The Anonymous Client

apartment. Dirkson then called Detective Franciosa, who testified as to having developed and lifted latent fingerprints from the apartment. Referring to the photographs, he pointed out the various places the fingerprints had been found. There were none on the murder weapon.
    Dirkson next called Phillip Riker, a fingerprint expert in the police crime lab.
    “Mr. Riker,” Dirkson said, “directing your attention to People’s exhibits 2A—2CC in evidence, the fingerprint lifts taken by Detective Franciosa, I ask you if you have had occasion to compare those prints with the known prints of any person?”
    “Yes, sir, I have.”
    “And could you tell us whose prints that would be?”
    “Yes, sir. I compared the prints in question with the known prints taken from the defendant, Marilyn Harding.”
    “And that were the results of that comparison?”
    “I found four instances where the prints matched.”
    “And could you point them out to us, please?”
    “Certainly. If I could refer to my notes.”
    “Please do.”
    Riker flipped open his notebook, and began to compare the lifts.
    “The print on 2D is Marilyn Harding’s right thumb. The print of 2L is Marilyn Harding’s right index finger. The print on 2P is again Marilyn Harding’s right thumb. The print on 2T is Marilyn Harding’s right ring finger.”
    “And where were those prints found?”
    “2D was found on the inside doorknob. 2L and 2T were found on the coffee table. 2P was found on the wooden arm of a chair.”
    “Thank you. No further questions.”
    Fitzpatrick rose to his feet. “Mr. Riker, you were asked if you compared the prints on those lifts with those of any known person, and you responded, yes, to those of Marilyn Harding, is that correct?”
    “That’s right.”
    “Did you compare the prints on those lifts with those of any other known person?”
    “Yes.”
    “And who was that?”
    “The decedent, Donald Blake.”
    “And were any of the prints his?”
    “Yes. Several.”
    “Could you be more specific?”
    “If I could consult my notes.”
    “Certainly.”
    Riker looked in the notebook. “Yes. Seven of the prints matched those of the decedent.”
    “How many prints were there in all?”
    “Twenty-nine.”
    “And four of them were Marilyn Harding’s, and seven of them were Donald Blake’s?”
    “That’s right.”
    “Aside from the defendant and the decedent, did you compare those prints with those of any other known person?”
    “No, I did not.”
    Fitzpatrick raised his eyebrows. “You did not?”
    “No, I did not.”
    “Mr. Riker, you stated that four prints proved to be those of the defendant, and seven proved to be those of the decedent. Yet there were twenty-nine prints in all. Now, if my elementary school math serves me, that leaves eighteen prints that you didn’t identify. Is that right?”
    “That is correct.”
    “Mr. Riker, are you prejudiced against the defendant?”
    “Certainly not.”
    “And yet, aside from the decedent, she happens to be the only person in the whole world whose prints you compared with the prints lifted from the apartment.”
    Riker smiled. “That’s hardly a coincidence, counselor. She happens to be the person charged with the murder.”
    That sally was greeted with an appreciative murmur. Dirkson grinned broadly.
    Fitzpatrick frowned. “Tell me this. Had she been charged with the murder when you did your fingerprint comparison?”
    “As to that, I’m not sure.”
    “Oh no? Is it not a fact that Miss Harding was indicted for the murder several days after you did your fingerprint comparison?”
    “That may be.”
    “Well, you testified before the grand jury, didn’t you? Is it not a fact that your fingerprint comparison was part of the grounds on which the prosecution based the indictment of Marilyn Harding?”
    “Yes. It was.”
    “So when you say flippantly, she’s the one charged with the murder, isn’t that utter hogwash? Isn’t that you trading words with me and making a smart remark that does not answer my question and has no basis in fact, seeing as how Marilyn Harding had not been charged with the murder when you did your comparison and, therefore, that was not the reason you singled her out as the only person whose prints to compare?”
    “Objection, Your Honor,” Dirkson said. “Counsel is badgering the witness. It’s argumentative. It’s also incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”
    “It shows bias, Your Honor,” Fitzpatrick said.
    “The