I think from a study of the faces that there was not a boy in the room who did not agree with that sentiment--and there were boys present who were not over thirteen years of age.
The lawyer dwelt, too, upon the fact that the prosecutor would say this or that against his client. "He will try to befog this case. He will tell you this and he will try to make you think that; but every man on this jury knows full well that _he_ would have done what my client did under the same conditions." "The prosecutor told you the other day so and so. He lied and he knew it." The defender warmed to his work and shook his finger threateningly at the prosecutor. Every one in the room appeared to think it an excellent bit of acting and a thoroughly good joke. No one seemed to think it at all serious, and when he closed and the State's attorney arose to reply there was a smile and rustle of quiet satisfaction as if the audience had said:
"Now the fur will fly. Look out! It is going to be pretty lively for he has to pay off several hard thrusts."
There was a life at stake; but to all appearances no one was controlled by a trifle like that when so much more important a thing was risked also--the professional pride of two gentlemen of the bar. In the speech which followed, it did not dawn upon the State's attorney--if one may judge from his words--that he was "attorney for the people," and that the prisoner was one of "the people." It did not appear in his attitude if he realized that the State does not elect him to convict its citizens, but to see that they are properly protected and represented.
Surely the State is not desirous of convicting its citizens of crime. It does not employ an attorney upon that theory; but is this not the theory upon which the prosecutor invariably conducts his cases? Does he not labor first of all to secure every scrap of evidence against the accused and to make light of or cover up anything in his favor? Is not the State quite as anxious that he--its representative--find citizens guiltless, if they are so, as that he convict them if they are offenders against the law? Is not the prosecutor offending against the law of the land as well as against that of ordinary humanity when he bends all the vast machinery of his office to collect evidence against and refuses to admit--tries to rule out--evidence in favor of one of "the people" whose employee he is?