concerning the defendant's respectability and history which
his imagination is powerful enough to supply. On such
occasions an ex-convict with no relatives may become a "noble
fellow, who, rather than have his family name tainted by being
connected with a criminal trial, is willing to risk even
conviction"--"a veteran of the glorious war which knocked the
shackles from the slave"--"the father of nine children"--"a
man hounded by the police." The district attorney may shout
himself hoarse, the judge may pound his gavel in righteous
indignation, the lawyer may apologize because in the zeal with
which he feels inspired for his client's cause he perhaps
(which only makes matters worse) has overstepped the mark--but
some juryman may suppose that, after all, the prisoner is a
hero or nine times a father.

There is one notorious attorney who poses as a philanthropist
and who invariably promises the jury that if they acquit his
client he will personally give him employment. If he has kept
half of his promises he must by this time have several hundred
clerks, gardeners, coachmen, choremen and valets.

In like manner attorneys of this feather will deliberately
state to the jury that if the defendant had taken the stand he
would have testified thus and so; or that if certain witnesses
who have not appeared (and who perhaps in reality do not exist
at all) had testified they would have established various
facts. Such lawyers should be locked up or disbarred; courts
are powerless to negative entirely their dishonesty in
individual cases.