“Any which?”

“Would you object to finding a person guilty—­of murder on evidence?”

“I might, sir, if I thought he wan’t guilty.”

The district attorney thought he saw a point.

“Would this feeling rather incline you against a capital conviction?”

The juror said he hadn’t any feeling, and didn’t know any of the parties.  Accepted and sworn.

Dennis Lafin, laborer.  Have neither formed nor expressed an opinion.  Never had heard of the case.  Believed in hangin’ for them that deserved it.  Could read if it was necessary.

Mr. Braham objected.  The man was evidently bloody minded.  Challenged peremptorily.

Larry O’Toole, contractor.  A showily dressed man of the style known as “vulgar genteel,” had a sharp eye and a ready tongue.  Had read the newspaper reports of the case, but they made no impression on him.  Should be governed by the evidence.  Knew no reason why he could not be an impartial juror.

Question by District Attorney.

“How is it that the reports made no impression on you?”

“Never believe anything I see in the newspapers.”

(Laughter from the crowd, approving smiles from his Honor and Mr. Braham.) Juror sworn in.  Mr. Braham whispered to O’Keefe, “that’s the man.”

Avery Hicks, pea-nut peddler.  Did he ever hear of this case?  The man shook his head.

“Can you read?”

“No.”  “Any scruples about capital punishment?”

“No.”

He was about to be sworn, when the district attorney turning to him carelessly, remarked,

“Understand the nature of an oath?”

“Outside,” said the man, pointing to the door.

“I say, do you know what an oath is?”

“Five cents,” explained the man.

“Do you mean to insult me?” roared the prosecuting officer.  “Are you an idiot?”

“Fresh baked.  I’m deefe.  I don’t hear a word you say.”

The man was discharged.  “He wouldn’t have made a bad juror, though,” whispered Braham.  “I saw him looking at the prisoner sympathizingly.  That’s a point you want to watch for.”

The result of the whole day’s work was the selection of only two jurors.  These however were satisfactory to Mr. Braham.  He had kept off all those he did not know.  No one knew better than this great criminal lawyer that the battle was fought on the selection of the jury.  The subsequent examination of witnesses, the eloquence expended on the jury are all for effect outside.  At least that is the theory of Mr. Braham.  But human nature is a queer thing, he admits; sometimes jurors are unaccountably swayed, be as careful as you can in choosing them.

It was four weary days before this jury was made up, but when it was finally complete, it did great credit to the counsel for the defence.  So far as Mr. Braham knew, only two could read, one of whom was the foreman, Mr. Braham’s friend, the showy contractor.  Low foreheads and heavy faces they all had; some had a look of animal cunning, while the most were only stupid.  The entire panel formed that boasted heritage commonly described as the “bulwark of our liberties.”