Dirkson started to say something, thought better of it and held his tongue.
Crandell glared down at Winslow, trying to think of the proper rebuke. None came to mind.
“Very well,” Crandell said. “I am holding the matters of misconduct and contempt of court under advisement. I shall rule on them at a future time. For the time being, the question is withdrawn. The witness is excused.”
Steve bowed to the judge and returned to his table. As he sat down, Sheila leaned over and said, “Why did you do that?”
“What do you mean?”
“That didn’t accomplish anything. That poor woman. What difference does it make what she does for a living? She loved that man and she’s upset. Why did you have to do that?”
“The prosecutor was trying to play on the sympathies of the jury. So they dress her in black and play her up as the bereaved. I had to counteract that. I did it.”
“It wasn’t right.”
“Your displeasure is noted.”
Judge Crandell banged his gavel somewhat irritably. “Call your next witness.”
Dirkson recalled Reginald Steele. This time the prosecutor took pains to qualify him as an expert, asking for his education, training and experience as a police technician.
Steele gave them with some pleasure. He was a tall, thin man with a sort of squashed-in-looking face, that still managed to have that aloof quality of some expert technicians. He had been somewhat uncomfortable during the knife-identification sequence, but in giving his qualifications he was smug.
“Now Mr. Steele,” Dirkson said, after he had qualified the witness, “you testified that you developed fingerprints on the murder weapon, People’s Exhibit number one?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And did you subsequently identify those prints?”
“I did.”
“Whose prints were they?”
“The prints of the defendant, Sheila Benton.”
Dirkson nodded at Winslow. “Cross-examine.”
Steve got to his feet, crossed to the witness and smiled.
“You say you found the fingerprints of the defendant on the knife, Mr. Steele?”
“That is correct.”
“I notice the district attorney didn’t ask you if you found anyone else’s fingerprints on the knife.”
Reginald Steele said nothing.
“Can’t you answer that, Mr. Steele?”
“No I can’t.”
“Why not?”
Steele smiled. “Because it isn’t a question.”
Laughter greeted this sally. Dirkson let the jury see his broad grin.
Steve smiled back at the witness. “You’re right. It isn’t. So let me ask you some questions. Did you find the fingerprints of anyone else on the knife?”
“No. I did not.”
“You found only the fingerprints of the defendant?”
“That’s right.”
“How many fingerprints did you find?”
“I found four legible fingerprints. That is, four prints that were clear enough to classify and identify.”
“And what prints were they?”
“I found the print of the defendant’s right thumb, right index finger, right middle finger, and right ring finger.”
“I see. Did these four prints, taken together, indicate the position of the hand gripping the knife?”
“Yes they did. The four prints indicated that the defendant had held the knife in a firm grip.”
Steve nodded his head. “Well, that’s mighty interesting, Mr. Steele. But you didn’t consider that particularly important, did you?”
“Of course I did.”
“You didn’t mention it on direct examination.”
“I wasn’t asked.”
“I noticed that. Now let me ask you this. Did you know you weren’t going to be asked on direct examination?”
Dirkson was on his feet. “Objection, Your Honor. How could the witness know what he was going to be asked on direct examination? Counsel is asking for a conclusion from the witness.”
“The witness would know if he had been told what he was going to be asked. So I would like to ask you, Mr. Steele, if you and District Attorney Dirkson discussed the manner in which you would give your testimony.”
“Your Honor, Your Honor,” Dirkson cried. “This is beyond all bounds. Naturally a prosecutor does not go into court blind. I discuss with the witnesses what their testimony will be. But that discussion has no bearing on the case, and counsel has no right to inquire into it.”
“It’s always proper to show bias,” Steve said.
“What bias?” Dirkson said impatiently. “This is an expert technician giving expert testimony. The fingerprints belong to Sheila Benton. The facts are the facts. Nothing can alter them.”
“The facts may be the facts, but the manner in which they are presented, as counsel well knows, may have a bearing on the outcome of this trial. Now, Your Honor, it is my contention that this witness had an understanding with the district attorney that it would be more damaging to the defendant’s case to have the details about the fingerprint evidence-that the only prints on the knife were those of the defendant, and that the four prints indicated where the knife had been held in a firm grip-brought out by me on cross-examination, rather than by the district attorney on direct examination. It is my contention that because of this understanding, Mr. Steele deliberately refrained from mentioning these points on direct examination, and that his doing so is an indication of his bias.”
Dirkson was ready with an argument, but Judge Crandell cut in. “I think it is more an indication of the skill of the prosecutor than the bias of the witness. What you are describing, Mr. Winslow, is rather elemental courtroom strategy. Now if you really wish to pursue the matter under the guise of establishing bias, I suppose you have the right to do so, but I must warn you I feel you are beating a dead horse.”
Steve smiled. “I think we can let the matter drop, Your Honor. Let’s move on to something else. Mr. Steele, in addition to developing the prints on the knife, you also developed fingerprints in the defendant’s apartment, did you not?”
“I did.”
“Did you examine a knife rack affixed to the wall of the defendant’s kitchen?”
“Yes, sir. I did.”
“How many knives were in the rack?”
“I believe there were three.”
“But there were spaces in the rack for four, were there not?”
“I can’t be sure how many spaces there were in the rack.”
“Yes, but there was one empty space in the rack, was there not? What I’m getting at is, regardless of how many knives there were in the rack, there was space for one more.”
“That is correct.”
“And aside from the size and shape, were the knives similar in style and design to the murder knife?”
“Yes, sir. They were.”
“And did you examine these knives for fingerprints?”
“I did.”
“And did you find any?”
“Yes, sir.”
“On all the knives?”
“Yes, sir. I believe so.”
