“Yes,” Mason said, “but it occurs to me the coroner might do what you suggested would be in the best interests of justice.”
“I suppose he’d have to ask the district attorney about what he should do,” the sheriff remarked musingly.
“In that event,” Mason said, “we’re sunk. That’s why I said I didn’t want to form any opinion from the evidence. Once a man forms an opinion, he starts interpreting facts in the light of that belief. He ceases to be an impartial judge of facts. That’s what’s happened to Raymond Sprague. He’s come to the conclusion that I’m opposed to justice; that my tactics must necessarily be opposed to justice; that, therefore, he can best serve the ends of justice by blocking me at every turn. He’s also come to the conclusion that Helen Monteith is guilty of murder; therefore, he interprets all the facts in the light of that belief.”
“Ain’t that being a little harsh on Sprague?” the sheriff asked.
“I don’t think so,” Mason replied. “After all he’s only human.”
The sheriff munched on his tobacco, then slowly nodded and said, “One of the things I’ve got against this state is the way they measure the efficiency of a district attorney. The state keeps records of the criminal trials in the different counties. They gauge the efficiency of the district attorneys by the percentage of convictions they secure in cases tried. Now that ain’t right. If I was keeping a district attorney’s record, I’d give him more points for finding out somebody was innocent, and not prosecuting that person, than I would for getting a conviction just because he’d gone into court.”
Paul Drake started to say something, but Mason warned him to silence with a gesture.
“Of course,” Sheriff Barnes went on, “Raymond Sprague has his record to consider. Sprague is a good boy, he wants to get some advancement politically. He knows that when he comes up for office, no matter what he runs for, people are going to look at his record as district attorney.
“Now, I’m different. I’m sheriff, and that’s all I want to be — just sheriff. I know that I have a lot of power to use, and I want to use it fair and square to everyone. I don’t want to have anyone convicted that ain’t guilty.”
“Under those circumstances,” Mason said, “don’t you think it would be more fair, all around, to have the guilt or innocence determined at the coroner’s inquest tonight? Then, perhaps, it wouldn’t be necessary to take the matter before a jury. If Helen Monteith isn’t innocent, the prosecution has everything to gain by having me put all my facts before the coroner’s jury. If she is innocent, then the prosecution has everything to gain by not being put in the position of going into court on a big case, and having the jury return a verdict of not guilty.”