“I was.”
“On whom did you perform the autopsy?”
“Willmer Gilly; at least, it was a cadaver whose fingerprints have been introduced in evidence as being those of Willmer Gilly.”
“What did you find as to the cause of death?”
“A .38 calibre bullet had penetrated the man’s heart. It had entered the chest, penetrated the heart, and lodged against the spine.”
“What can you say in regard to death?”
“It was instantaneous, as nearly as one can measure those things.”
“What about motion after the shot?”
“There would have been no motion after the shot. The bullet not only went through the heart but lodged in the spinal column. The only motion would have been a falling motion due to gravitation. The man fell where he was struck and died where he fell.”
“What time did you perform your autopsy?”
“About nine-thirty on the evening of the eleventh.”
“How long had the man been dead?”
“Approximately twenty-four hours.”
“Can you fix it any closer than that?”
“Medically, I would say the man had died between eight and eleven p.m. of the preceding day; judging from extraneous evidence, I can pinpoint the time of death a little more accurately.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“The man had died within approximately an hour and a half to two hours after ingesting a meal of canned pork and beans.”
“You may inquire,” the district attorney said.
“No questions,” Mason said.
“What!” District Attorney Hastings exclaimed in surprise. “No cross-examination?”
“No cross-examination,” Mason said.
“If the Court please,” Hastings said, “I see it is approaching the hour of the noon adjournment and that is our case. We only need to show in a preliminary hearing of this kind that a crime has been committed and that there is reasonable cause to connect the defendant with the crime. I think we have abundantly established our case.”
“It would seem so,” Judge Hobart said, “unless, of course, the defendant wishes to put on a defence.”
“The defendant would like to have an adjournment,” Mason said, “until tomorrow morning.”
“Do you intend to put on any defence?” Judge Hobart asked. “It is, of course, unusual in preliminary examinations of this sort and I warn counsel that once a prima-facie case has been established, mere conflict of evidence would have virtually no effect on the ruling of the Court. It is this Court’s duty to bind a defendant over when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant has perpetrated a crime. The question of credibility of witnesses in the event of a conflict in the testimony is exclusively within the province of the trial jury.”
“I understand, Your Honour,” Mason said. “However, the defence is entitled to a reasonable continuance and I would like to have a continuance until tomorrow morning in order to ascertain whether we wish to put on testimony.
“I would also like to make a public statement in court at this time. Inasmuch as the defendant has sustained some damage in the press because of her refusal to make any statement whatever to the investigating officers, and inasmuch as I have been largely responsible for that attitude on the part of the defendant, I would like to announce that immediately following the adjournment of this case there will be a press conference at which the defendant will tell a full and complete story to the newspaper reporters as to exactly what happened on the night of the murder.”
“Your Honour!” Hastings shouted, getting to his feet, “this is ridiculous. This is making a travesty of a judicial investigation. The defendant sits tight and makes no statement whatever on the advice of counsel. Then after the prosecution has rested its case, the defendant announces that she will, in effect, give her testimony to the public press.”
Judge Hobart said thoughtfully, “I know of no law which prevents the defendant from making a statement to the press at any time the defendant desires, and I certainly know that under the law the defendant does not have to make a statement to investigating officers.
“Under the circumstances, Court will take a recess until tomorrow morning at ten o’clock, at which time this hearing will be renewed. In the meantime the defendant is, of course, remanded to the custody of the sheriff. However, if the defendant desires to make a statement to the press at this time, I see no reason why the sheriff cannot arrange for such an audience here in the courthouse.”
Judge Hobart arose and left the bench.
District Attorney Hastings came barging over to Mason’s counsel table. “Look here, Mason,” he said, “you can’t pull a stunt like this!”
“Why can’t I?” Mason asked. “You heard what the judge said. It’s legal.”
“Well, if you’re going to have a press conference, I’ll be there and I’ll ask some questions,” Hastings said. “What you’re trying to do is to enable the defendant to tell her story without being cross-examined by the prosecution.”
“Are you representing a newspaper?” Mason asked.
“You’re damned right I am — that is, I will be. I’ll have credentials from a newspaper in five minutes.”
“Get them,” Mason said coldly, “and you’ll be entitled to attend the conference.”
“And I’ll ask some questions that the defendant can’t answer — or won’t answer.”
“If,” Mason said, “you are a member of the press, you will be welcome.”
The courtroom was seething with excitement. Newspaper photographers, crowding close to Mason’s table, took photographs of the irate district attorney and the smiling defence counsel.
Hastings turned to the reporters. “I never heard of anything like this in my life,” he said. “It’s fantastic! It’s ridiculous! It’s also suicidal, but it does have the effect of building up public sympathy for the defendant. If she was willing to tell her story, why didn’t she tell it when the officers were investigating?”
“Because,” Mason said, “the officers made a slipshod investigation.”
“What do you mean?”
“They didn’t send a diver overboard and investigate the bottom of the bay where the boat had come to anchor.”
“How do you know what’s on the bottom of that bay? You may find evidence that would completely exonerate the defendant. You may find the murder weapon.
“Any reasonably expert investigating technique would call for divers to go overboard at that point, at least to look for the murder weapon. The natural assumption is that the murderer, whoever he was, threw the weapon overboard.
“But what have you done?” Mason went on. “You and the sheriff investigated the case and didn’t even mark the spot where the boat was anchored. Now you have forever lost what may be evidence vital to the defendant in the case. Therefore the defendant exercised her right to choose the time when she would tell her story.
“We have always said we would tell the defendant’s story at the proper time and in the proper place.”
“You just wait,” Hastings sputtered. “I’m going to get to a telephone and get the proper press credentials, and if you’re so firmly convinced there’s evidence around the bottom of the bay where that boat was anchored, why don’t you get a diver and go look for it?”
“We don’t know where the place is,” Mason said. “The boat was towed away under the direction of the sheriff.”
Hastings started to say something but was too angry for words. His mouth quivered in a nervous spasm. His face was dead white. His hands were clenched.
Abruptly he turned and strode away in the direction of the telephones.
Mason said to the sheriff, “If you would be so kind, Sheriff, as to arrange for a conference in the law library within say, five minutes, we will have duly accredited members of the press present.”