. “There is no occasion for levity,” he said.
“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I ask the indulgence of the Court in connection with this cross-examination. I feel that as a matter of ethics an attorney should not take the stand, and if he is forced to take the stand, he should then not argue the case to the jury. Because I wish to avoid taking the stand myself, I am trying to clear this matter up by a detailed cross-examination.”
Judge Seymour nodded, said, “You may proceed, Mr. Mason. The Court appreciates your position and I think there is no reason to make any further explanation in the presence of the jury. Proceed with your cross-examination.”
“I would like an answer to my question,” Mason said.
“If your fare to the casino had given you a twenty-dollar bill, isn’t it possible that you could have spent the twenty-dollar bill I gave you when you got your steak dinner?”
“I don’t think so, no.”
“Will you say it’s impossible?”
“All right,” the witness said, “I’ll say it’s impossible. She didn’t give me any twenty-dollar bill. That was the only twenty-dollar bill I had the next morning.”
“It may have been the only twenty-dollar bill you had the next morning,” Mason said, “but you can’t swear you didn’t spend twenty dollars when you paid for your steak dinner, can you?”
“I don’t think I did.”
“Can you swear that you didn’t?”
“Well, I can’t swear absolutely, positively that I didn’t, no. I don’t think I did, though. In fact, I’m positive I didn’t.”
“That’s all,” Mason said.
Ruskin said suavely, “Well, if you’re positive you didn’t, you can now swear that you didn’t, isn’t that right, Mr. Roberts?”
“Objected to,” Mason said, “as leading and suggestive.”
“It is leading and suggestive,” Judge Seymour said.
“But this is on redirect examination.”
“That doesn’t make any difference. You can’t put words into the mouth of the witness. He’s your witness.”
“Well, did she give you a twenty-dollar bill and you gave her change?” Ruskin asked.
“I don’t think so.”
“Are you positive?”
“Yes, I’m positive she didn’t.”
“That’s all,” Ruskin said.
“Will you swear she didn’t?” Mason asked, smiling.
“All right,” the witness shouted, “I’ll swear she didn’t.”
“A few moments before you said you wouldn’t swear she didn’t,” Mason said. “Now what has changed your mind? Is it the fact that the prosecutor quite obviously wants you to so swear?”
“I object to that,” Ruskin shouted. “That is not proper cross-examination and it isn’t a question of what I want him to swear to.”
“It goes to his bias,” Judge Seymour said. “I think the situation here is obvious, however. Answer the question, Mr. Roberts. The objection is overruled.”
“I’m willing to swear that she didn’t because I know she didn’t. I’m positive of it now. The more I think of it, the more positive I become,” Roberts said.
Ruskin grinned at Mason.
“You’d been thinking of it ever since the fourth of the month, hadn’t you?” Mason asked.
“Off and on.”
“And you weren’t willing to swear that she didn’t give you a twenty-dollar bill a few minutes ago.”
“Well, I’m swearing to it now,” the witness said.
“Because I’ve made you angry?” Mason asked.
“I’m swearing to it.”
“That’s all,” Mason said.
“No further questions,” Ruskin observed.
“Call Louise Pickens,” Ruskin said.
Louise Pickens was a very attractive, curvaceous young woman bubbling good nature and friendliness. The minute she walked forward and held up her hand, took the oath, seated herself and smiled at the jurors, the jurors relaxed their positions and started smiling.
“What’s your occupation?” Ruskin asked.
“I’m a policewoman.”
“Now, I am going to ask you if you are familiar with the words of the message which was testified to as having been on the paper found by Mrs. Theilman in her husband’s pocket.”
“Yes.”
“And did you make any experiments in duplicating that message?”
“I did.”
“What were those experiments?”
“I purchased a Los Angeles Times and a Los Angeles Examiner under date of Tuesday, the third, and found that it was possible to reconstruct that message from words in the headlines of the two papers.”
“And you did so construct such a message?”
“I did.”
“Do you have it with you?”
“I do.”
“May we see it, please?”
“Now, just a moment,” Mason said, “I object to this on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The fact that the message could have been so constructed is certainly not binding on this defendant.”
“I propose to connect it up,” Ruskin said.
“I think I’ll permit it, Mr. Mason,” Judge Seymour said, “particularly on the strength of counsel’s assurance that it will be connected up. I think it’s within the province of the prosecution’s case to prove how the message could have been constructed. Of course, the jurors will understand that that doesn’t necessarily mean the message was constructed in that way. The objection is overruled.”
Louise Pickens produced the message.
“I move this be received in evidence as People’s Exhibit, appropriate number.”
“I think it is M-i,” the clerk said.
“Very well, it will be received as People’s Exhibit M-1.”
“Subject to the defendant’s objection, if the Court please,” Mason said.
“Subject to the defendant’s objection, which is overruled. It will go in evidence,” Judge Seymour ruled.
“You may inquire,” Ruskin said.
“No questions,” Mason said.