open: first, to persuade the court that the matter is a
trivial one arising out of petty spite, is all a mistake, or
that at best it is a case of "disorderly conduct" (and thus
induce the judge to "turn the case out" or inflict some
trifling punishment in the shape of a fine); or, second, if
it be clear that a real crime has been committed, to clamor
for an immediate hearing in order, if it be secured, to
subject the prosecution's witnesses to a most exhaustive
cross-examination, and thus get a clear idea of just what
evidence there is against the accused.

At the conclusion of the complainant's case, if it appear
reasonably certain that the magistrate will "hold" the
prisoner for the action of a superior court, the lawyer will
then "waive further examination," or, in other words, put in
no defence, preferring the certainty of having to face a jury
trial to affording in prosecution an opportunity to discover
exactly what defence will be put in and to secure evidence in
advance of the trial to rebut it. Thus it rarely happens in
criminal cases of importance that the district attorney knows
what the defence is to be until the defendant himself takes
the stand, and, by "waiving further examination" in the police
court, the astute criminal attorney may select at his leisure
the defence best suited to fit in with and render nugatory the
prosecution's evidence.

The writer has frequently been told by the attorney for a
defendant on trial for crime that "the defence has not yet
been decided upon." In fact, such statements are exceedingly
common. In many courts the attitude of all parties concerned