My client was accused of being the lookout. The victim had recognized him from a photograph album at police headquarters. The trial was being held in absentia because my client – Signor Albanese, amateur footballer and professional criminal – had run away when he had found out they were looking for him. He’d only just finished a prison term and had no desire to go back inside. And he said he had nothing to do with this case.

The assistant prosecutor’s examination of the witness didn’t take long. The jewel salesman looked very determined and not at all intimidated by his surroundings. He confirmed everything he had already told the police, confirmed that he had recognized my client from a photograph, the photograph was admitted in evidence, and the presiding judge asked me to proceed with my cross-examination.

“You have stated that the robbery was committed by three men. Two of them physically snatched the sample case and the gun from you, while the third was standing some distance away and seemed to be the lookout. Is that correct?’

“Yes. The third man was on the corner, but then the three of them all left together.”

“And is it also correct that the third man, the one you later identified from a photograph, was standing about twenty yards away from you?”

“Fifteen or twenty yards.”

“I see. Now I’d like you to tell us briefly how you came to recognize the photo at police headquarters, the day after the robbery.”

“They gave me some albums to look at and one of them had the photo of the man in it.”

“Had you ever seen him before? I mean, before the robbery?”

“No. But when I saw his face in the album, I immediately thought: I know this man. And then I realized it was the one who’d been the lookout.”

“Do you play football?”

“I’m sorry?”

“I asked you if you play football.”

The presiding judge asked me what relevance this question had to the matter in hand. I assured him that everything would become clear in the next few minutes and he told me to go ahead.