A: Loan Sharks.

Q: Did he obtain any information for you on that case about law enforcement officers as well?

A: Yes, sir, he did.

Q: And as a result of that was testimony presented on your behalf?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was that testimony about loan sharks and law enforcement officers that worked with them?

A: Yes, sir, it was.

Q: In fact, was it about law enforcement officers that protected loan sharks?

A: Yes, sir.

HADLEY: You may inquire, Mr. Eagan.

Q (EAGAN): Do you work in a bar?

A (JAMES): Yes,sir.

Q: An officer went there and bought some marijuana from you—

Hadley immediately objected that Eagan's question was irrelevant and immaterial.  The jury was sent out, and Eagan argued for his question.

EAGAN: May it please the court, frankly, I think the whole of this witness's testimony is irrelevant and immaterial, but nevertheless it is here and now I am cross-examining him on it....I propose to show you that this man at that time was under prosecution for selling marijuana in that bar, that he was arrested by agents of the Florida Beverage Department for that offense, and that as part of his defense he was attempting to impeach the officers by this information, that the jury nevertheless found him guilty of the charge against him.  I think that is the gist of it, Your Honor.

JUDGE PAUL: Let me ask a question.  What is the relevancy and materiality of this testimony?  I couldn't understand why we didn't have an objection.

EAGAN: I apologize to the court.

Hadley explained to Paul that he wanted to show a motive for revenge against Zeigler.

Paul asked Hadley: "Is it some of these loan sharks or law enforcement people who are seeking revenge?  Is that what you are saying?"

Hadley said yes, that was the theory.

In any case, Paul was not being asked to rule on James’s direct testimony—that was already on the record now—but on Hadley's objections to Eagan's line of questioning.

The judge said that Eagan could examine James.