“I will ask you whether you secured photographs of the finger-prints of Pete Chennery.”
Drake said, “I entered the apartment where he had been living. I developed latent fingerprints. I found there the fingerprints of a man which I assume were those of Pete Chennery because they were the only fingerprints which I found in any number in the apartment occupied by Pete Chennery.”
“Who was with you when you took these prints, Mr. Drake?”
“Sergeant Holcomb.”
“From those fingerprints, did you ascertain whether Pete Chennery had a criminal record?” Mason asked.
“I object to that,” Sampson said, “as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial on the further ground that no proper foundation has been laid, and as assuming a fact not in evidence. The witness himself has admitted that he doesn’t know that the fingerprints were those of Pete Chennery.”
Mason glanced up inquiringly at Judge Barnes.
Judge Barnes said, “The objection is sustained. After all, the question before the Court in this case is whether this defendant killed Austin Cullens. Within reasonable limitations, any evidence tending to prove that Cullens met his death at the hands of some other person is, of course, proper, but there must be limits to that, and the evidence must be adduced in proper form.”
“Of course, Your Honor,” Mason pointed out urbanely, “I’am but a private practicing attorney. This man is a private detective. We, neither of us, have available the facilities which are at the command of the district attorney’s office for making complete investigations.”
“I fully understand that,” Judge Barnes said, “but that is something which doesn’t concern this Court. This Court is only concerned with having evidence pertinent, proper, and admissible. What this witness may have assumed to be the case isn’t binding on the Prosecution.”