“That’s right.”
“And did you ascertain what had caused the blowing out of that fuse?”
“Yes. An electric light globe had been unscrewed from one of the sockets. A copper penny had been inserted in the socket, and then the globe had been screwed back in. As soon as the electric switch was turned on, the fuse blew out.”
“Now then,” Mason asked, “did you test that copper penny for latent fingerprints?”
“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” Sampson said.
Judge Barnes frowned, then looked down at Sampson. “Is it,” he asked, “the position of the Prosecutor’s office that the defendant is not to have the advantage of any evidence uncovered by the police which may have indicated the crime was committed by some other person?”
Sampson said, “If the Court please, it’s the position of the Prosecutor’s office that we don’t want the issues clouded. There is absolutely no evidence in the case as it now stands tending to show that any person other than the defendant entered that house.”
“But, as I understand it,” Judge Barnes said, “it was your position at the time of your opening statement that robbery had been a motive and...”
“Sometimes,” Sampson said, “if the Court will pardon the interruption, a prosecutor deems it necessary to change his trial tactics in order to meet varying conditions which develop during the trial.”
“I understand that,” Judge Barnes said, “but this evidence is clearly proper. It would have even been proper on cross-examination. This witness is now called by the Defense. The objection will be overruled. Did you develop latent fingerprints on that coin, Sergeant Holcomb?”