CHAPTER VIII.
FOR THE DEFENCE.
When Mr. Dudley arose to open the case for the defence, the crowdedcourt-room was as silent as the grave, so intense was the interest. Hespoke in slow, measured tones, with no effort at rhetorical effect.Tersely he pictured the position of his client, assailed bycircumstantial evidence, and encircled by a chain which seemed strongenough to drag him to the dreadful doom which would be his uponconviction. But the lawyer claimed that the chain was not flawless. Onthe contrary he said that many of the links had been forged, and hedwelt upon the word with a significant accent, as he glance towardsthe prosecuting counsel; forged from material which was rotten tothe core, so rotten that it would be but necessary to direct theintelligent attention of the jury, to the inherently weak spots, toconvince them that justice demanded a prompt acquittal of Dr. Medjora.
A part of his speech is worthy of being quoted, and I give it_verbatim_:
"This case has aroused the interest of the entire community. Prior tothe beginning of this trial the people, having heard but the distortedreports of the evidence against our client, were wondering what thedefence was to be. I do not mind confiding to you now that we, thecounsel for the defence, wondered also. It had been told in thenewspapers, that Dr. Meredith, one of the attending physicians, hadsuspected morphine poisoning, before the death of Miss Sloane. We wereinformed that the autopsy, made by most eminent and skilfulpathologists, had revealed evidences of this deadly drug. We heardlater, that the chemical analysis had proven the actual presence ofthe poison itself. What defence could we rely upon to refute suchdamning evidence as that? We were in a quandary. We went to our clientand revealed to him the gravity of his position, and we begged him tosuggest some way out of the dilemma. What was his reply? Gentlemen ofthe jury, he said to me: 'I cannot invent any defence. I would not ifI could. I would not accept my life, or my liberty, by means of anytrick. But I know that I am innocent. Moreover, as a member of themedical profession, and as an acquaintance of the experts who havebeen at work for the prosecution, I rely upon their integrity andskill, to discover the true secret of this death, which was asshocking to me, as to the community.' Thus we were told by our clientto formulate no defence in advance, but to wait for the evidence ofthe prosecution's expert witnesses, and from the very source fromwhich conviction would be expected, he bade us pluck his deliverance.At the time, it seemed to us a hazardous dependence, but, gentlemen ofthe jury, it has proven better than we had reason to expect, for itwill be upon the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, almostexclusively, that we will look to you for an acquittal. In evidence ofwhat I have told you, I will ask you to recall the testimony of thefirst witness, Dr. Meredith. He claimed that the characteristicsymptoms of morphine poisoning could alone indicate that death hadbeen due to morphine. Then you will remember that my associate, incross-examination, formulated a hypothetical question in which heasked if it would not be possible for a patient dying of diphtheria totake morphine, and whilst exhibiting symptoms of that drug, still todie of diphtheria. I submit it to you, gentlemen, was not thehypothesis suggested by that question an ingenious one? I think so,and as such I think that my associate is entitled to credit. But,gentlemen, it was the invention of a lawyer, conscientiously seekingfor a loophole of escape for his client; it was not the true, the onlyproper, defence in this case. And it is this that explains the factthat the question has not been propounded to the other experts. Itwas, nevertheless, a shrewd guess on the part of Mr. Bliss, thoughbeing only the guess of a lawyer groping blindly amidst the secrets ofmedicine, it does not include the whole truth. But now, our defencehas been made plain, illuminated, as it were, by the statements of theexperts, who have testified, until even the minds of plain lawyers,like myself and my associate, have grasped it. Then, and not untilthen, did our client give us information, which he will repeat to youpresently, and which corroborates the view which we shall ask you toaccept. The simple facts in this case are: Miss Sloane sufferedterribly from Bright's disease, until through pain she was driven totake morphine, finally becoming addicted to it. Then came the attackof diphtheria, throughout which Dr. Medjora nursed her, procuringskilled physicians, and a competent nurse, until the arrival of thetragic day which ended her life. When the doctors believed that theworst phase of diphtheria had passed, but when, as you have heard, shewas still in danger from exhaustion, she experienced a severe attackof pain caused by the Bright's disease, and to relieve that, morphinewas given as you shall hear. That night she died, whether ofexhaustion from diphtheria, or whether, because of Bright's disease,morphine had been stored up in her system, until a fatal dose hadaccumulated, none of us will ever know. But that is immaterial, for ineither case, she died a natural death, and thus our client is entirelyblameless in this whole affair. The Doctor will now take the stand inhis own behalf."
