“You have sworn to act fairly and impartially. I made no effort to pack this jury with persons who would be favorable to the defendant’s side of the case, because I knew I didn’t have to. All I wanted was people who would be fair. Why, one of your number even mentioned that he had formed an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant, but said he could set aside such an opinion when he entered upon the trial of the case. I had the right to challenge him with a peremptory charge and remove him from the jury. I did not do it. Why? Because I felt that he would be fair, because I knew that he was intelligent. And because all on earth that the defendant in this case wanted was fairness and intelligence. Is that the attitude of a lawyer defending a guilty client? Is that the attitude of one who seeks to ‘razzle-dazzle’ a jury?”
“Ladies and gentlemen, you have sworn to follow the law in this case. When you hear the instructions of the judge, you will realize that this means that you have taken a solemn oath that if the facts of this case can be explained on any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, you will acquit the defendant. Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you to your solemn duty.”
Mason turned and walked back to his seat. Sampson, his face livid, struggling hard to control his voice, leaped up. “Just one word in rebuttal, ladies and gentlemen. Let me challenge Counsel to carry his own argument to its logical conclusion... Who was that person who was such an expert revolver shot? Who was that person, who, by his own evidence had access to the revolver with which he now claims Austin Cullens was murdered — could it have been Virginia Trent, the niece of the woman who is on trial! It must have been! I challenge him to deny it!”
Mason, on his feet, drawled, “Your Honor, I dislike to interrupt the deputy district attorney, but do I now understand the deputy district attorney is contending that Virginia Trent murdered Austin Cullens?”
“According to your own reasoning, it’s as plain as the nose on your face,” Sampson roared.
“Well,” Mason asked, “can you find any flaw in that reasoning? If so, please point it out to the jury.” The color drained out of Sampson’s face. His jaw sagged open in surprise. Mason turned to Judge Barnes. “I was going to suggest, Your Honor, that if it is the contention of the Prosecution that the evidence now shows Virginia Trent murdered Austin Cullens, that this jury must be advised to acquit the defendant in this case. But if the deputy district attorney really wants to know who killed Austin Cullens, I suggest he talk with Paul Drake...”
“That will do, Mr. Mason,” Judge Barnes said. “That statement is improper. You will be seated. The Court will not entertain any motion for a directed verdict, but will let the jury speak for itself — that is, unless it is now the contention of the Prosecution that Virginia Trent committed the crime.”
Sampson hesitated, gulped, then said abruptly, “No, I was only showing how absurd Mason’s argument was.”
One of the jurors fixed Sampson with a suspicious eye. “What’s absurd about it?” he asked.
“It’s just a smoke-screen,” Sampson asserted, “behind which he’s trying to hide his client.”