The Case of the Shoplifter's Shoe

by Gardner Erle Stanley

“You mean you quit?” Sampson asked.

Mason glanced up at the Court and said, “Since I must address my remarks to Your Honor, may I suggest to the Court that the Court advise Counsel for the Prosecution that when the defendant announces, ‘That’s the defendant’s case,’ it is improper for the prosecution to seek to capitalize on that by addressing remarks to Counsel. As a matter of fact, I believe the jurors will understand that the Defense has made every effort to solve this case, and that the only reason the Defense has not solved it is...”

“Careful, Mr. Mason,” Judge Barnes frowned.

Mason finished with a smile. ” ‘Only too obvious,’ were the words I was going to use, Your Honor.”

Judge Barnes said, “Do you wish to argue the case, gentlemen?”

Sampson did, and his argument sought to go just as far as a district attorney dared to go in commenting on the failure of a defendant to deny the charges which had been made against her. He brought forward the defendant’s shoe, which had been introduced in evidence, pointed to the telltale stain on the sole, and challenged counsel to explain how that stain got on the shoe if it did not indicate the guilt of the defendant. “Standing, as it does,” Sampson thundered, “unchallenged, undenied and uncontradicted.”

He cited the attempt of the defendant to bring in some mythical criminal, who must have entered the house and, by implication, killed Austin Cullens, and, above all, excoriated Mason for his attempt to becloud the issues by confusing Sergeant Holcomb and mixing up the bullets.

When he had finished, Mason approached the rail, to stand in front of the jurors with a smile. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “the Court will instruct you that in order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but inconsistent with every other reasonable hypothesis. In the event there is any reasonable hypothesis, other than that of guilt, on which the circumstantial evidence can be explained, then it becomes your duty to acquit the defendant.”

“This is a case in which the Prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. As far as the gun is concerned, that evidence has proven a boomerang. The evidence proves conclusively that the gun found in the defendant’s handbag — and I will admit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that it is the defendant’s handbag, not that she has told me so, because her mind is a blank as to what transpired, but because I think it’s a fair inference from the evidence; that it was her handbag — that gun did not kill Austin Cullens. But that gun did kill George Trent. There are only two bullets in the case. If the bullet from the Breel gun didn’t kill Cullens, then it must have killed George Trent. Now then, on the evening Cullens was killed, there was only one shot fired from this gun. That one shot was fired by Austin Cullens at someone who was in the room with him. That shot lodged in the back of a chair. Cullens carried that revolver in his right hip pocket — which was the reason the coroner’s examination disclosed nothing in that pocket.

“Now then, gentlemen, what is more reasonable than to suppose that Mrs. Breel guessed that her brother was dead, and strongly suspected that Austin Cullens had killed him. Austin Cullens had every reason to want George Trent out of the way. There is every reasonable inference to indicate that George Trent had uncovered evidence which, when communicated to the police, would convict Cullens of a series of gem robberies.