Dr. Medjora did as he was bidden by his counsel, and thus became thecynosure of all eyes. Mr. Dudley took his seat and Mr. Bliss conductedthe examination.
"Dr. Medjora," he began, "will you please state what relation you boreto the deceased, Miss Mabel Sloane?"
"She was my wife!" he replied, thus producing a startling sensation atthe very outset.
"When were you married, and by whom?"
"We were married in Newark, by the Rev. Dr. Magnus, on the exact dayupon which Miss Sloane parted from her mother and left her home inOrange. The precise date can be seen upon the certificate ofmarriage."
Mr. Bliss produced a marriage certificate, which was admitted, andidentified by Dr. Medjora, Mr. Bliss explaining that the clergyman whohad signed it would appear later and testify to the validity of thedocument.
"Did you and your wife live together after marriage?"
"Yes. For more than a year. Then I had occasion to go to Europe forseveral months, and she went to live at the Twenty-sixth Streethouse."
"How was it that at that place she passed as a single woman?"
"Because before I went away, I took from her the marriage certificate,and her wedding-ring. I then instructed her to keep our marriage asecret, threatening to abandon her if she did not obey me."
"What explanation have you to make of such conduct?"
"Shortly after our marriage, I discovered that my wife was afflictedwith Bright's disease, for which I treated her with much apparentsuccess. Unfortunately, however, previous to our marriage, she hadbecome addicted to the use of morphine for relief until she had almostbecome an _habitue_. I used every effort to cure her, and thought thatI had succeeded, when, just before my departure for Europe, I foundher one day with morphine tablets and a new hypodermic needle, in theact of administering the drug. In despair I simulated great rage, tookaway her marriage certificate and ring, and threatened that if duringmy absence she should use the drug, I would never acknowledge her asmy wife. Thus, my apparent cruelty was intended as a kindness. I knewthat she loved me, even more than she did morphine, and I hoped tocompel her to abandon the drug, by causing her to fear the loss of herlove."
"Did you take any further steps for her safety!"
"Yes. I confided her secret, and mine, to a dear friend and skilfulphysician, who promised to watch over her, and shield her from pain orother harm during my absence."
"Will you state who this friend is?"
"Was, you mean. He no longer is my friend, if he ever was. He provedhimself to be a traitor to friendship, for he tried to alienate mywife's affections from me, in which, however, he failed utterly. Thatman was Dr. Meredith, the false friend who charged me with thiscrime."
Here was a sensation so entirely unexpected, and the situation becameso intense, that people held their breaths, awed into silence. Dr.Meredith, who was in court, held his eyes down and gazed steadfastlyat a knot in the floor, whilst those nearest to him saw that hetrembled violently. Mr. Bliss, quick to recognize that his client wasmaking a most favorable impression, with true dramatic instinct,paused some time before continuing. Finally he asked:
"Then Dr. Meredith knew that Miss Sloan
e was your wife?"
"He did."
"Also that she was addicted to morphine?"
"I told him so myself."
"That she had Bright's disease?"
"Yes."
"How soon after your return did you learn that he had been tooattentive to your wife?"
"I must object, your Honor," interjected Mr. Munson. "Counsel is againendeavoring to impeach our witness, and I must once more maintain thatit is too late to do so."
"The question is allowed," replied the Recorder.
"But, your Honor," persisted Mr. Munson, "you ruled yesterday thatquestions of this nature could not be asked."
