Not long ago two shrewd Irish attorneys were engaged in defending a client charged with an atrocious murder.  The defendant had the most Hebraic cast of countenance imaginable, and a beard that reached to his waist.  Practically the only question which these lawyers put to the different talesmen during the selection of the jury was, “Have you any prejudice against the defendant on account of his race?” In due course they succeeded in getting several Hebrews upon the jury who managed in the jury-room to argue the verdict down from murder to manslaughter in the second degree.  As the defendant was being taken across the bridge to the Tombs he fell on his knees and offered up a heartfelt prayer such as could only have emanated from the lips of a devout Roman Catholic.

Lawyers frequently secure the good-will of jurors (which may last throughout the trial and show itself in the verdict) by some happy remark during the early stages of the case.  During the Clancy murder trial each side exhausted its thirty peremptory challenges and also the entire panel of jurors in filling the box.  At this stage of the case the foreman became ill and had to be excused.  No jurors were left except one who had been excused by mutual consent for some trifling reason, and who out of curiosity had remained in court.  He rejoiced in the name of Stone.  Both sides then agreed to accept him as foreman provided he was still willing to serve, and this proving to be the case he triumphantly made his way towards the box.  As he did so, the defendant’s counsel remarked:  “The Stone which the builders refused is become the head Stone of the corner.”  The good-will generated by this meagre jest stood him later in excellent stead.

In default of any other defence, some criminal attorneys have been known to seek to excite sympathy for their helpless clients by appearing in court so intoxicated as to be manifestly unable to take care of the defendant’s interests, and prisoners have frequently been acquitted simply by virtue of their lawyer’s obvious incapacity.  The attitude of the jury in such cases seems to be that the defendant has not had a “fair show” and so should be acquitted anyway.  Of course, this appeals to the juryman’s sympathies and he overlooks the fact that by his action the prosecution is given no “show” at all.

Generally speaking, the advice credited to Mr. Lincoln, as being given by him to a young attorney who was about to defend a presumably guilty client, is religiously followed by all criminal practitioners: 

“Well, my boy, if you’ve got a good case, stick to the evidence; if you’ve got a weak one, go for the People’s witnesses; but—­if you’ve got no case at all, hammer the district attorney!”

As a rule, however, criminal lawyers are not in a position to “hammer” the prosecuting officer, but endeavor instead to suggest by innuendo or even open declaration his bias and unfairness.

“Be fair, Mr.—!” is the continual cry.  “Try to be fair!”