Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/513

 386

THE GREEN BAG

tiersman and the polished Virginia gentle men who had come out into those regions to grow up with the country and acquire a fortune. And as a rule those broadcloth sons of the Old Dominion were so winning of manner and so free from false pride as to mingle on the best of terms with the people among whom their lot was cast. But occasionally there would occur very strange and humorous events by reason of this mingling of extremes, and in one of these Crittenden was involved. There had been a man arrested for biting off the ear of another man in a street brawl and Crittenden was engaged as counsel for the defense. The presiding judge, Broadnax, was a stately, high-toned Virginia gentleman of the old school, a born aristocrat, and though a warm friend and admirer of Crittenden, he railed at him fiercely for taking fees of such a " low rascal." After great difficulty and delay eleven jurors had been selected. Many respectable-looking men had been summoned and rejected by the counsel for the defense, and both the judge and the sheriff were much exasperated. It was difficult to summon men for jury service in that sparsely settled country. At last an ill -looking fellow, with a tattered straw hat on his head, half the rim torn off, a lock of greasy hair sticking through the top, a piece of his nose gone and his face bearing other marks of brawls — in short about as illfavored a rascal as ever offended a court of justice by his presence,— was brought in. After looking him over and asking him a few questions the replies to which established beyond a doubt his character as a roisterer and vagabond, Crittenden said, " Well, judge, rather than be the cause of any more delay, I'll take this man." The judge, who had been looking on angrily, could no longer contain himself. He sprang to his feet, exclaiming, "I knew it; yes, I knew it; the moment I laid eyes on the fellow I knew you would accept him." Then after a contemptuous survey of the jury he added in a withering tone, " Did any living man

ever see such a jury before? " " Why, your Honor," said Crittenden, " I pronounce this a most respectable jury." Crittenden said that after that intemperate speech by the judge he felt easy as to the fate of his client. He knew that he would be acquitted — and he was. Later Crittenden resumed the practice of his profession in his home county of Woodford, where he won a hold upon the hearts of the people that was never shaken and gained such an ascendency over the minds of the jurymen who tried his cases that there were few convictions ever registered against those whose cause he espoused. His method of conducting a case was peculiar to himself. Like Choate and Tom Marshall he relied on every extenuating plea presented, and some of his defenses were as sensational and as successful as the famous " somnambulism" defense of Choate in the Tirrell murder trial. In common with every great advocate he never discussed the evidence in detail, believing that the jurymen were men of sense and that the evidence, or such of it as they deemed worthy of notice, had impressed itself, in the form of an opinion, upon their minds before he rose to speak. What was the use then to go over a dry mass of testi mony, more especially if it was unfavorable to his client? He would of course briefly analyze the evidence and show the incon sistencies and weaknesses of the opposing witnesses, weaving here and there a singu larly eloquent and felicitous plea for mercy and for the " sympathy which man can give to man." His forte was persuasion. He was frank with a jury and never attempted to mislead them in discussion of the facts, and having in this manner gained their confidence, he would soften their hearts and persuade them to temper justice with mercy. This was not skill alone. He jelt all that he said. It was his big human heart prompting the plea for mercy, and it seldom failed in its effect upon a warm-hearted and impulsive jury. His daughter, Mrs. Coleman, thus