"I know very well what I ruled, Mr. Munson," said the Recorder,sharply. "You objected yesterday to evidence against Dr. Meredith'sability as a physician, and I sustained you. This is a differentmatter. As I understand it, counsel is now endeavoring to show thatDr. Meredith was a prejudiced witness. I shall allow the fullestlatitude in that direction."
"We thank you very much, your Honor," said Mr. Bliss, and then turnedto his client saying: "Please answer my question."
"I knew of it before I returned. In fact, it was because of lettersfrom my wife, complaining of this man, that I shortened my tripabroad."
"What happened between you after your return?"
"I charged him with his unfaithfulness to his trust, and wequarrelled. Had he been a larger man, I should have thrashed him!"
"Was it after this that you attacked one of his papers in debate?"
"Yes, immediately afterwards. In fact I think that the quarrel betweenus had much to do with it. He must have been in a very disturbed frameof mind, to have written such a blundering thesis, for ordinarily heis a skilful physician."
"Then, on the whole, Dr. Meredith was inaccurate when he said that youand he are not enemies?"
"He simply lied."
"You must not use such language," said the Recorder, quickly.
"I must apologize to your Honor," replied Dr. Medjora. "But when Ithink of what this man has done to me, it is difficult to controlmyself."
"But you must control yourself," said the Recorder.
"Now, then, Doctor," said Mr. Bliss, "please tell us of youracquaintance with your wife prior to marriage." Thereafter Mr. Blissalways spoke of the dead girl as the wife, thus forcing that fact uponthe attention of the jury. Dr. Medjora replied:
"I met my wife when she was scarcely more than a school-girl, and Ibecame interested in her because, as her mother hinted, she was aboveher people, being far superior to them in intelligence and demeanor. Icannot say when my friendship increased to a warmer feeling, but Ithink that I first became aware of it, by seeing her mother beat her!"
"You saw your wife's mother beat her, you say?"
"I called one evening, without previous warning, and the door of thecottage being open, I felt privileged to walk in. I saw the girl downon her knees, before the mother, who held her by the hair with onehand, whilst she struck her in the face with the other."
"Did you interfere?"
"I was much enraged at the cruel exhibition, and I took the girl fromher mother forcibly. After that I went to the house oftener, and webecame more closely attached to one another. The mother never spokecivilly to me after that occurrence."
"Mrs. Sloane testified that she had had a quarrel with her daughter,shortly after which she disappeared. What do you know of that?"
"Mabel wrote to me that her mother had again undertaken to beat her. Iuse the word advisedly, because it was not a chastisement such as aparent may be privileged to indulge in. Mrs. Sloane would strike herdaughter with her fists, bruising her face, neck, and body. Besides,Mabel was no longer a child. When I heard this, I sent a messageinstructing Mabel to meet me in Newark. There we were married."
"Now, Doctor, we will go back to Dr. Meredith. Will you explain how ithappened that, although you and he were enemies, he should have beencalled into the case?"
"When the attack of diphtheria presented, I undertook to treat it atfirst. Two days later I became ill myself, and called in Dr. Fisher. Idid not tell him that Mabel was my wife, but let him think, with thosein the house, that she was merely my _fiancee_. I gave the caseentirely into his care. During my sickness Dr. Fisher became alarmed,and called in Dr. Meredith, of course not suspecting that thereexisted any ill feeling between him and me. That Dr. Meredith shouldhave accepted the call under the circumstances, was contrary tomedical etiquette, but he did so, and I found him attending my wifewhen I recovered. I could not interfere very well, without creating ascandal, and, besides, though I despise him as a man, I know him to beone of the best specialists in the city." Dr. Medjora accorded thispraise to his rival with every appearance of honest candor, and it wasevident that his doing so was a wise course, causing the jury toreceive his other statements with more credulity. If he was playing apart he did so with marvellous tact and judgment.
"Between the time of your return from Europe, and this attack ofdiphtheria, do you know whether your wife took any morphine?"
