Chapter 21 Chapter 21

At 2:30, Judge Saxton took a seat on the table. He obviously heard about what happened not long ago, so he looked at Mason with respect and confusion. "Has the evidence search been completed in relation to the state's case against Warren?" he asked. "It's not done yet, my lord," Mason said. "However, our search just now found some things. I believe that Officer Cuiger, who was present as a witness, can testify again based on the evidence found." "Very well, Sergeant Trager." Judge Thackton said. Mason said: "I cross-examined Sergeant Trager, but it doesn't make much difference now who says what was found. Officer, at the store on Covina Street and Hendersey Street, you found something, eh?"

"Yes." Trager replied in a nonchalant tone. "What did you find?" "When the lights came back on, we found a bullet lodged in the beam of the store door leading to the storeroom. We removed the bullet without damaging any ballistic marks or leaving tool gouges. The bullet was it's here." "Would you please list it as defendant's Exhibit 1a?" "It is agreed to be compiled in this manner for purposes of identification," Judge Thackton said. "What else did you find?" "We found a Smith & Wesson .38 with five cartridges in it, one of which had been fired."

"Have you ever had a pistol test?" "As far as I know, Alexander Redford has fired a test round from the gun. The pistol has only been tested so far." "Well," Mason said. "Did Radford ever compare the test rounds with the lethal rounds?" "I believe he did." "Was this test done in front of your face?" "yes." "So, did Redford report his discovery to you?" "The protest asks questions paraphrase," Berger said. "Established," said Judge Thackton. "You can get Mr. Radford to testify and, in effect, you can go further and cross-examine him."

"Now," Mason said. "Was D.A. Hamilton Berger there when you searched the murder scene and found these things?" "Why do you ask? Of course." "Did he keep making inflammatory statements suggesting that I was perjury?" "I guess I am," Berger said sullenly. "That's it," Mason said, turning to the judge and standing. "In this case, Officer Trager was a witness, but throughout the search, Mr. Prosecutor ignored the evidence we found. He kept emphasizing to the witness that I should be responsible for the evidence at the murder scene. The narrative is implanted in the mind of the witness, emphasizing that the evidence has no evidentiary value and was deliberately fabricated. If the court allows, if I am arraigned for contempt of court and attempting to influence the testimony of a witness, I will insist on prosecuting The officer should also be arraigned on the same charge."

Judge Thackton looked at the exasperated D.A. and then at Sergeant Trager, trying not to smile. "Very well, Mr. Mason," he said. "This court will take note of your proposal. But that doesn't mean this court will follow through. Let's move on to the hearing of this case." "The purpose of my proposal is to show that Mr. Prosecutor is making statements in his official capacity that fully represent the weight of the county's appointees, but implicitly affect the police department, and those statements reflect a series of incendiary allegations." "Very well, we will deal with this matter in due course," Judge Thackton said. "I think you're going to call Mr. Radford to testify next."

"Yes, in court." "I note that Mr Redford has come to this court," Judge Thackton said. "Mr. Radford, you can attend." Mason said: "If the court allows, this questioning will be conducted in the form of cross-examination. Mr. Redford, according to what you said, after considering various factors and all human possibilities, you think that the prosecution's No. B A pistol is a pistol that fires lethal bullets. Now I want to ask you, has the discovery of other evidence since your last testimony changed your opinion?" "yes." "Then, after taking all factual circumstances into account, do you still wish to swear that, in all human probability, the fatal bullet was still fired by the evidence gun No. B?"

"No, I won't," Redford said. "In fact, I will swear that the pistol found at the murder scene at noon today, the pistol listed as defendant's Exhibit No. 1a, was the gun that fired the fatal bullet." "What!" said Judge Thackton with unconcealed surprise. "Yes, Your Majesty, I'm sorry. There are obvious and sufficient ballistic traces at the base of the lethal bullet, so that I can make a comparison. Although this is not easy to do, the sufficient coincidence between the two satisfies me. The result of the comparison is that the fatal bullet was fired from the pistol listed as evidence of defendant 1a."

"Next," Mason said. "Are you going to give an account of the discovery of the bullet over the door beam?" "yes." "What pistol was that fired from?" "It was fired from the prosecution's No. B evidence gun." "So," Mason said. "Judging from the fact that the No. B evidence gun fired only one bullet, the bullet on the lintel beam has been determined to come from the No. B pistol. Therefore, this pistol cannot be used to commit murder, right?" "From a scientific point of view, and backed by my professional judgment, what you say is correct," Redford said.

Judge Thackton spread his hands in a gesture of relief. "Next," Mason said. "One more request, does your office keep records of all fatal bullets and unsolved crimes?" "yes." "I would now like to refer to the case of the deliberate murder of a North Pacific supermarket doorman," Mason said. "Do you have the bullet that was taken from the victim?" "yes." "I asked you to bring the bullet here. Can you use a microscope to do a comparison test and tell me whether the bullet matches the bullet fired by the defendant's evidence gun No. 1a?"

"Since you asked me to bring the bullets, I already know what's going on in your mind," said Radford wearily. "I've done this test." "what's the result?" "The bullet that injured the gatekeeper was also fired by the defendant's No. 1a evidence pistol." Mason turned to Judge Thackton and said: "The matter is clear in this court. I surmise from the evidence that the deceased may have been involved in the robbery of the North Pacific supermarket, so I presented the portrait of the deceased to the witnesses. However, the county The prosecutor used his official position to mislead the witnesses to believe that I was trying to influence their judgment and undermine the progress of the identification, so that the testimony would not benefit the detection of this murder case. Therefore, if the court allows, I suggest that in addition to the intention to influence Officer Trager In addition to subpoenaing the District Attorney on the charge of testifying, another charge was added, that of attempting to influence the testimony of two eyewitnesses at the scene of the North Pacific supermarket robbery, that is, using their power of influence, suspicion, and insinuation, To change the identification of witnesses, so that the current efforts to prove that the deceased was involved in the robbery have all been wiped out."

Judge Thackton looked at the astonished officers Burger, Redford, and Trager before concluding: "There is clearly no evidence against the defendant in this case, the only thing against him is that he Hiding at the scene of the murder case. Obviously, this court does not have enough evidence to arrest the defendant. Therefore, this court announces that the prosecution against the defendant will be withdrawn. The court will cancel the act of intending to influence the witness to testify in advance from the calendar. Consider whether to hold a hearing." "The court is adjourned."