Okay, here’s something else I read in Perry Mason novels, but have never seen or heard anywhere else. (I didn’t watch the show.) A subpoena duces tecum, which IIRC referred to a specific object that had to be brought to court or to the DA. For example, a murder weapon or supposed murder weapon, which often came into Mason’s possession.
So is that what they’re still called, or do they just call them subpoenas nowadays?
…and would make for a poor story line (or denouement) in a TV episode or a movie.
Burger would also often object that Mason was cross-examining on something “not covered in direct”. Does this mean that cross-examination is restricted to only those things which the opposing counsel covered in direct examination? It seems a rather restrictive rule (although Perry usually found a way round it!)
Subpoenas duces tecum are still in frequent use. They are different from plain subpoenas (Wikipedia calls these subpoenas ad testificandum, but they’re just called subpoenas in my experience), which are writs compelling the recipient to give testimony.
A subpoena duces tecum is just a subpoena for materials, not a person, in possession of someone other than the prosecutor. So for instance, if I wanted bank records, or cell phone tower records, etc… I would file a request and affidavit in the Circuit Court requesting they issue a subpoena duces tecum.
I have to provide the information for who the record/material holder is, affirm that they are not a party to the case, and that the material is necessary for the case. When the record holder makes the records available, they send them to the court. Then I make a copy from the court’s file.
In a criminal case where there has been any kind of scientific testing, we will regularly issue a subpoena duces tecum for all of the bench notes, CVs of testers, SOPs, etc… for the testing. It’s amazing what you find in the bench notes.
On the other hand, since the information goes to the court, we don’t always want to get the materials via an SDT. If you can get the records otherwise, say, with a release of information from your client (school, medical, bank records), then it is better to do it that way. That way the prosecutor won’t have access to those records without filing their own SDT.
Subpoena duces tecum, as in tecum with you. 
I got checking a few things from reading this thread and, for those not familiar with Raymond Burr’s story, it turns out to be an absolute beauty. Full of surprises and well worth a few minutes reading.
It is a rule in my state, but case law says that judges may waive the rule as justice directs. Or, if the other side or the judge wants to be a stickler, then call the witness in your own case to elicit the testimony you want. I have not seen, or even read nor heard of, any real case where the “not covered in direct” rule ever made a difference.
If you are playing cards and draw deuces, take 'em!
The corollary to that, frequently seen on TV, is “you opened the door…”; the other side could not ask questions about something the witness had not testified about on direct. The witness inadvertently mentions something that opens the line of questioning. He was not asked about his previous malpractice, so no questions… until… “I have never been sued in this state for malpractice.” “Aha, what about in other states?”
(Most recently seen on Chicago PD, where the defense asks “did you see the doctor inject any of the dead patients himself?” “No.” “So you cannot say for sure he ever injected a patient with this drug?” Oops, poor choice of words. “Yes, I saw him inject my wife 5 years ago with the same drug. He does the injections.” Then gets cross-examined about 42 surviving patients, previously excluded as prejudicial, as proof of pattern of behaviour.
But AFAIK, “cross”-examination is to allow the other side to clarify what the witness testified to when he was called by the side who put him on the witness list. If they didn’t touch on his previous career or world travels or marriage status or whatever, and it’s not tied to what he did testify to, then the cross-examination can’t raise it out of the blue.
I’m a muni court magistrate and a former prosecutor, and that is certainly my approach.
I disagree - esp. the verdicts in jury trials.
Fair enough. I was referring mostly to the presentation of evidence.
It was my understanding that in real trials, when a lawyer does object (itself relatively rare), they usually just said “objection”, because the grounds for the objection were usually obvious. The judge could, of course, ask on what grounds if it wasn’t obvious. Is this accurate?
Perry Mason is sometimes said to have been inspired by California litigator Earl Rogers. In the Catalina Island murder case in 1902, Rogers was able to get a witness effectively to confess to murder under cross-examination.
Here’s another Perry Mason-related question. Often, Mason is warned that if his client turns out to be guilty, then the shenanigans he pulled will get him in hot water. I’m guessing the story is something like he’s not tampering with evidence if the evidence wouldn’t prove his client a murderer. Or he would only be guilty of after-the-fact conspiracy if the murderer was actually guilty. I don’t know.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but it always amuses me when Burger starts whinging to the judge that Mason is indulging in another of his well-known courtroom shenanigans, when those shenanigans pay off every week and leave Burger with egg on his face. Given Mason’s record, you’d think the prosecution would be inclined to move for dismissal as soon as Mason takes the case…unless perhaps they want to hang in to find out who really done it.
Perry and Paul Drake ate lots of Sandwiches.
Perry usually had Ham Burger for lunch. 
Steak dinners after the trial (usually preliminary hearing to save money on paying extras to be jurors), with Paul asking "There is one thing I don’t understand…).
I remember ads for the Gardner novels saying one district attorney once used a Perry Mason tactic to convince a judge to admit evidence. It turned out a married couple wasn’t legally married because of the then prevalent laws preventing mixed-race marriages. The DA proved the marriage didn’t legally exist and a witness could testify against their supposed spouse.
The current statute on this in California is Evidence Code Section 970, “Stats.1965.” Assuming there was an earlier statute on this matter in California (and that is the usual venue for Perry Mason’s cases), how long before the enactment and effective date of Section 970 did this episode air?