"Upon my return I did not question her at all. I had made the threatof abandoning her, with no intention of course of carrying it intoeffect, for whilst I hoped that it would act as a deterrent,stimulating her will to resist the attraction of the drug, I knew frommy professional experience that she would not be able to withstand itentirely. Thus if I had questioned her, she must have confessed, asshe was strictly truthful. This would have placed me in an awkwardpredicament, compelling me to admit that my threat had never beenseriously intended, and thus I should have lessened my influence overher for the future. However, not long before her last illness, I founda syringe in her room as well as some tablets. These I appropriatedand took away without saying anything to her."
"How long before the attack of diphtheria was this?"
"Two or three days."
"Supposing that she had been taking morphine prior to that time, doyou think that it might have accumulated in her system, finallyproducing death?"
"I object!" said Mr. Munson. "The witness is not here as an expert."
"He is the accused," said the Recorder, "and as the party having thegreatest interest at stake I will allow him to answer. He simplyexpresses his opinion. The jury will decide whether it is worthy ofcredence."
Mr. Bliss smiled with satisfaction, but was a little surprised at theanswer, though later he understood better that the Doctor appreciatedwhat he said. The answer was:
"Considering the length of time which elapsed from the moment when Itook away the syringe, to the day of her death, I cannot believe thatmorphine taken previously could have accumulated, and have causeddeath ultimately."
Mr. Bliss was puzzled and paused a moment to think, whilst Mr. Munson,much pleased at this apparently damaging testimony given by theprisoner himself, wore a pleased expression. Mr. Bliss scarcely knewwhat to ask next. He glanced at a list of notes supplied by Dr.Medjora and read this one. "Ask me about retained morphine. Go into itthoroughly." The latter part of this sentence convinced him that Dr.Medjora must have conceived his defence along this line, and,therefore, though doubting the propriety of doing so, he venturedanother question.
"It has been admitted," said he, "by the expert witnesses thatmorphine may be accumulated in the system, finally resulting fatally.How does that occur, and why do you think it did not occur in thiscase?"
"I have not said that it did not occur. You asked me whether morphinetaken prior to her illness, may have caused her death, and I said no,to that. I did not say that she did not die from morphine, because Ido not know that. As I understand it, when morphine acts fatally byaccumulation, it is where it is administered continuously. Part of thedose is eliminated, and the rest stored up. Finally this stored upquantity amounts to a lethal dose. In this case, as far as we know,there was a suspension of the administration. The accumulatedquantity, when the drug was stopped, could not have amounted to alethal dose, or death would have ensued. The dosing beingdiscontinued, the stored-up quantity must have grown less an
d less,day by day, by gradual elimination."
This interested the jury very evidently. They could not but decidethat this man was honest, to offer such evidence as seemed against hisown interests. Mr. Bliss, still puzzled, ventured another question.
"You said that your wife may have died of this drug, or words to thateffect. How can you think that?"
"Whilst, as I have said, the accumulated drug was lessening inquantity daily, by elimination, nevertheless death by poisoning wouldhave ensued at any time, if a dose of morphine had been administered,of sufficient size, so that when added to that still in the system,the whole would have amounted to a lethal quantity."
"Miss Conlin, the nurse, testified that she saw you administer a doseof morphine. She afterwards admitted that she had only seen you removea syringe. Did you at that time administer a dose of morphine, a doselarge enough to have caused death in the manner you have described?"
"I did not."
"Then as far as you know, your wife did not take any morphine on theday of her death?"
"On the contrary, she did take some!" This was a tremendous surprise.
"How did it occur?" asked Mr. Bliss, still following his notes and atlength seeing the point to which Dr. Medjora had been leading.
