The story told by the defendants was so utterly ridiculous
that one of the two could not control a grin while giving his
version of it on the witness stand. The writer, who
prosecuted the case, regarded the trial as a mere formality
and hardly felt that it was necessary to sum up the evidence
at all.
Imagine his surprise when an intelligent-looking jury
acquitted both the defendants after practically no
deliberation. Both had offered to plead guilty to a slightly
lower degree of crime before the case was moved for trial.
These two defendants, who were neither insane nor
degenerates. consorted with others in Bowery hotels and
saloons,--incubators of crime. What effect could such a
performance have upon them and their friends save to inculcate
a belief that they were licensed to commit as many burglaries
as they chose? They had a practical demonstration that the
law was "no good" and the system a failure. If they could
beat a case in which they had already pleaded guilty, what
could they not do where the evidence was less obvious? They
were henceforth immune.
Pages:
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280