fall beneath their pendant black lashes at the conclusion of
each answer, and won her case without the slightest
difficulty.

The unconscious or conscious influence of women upon the
intellects of jurymen has given rise to a very prevalent
impression that it is difficult if not impossible successfully
to prosecute a woman for crime. This feeling expresses itself
in general statements to the effect that as things stand
to-day a woman may commit murder with impunity. Experience,
supplemented by the official records, demonstrates, however,
that, curious as it must seem, the same sentiment aroused by a
woman supposed to have been wronged is not inspired in a jury
by a woman accused of crime. It is, indeed, true that juries
are apt to be more lenient with women than with men, but this
leniency shows itself not in acquitting them of the crimes
charged against them, but of finding them guilty in lower
degrees.

Of course flagrant miscarriages of justice frequently occur,
which, by reason of their widespread publicity in the press,
would seem to justify the almost universal opinion that women
are immune from the penalities for homicide. It is also true
that such miscarriages of justice are more likely when the
defendant is a woman than if he be a man.

One of these hysterical acquittals which give color to popular
impression, but which the writer believes to be an exception,
was the case of a young mother tried and acquitted for murder
in the first degree, December 22, 1904. This young woman,