Comparison with Previous Years
| Number Arraigned | Number Held for Trial | |||||
| Year | Males | Females | Total | Males | Females | Total |
| 1896 | 147 | 72 | 219 | 30 | 6 | 36 |
| 1897 | 228 | 130 | 358 | 42 | 12 | 54 |
| 1898 | 202 | 159 | 861 | 26 | 15 | 41 |
| 1899 | 257 | 140 | 397 | 40 | 13 | 53 |
| 1900 | 251 | 173 | 424 | 40 | 12 | 52 |
| 1901 | 244 | 143 | 387 | 24 | 3 | 27 |
| 1902 | 244 | 158 | 402 | 23 | 6 | 29 |
| 1903 | 374 | 156 | 530 | 15 | 4 | 19 |
| 1904 | 234 | 123 | 357 | 15 | .. | 15 |
| 1905 | 268 | 114 | 382 | 13 | .. | 13 |
| 1906 | 269 | 136 | 405 | 20 | 2 | 22 |
| 1907 | 258 | 136 | 393 | 13 | 1 | 14 |
[34] Peo. vs. Molineux, Peo. vs. Bissert, Peo. vs. Glennon, Peo. vs. Mills, Peo. vs. Patrick, Peo. vs. Ammon, Peo. vs. "Al" Adams, Peo. vs. Hummel, Peo. vs. Wickes, Peo. vs. Wooten, Peo. vs. Rothschild, Peo. vs. Kanter, Peo. vs. Summerfield, Peo. vs. Sam Parks, Peo. vs. Weinseimer, Peo. vs. Burnham, Peo. vs. Gillette, Peo. vs. H. Huffman Browne.
THE JUDGE
The two principal functions of the judge of a criminal court are, first, to preside at the trial, declaring the law and seeing to it that the rules of procedure and of evidence are properly observed and, second, to impose sentence in case of a conviction. In the first case he is a judge of the law; in the last he becomes a judge of the facts. It would be impossible to say which of these duties is the more important, but the latter is certainly vastly the more difficult. An unjust sentence is as bad, if not worse, than an unfair trial, for the defendant does not have a chance of escape and, since punishment is a matter of discretion upon the part of the judge, it cannot be considered or reversed on appeal. It must be of precious little satisfaction to a convicted prisoner to know that he has had a perfectly impartial trial, if at the same time he receives a sentence four times longer than he deserves, and equally little consolation to a prosecutor when, after a fair contest, he has convicted a political rascal of influence if the judge "suspend sentence" and the defendant is permitted to walk the streets in spite of his offences.
The amount of learning requisite to preside with efficiency at an ordinary criminal trial is comparatively small, and provided the judge be honest, impartial, possessed of common-sense and what is known as "backbone," neither prosecutor nor defendant's counsel need, as a rule, complain, but the trouble, time, courage and discrimination necessary adequately to determine what punishment should be meted out to a particular offender for a given offence cannot well be overestimated. It is not a difficult matter to preside with dignity at a trial, preserve order, exclude hearsay testimony, apply the other simple rules of evidence that are ordinarily involved in a case of assault, larceny, burglary or homicide, and instruct a jury as to "reasonable doubt," "good reputation" and the "presumption of innocence" in words of one syllable. We may fairly assume that it is no harder for the ordinary judge to try a man for picking a pocket than it is to dress himself in the morning. It must in time become automatic if not almost sub-conscious. He could probably do it in his sleep. Most petty criminal cases "try themselves." The trouble begins when the same judge is compelled to decide whether the convict shall be sent to the Elmira Reformatory (where he may reasonably expect to be discharged in fourteen months) or to State's prison for twenty years.
Let us consider first the conduct of the judge during the trial itself. Theoretically it is his duty, at least in most States of the Union, simply to declare the law governing the case and to rule impartially upon the questions of evidence presented. He is supposed to give no hint of his own opinion as to whether or not the defendant should be convicted and to refrain from any marshalling of the facts claimed to have been proven by either side in such a way as to influence the verdict of the jury. In England he may and generally does "sum up" the case; in America such a course would usually be a ground for reversal, his function being limited to an abstract discussion of the law involved, with little reference to the facts save in so far as it may be necessary for purposes of illustrating the way in which the jury shall apply it. He is supposed to sit upon his dais serenely, indifferent as to whether a murderer be convicted or acquitted, whether an inexperienced assistant district attorney be "trounced" by an astute criminal lawyer with a couple of generations of trial experience, or, on the other hand, a bulldozing prosecutor bedevil a miserable prisoner, defended by an ignorant and untutored counsel, into State's prison,—provided either be done within the strict rules of evidence and proper court behavior.