the right judge, the proper jury, and at a time when that
vague but important influence known as public opinion augurs
success. A clever criminal lawyer, be he prosecutor or
lawyer for the defendant, knows that all the preparation in
the world is of no account provided his case is to come before
a stupid or biased judge, or a prejudiced or obstinate jury.
Therefore, each side, in a legal battle of importance,
studies, as well as it can, the character, connections, and
cast of mind of the different judges who may be called upon to
hear the case, and, like a jockey at the flag, tries to hurry
or delay, as the case may be, until the judicial auspices
appear most favorable. A lawyer who has a weak defence seeks
to bring the case before a weak judge, or, if public clamor is
loud against his client, makes use of every technical artifice
to secure delay, by claiming that there are flaws in the
indictment, or by moving for commissions to take testimony in
distant points of the country. The opportunities for legal
procrastination are so numerous that in a complicated case the
defence may often delay matters for over a year. This may be
an important factor in the final result.

Yet even this is not enough, for, ultimately, it is the
judge's charge to the jury which is going to guide their
deliberations and, in large measure, determine their verdict.
The lawyers for the defence, therefore, prepare long
statements of what they either believe or pretend to believe
to be the law. These statements embrace all the legal
propositions, good or bad, favorable to their side of the
case. If they can induce the judge to follow these so much
the better for their client, for even if they are not law it