"The inference is obvious. The defendant in this case came to Perry Mason with a gun which had fired a fatal bullet into the body of Nadine Ellis. I won't at this time make any accusations, but it seems that that gun very mysteriously left the possession of the defendant and that the defendant was given a gun which could only have been given her by her counsel, Perry Mason. And it is at least an inference that she was instructed to return to the scene of the crime and fire a second bullet from that gun into the body of the victim.
"This, coming at a time when counsel had recently been investigating the law concerning two persons firing fatal shots into a body, certainly tells its own story.
"It is one thing for counsel to advise a person accused of crime and try to protect the rights of that person, but it is quite another thing for an attorney to become an accessory to murder.
"Counsel has been under suspicion before. This time by a fortunate circumstance the evidence exists which has-"
"That will do, Mr. District Attorney," Judge Keyser interrupted. "You will make no statements about counsel. If you have any matter to take before the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association, you may do so. If you wish to subpoena counsel to appear before the grand jury and have the grand jury investigate the question of whether counsel has become an accessory after the fact, you also have that privilege.
"In this court you are confined to discussing the relevancy of evidence. However, I will state that the statement you have made is certainly ample foundation to enable you to call Mr. Mason to the stand.
"Mr. Mason will take the stand and be sworn as a witness on behalf of the prosecution."
"Just a moment, Your Honor," Mason said, his face granite hard. "Regardless of what the district attorney may wish to prove by me, the fact remains that I am representing the defendant in this case and am entitled to conduct this case in an orderly manner. The witness, George Anclitas, is being cross-examined by me. The witness was called out of order on the statement of the district attorney that it would work a great hardship on him to be forced to return tomorrow. I insist on concluding my cross-examination of the witness."
"And I submit, if the Court please," Hamilton Biirger said angrily, "that this is simply an excuse to stall for time. Counsel has actually completed his cross-examination. Any questions he may ask from now on will be purely repetitious."
"It would seem that the examination had reached a logical conclusion," Judge Keyser said. "The Court will state it does not intend to have this cross-examination unduly prolonged. However, counsel is certainly within his rights. The witness Anclitas was put on out of order on the representation of the district attorney that it would work a great hardship on him to have to return tomorrow. Counsel is entitled to complete his crossexamination before any other witness is called, particularly in view of the fact that this witness was put on out of order at the request of the district attorney."
Hamilton Burger yielded the point with poor grace. "I serve notice here and now," he said, "that I am going to insist this cross-examination be conducted within the strict rules of evidence and not used as an excuse to prolong this case."
"Very well," Judge Keyser said, "proceed with your questions, Mr. Mason."
"You are positive that the gun you gave Helman Ellis was the one that you had personally marked with a manicurist's nail file?" Mason asked.
"Objected to as already asked and answered and not proper cross-examination," Hamilton Burger said.
"Sustained," Judge Keyser snapped.
"When this gun was handed to you by the district attorney," Mason said, "when was the last time prior to that occasion that you had seen the weapon?"
"Objected to as already asked and answered and not proper cross-examination."
"Overruled."
"Answer the question," Mason said.
"When I gave the gun to Helman Ellis."
"You're satisfied it's the same gun?"
"Objected to as repetitious, as already asked and answered."
"Sustained."
"You don't know the various numbers on the four guns which you purchased?"
"Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; not proper cross-examination, already asked and answered," Burger said.
"The objection is sustained," Judge Keyser ruled.
"Do you now, or did you at the time you gave the weapon to Helman Ellis, know the number of that weapon?"
"Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; not proper cross-examination."
"The objection is overruled."
"No, I didn't know the number of that particular gun," Anclitas said. "I didn't look at it. I told you all I know. I gave him the gun. That's all I know."
"Have you had occasion to examine the other three guns remaining in your possession?" Mason asked.
"Objected to. Not proper cross-examination," Hamilton Burger said.
"Overruled."
"No, I haven't examined them."
"I would suggest," Mason said, "that during the evening adjournment you examine these guns carefully and see if any one of those three guns does have a mark on the front sight-a mark made by a nail file such as you have described."
"That's counsel's suggestion," Hamilton Burger said, "but you don't have to act on it. I submit to the Court that this witness has given his evidence to the best of his ability."
"There may, however, have been a confusion in the mind of the witness as to the sequence of events," Judge Keyser said. "I think it is established that he gave a gun to Helman Ellis. The gun found near the body of Nadine Ellis was a gun which had been sold to George Anclitas or his associate, Wilton Marcus. The Court is not very greatly impressed by any of these questions concerning the mark on the front sight. It is quite apparent that the witness made a perfectly natural mistake in regard to the sequence of events, and unless it can be shown that there is some significance which is not presently apparent, the Court is not impressed by the absence of a file mark on the front sight. If, however, it should appear that such a mark is on the front sight of one of the three guns remaining in the possession of this witness, it might clarify the situation simply by showing that there was a natural mistake.
"However the Court fails to see where it affects the issues in this case other than, perhaps, to lay a foundation for cross-examining the witness when the matter reaches the Superior Court."
"Now then," Mason said, "I want to account for each one of these weapons. You purchased four weapons. I want to know where you kept them."
"Your Honor," Hamilton Burger said, "may I object, may I please object? This is not proper crossexamination. If counsel is permitted to go into the location of each of these four weapons and cross-examine the witness as to how he knows they're the same weapons, how he knows they were at a certain place at a certain time, this whole situation will become completely interminable. Counsel is very apparently stalling for time, and time is running out. It is now only a few minutes before the hour of the evening adjournment."
"Nevertheless," Judge Keyser said, "while the Court intends to be very strict in enforcing the rules of evidence and of cross-examination, the Court is not going to deprive the defendant of her rights simply because a situation has arisen in which defense counsel may well wish for time in order to prepare himself.
"The Court wishes to point out to the prosecutor that if the prosecutor had called Perry Mason to the stand without making this statement in open court, there would have been no opportunity for what the district attorney refers to as stalling."
"I thought I was within my rights in calling him," Hamilton Burger admitted somewhat sheepishly. "I had forgotten that technically he hadn't concluded his cross-examination of George Anclitas."
"That," Judge Keyser said coldly, "was your mistake, not the mistake of the Court. The Court wants to be fair in the matter. The Court will admit that in the face of statements made which apparently have been checked by the prosecutors, the circumstantial evidence indicates a situation of the utmost gravity. The Court will state further that the Court is going to get at the bottom of this and, while the Court intends to permit a reasonable cross-examination of this witness, the Court does not intend to have it unduly prolonged and the Court has now made up its mind that in the event it becomes necessary to take an evening adjournment, the Court is going to have a night session so that this matter can be disposed of without a delay which might tend to prejudice the rights of the parties.