"She administered it to herself." The Doctor paused a moment as thoughto allow his startling statement to be digested. Then he continued:"As the nurse testified, I gave her permission to go out. I sat andchatted with my wife a few moments, and then bade her be quiet, lesttalking should injure the throat. She obeyed, and after a time seemedto be asleep. I sat over by the lamp reading, and, thinking that mypatient was asleep, became absorbed in my book, until I was attractedby an ejaculation from my wife. I went to her, and to my surprisefound that she had just administered a dose of morphine to herself. Isnatched her hands away, and withdrew the instrument whilst there wasyet a little of the solution in it. Miss Conlin came in at the moment.I knew that she had seen me, and not wishing to arouse her suspicionsas to the truth, I preferred to let her think that I had given theinjection myself. Therefore I washed out the syringe, and placing itin my pocket, took it away with me."
"So that there was sufficient morphine solution left in the syringe,to have enabled Miss Conlin to taste it, as she claims to have done?"Mr. Bliss asked this question, because at last he had discovered thefull intentions of the Doctor. It is very often the case in greatcriminal trials, that, either upon advice of counsel, or by directionof the accused, vital points are left unexplained, or else relatedwith variations which convince the jury that a lie is told. Theprisoner having heard all of the evidence, sees that certain acts ofhis have been viewed, and accepted as proof of his guilt. He becomesafraid, and when asked about these, he denies flatly that they haveoccurred. Then the prosecution, in rebuttal, brings cumulativetestimony to support its first witnesses, and the jury, seeing thatthe prisoner has lied, conclude that he is guilty of the crimecharged. Yet it may be that a man may lie in following a badlyconceived line of defence, even though he be an innocent man. Still,it takes a brave man, and a cool one, to go upon the stand and admitdamaging circumstances as Dr. Medjora was doing. But Dr. Medjora wasundoubtedly courageous, and not one to become confused. Therefore Mr.Bliss, admiring his coolness, decided to give him a chance to relatethe very occurrences which when told by the nurse had seemed soconclusive of guilt. Dr. Medjora replied:
"I have no doubt that she could have tasted the morphine in the waterin which I washed out the syringe."
"Can you tell how your wife obtained possession of the hypodermicsyringe, and the morphine?"
"I did not know at the time. But as it was the aluminum case which hasbeen placed in evidence, it must have been left by Dr. Fisher, unlessshe abstracted it surreptitiously from his bag."
"Do you know how much morphine she took at that time?"
"No, not positively, but I have no doubt that the estimate maderegarding the missing tablets closely represents what she took."
"You mean three and one half grains?"
"She probably took between three, and three and a half grains, as somewas left in the syringe."
"Then that self-administered dose was sufficient to cause death?"
"Oh, no. I have known her to take twice that quantity." This statementwas also received with much surprise.
"The experts told us, Doctor," said Mr. Bliss, "that a sixth of agrain has caused death."
"Has been known to cause death. Yes. But that does not prove that itwill always do so. The _habitue_ becomes wonderfully tolerant of it.The records are replete with histories of from twenty, to even ahundred grains of morphine without fatal result."
"Then you do not think that three, or three and a half grains ofmorphia would have caused the death of your wife?"
"Not of itself. But if a quantity of the drug was in her system, thisadded dose may have contributed to her death."
"In such a case where would the morphine be chiefly found after death,by chemical analysis?"
"In the intestines mainly, because there the stored quantity wouldhave been. But also in the stomach, because of the recentadministration." This view was entirely agreeable with the expertevidence.
"In your opinion then, your wife died from the accumulation ofmorphine, all of which was self-administered?"
"Certainly all the morphine that she took was administered byherself."
"But you are charged with having administered morphine, or other formof opium, which caused death. What have you to say to that?"
"I deny that during this last illness, or at any time, any such drugwas administered to my wife, Mabel Medjora, by me, or at my order!"
The last speech was electric, partly from the manner of its utterance,and especially because, for the first time during the trial, thedead girl was called by the name of the prisoner. Mr. Bliss feltassured that he had won his case, and yielded the witness forcross-examination with a smile. Mr. Munson begged for an adjournment,that the cross-examination might be continuous, and not interrupted asit would necessarily be if begun late in the afternoon. This requestwas granted, and the shrewd lawyer thus obtained time to read over theDoctor's evidence, and be better able to attack him.