Yet the evil influence of the reversal of a conviction on appeal, however much it is to be deprecated, is as nothing compared with a deliberate acquittal of a guilty defendant by a reckless, sentimental, or lawless jury.  Few can appreciate as does a prosecutor the actual, practical and immediate effect of such a spectacle upon those who witness it.

Two men were seen to enter an empty dwelling-house in the dead of night.  The alarm was given by a watchman near by, and a young police officer, who had been but seven months on the force, bravely entered the black and deserted building, searched it from roof to cellar, and found the marauders locked in one of the rooms.  He called upon them to open, received no reply, yet without hesitation and without knowing what the consequences to himself might be, smashed in the door and apprehended the two men.  One was found with a large bundle of skeleton keys in his pocket and several candles, while a partially consumed candle lay upon the floor.  In the police court they pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and were promptly indicted by the grand jury.

At the trial they claimed to have gone into the house to sleep, said they had found the bunch of keys on the stairs, denied having the candles at all or that they were in a room on the top story, and asserted that they were in the entrance hall when arrested.

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.  Who shall say how many embryonic law-breakers took courage at the story and started upon an experimental attempt at crime?

The news of such an acquittal must instantly have been carried to the Tombs, where every other guilty prisoner took heart and prepared anew his defence.  Those about to plead guilty and throw themselves upon the mercy of the court abandoned their honest purpose and devised some perjury instead.  Criminals almost persuaded that honesty was the best policy changed their minds.  The barometer of crime swung its needle from “stormy” to “fair.”