I looked at Winters as he was led in between two wardens. Fear was depicted in his face, and he shrank from the hostile and angry looks that met him on all sides as with lowered head and eyes he made his way to a place by his counsel.
It was hard to conceive how the appearance of that broken man could fail to excite pity and there must have been some among the crowd who pitied him, even though they condemned: but the majority saw only a murderer and hated him.
It was the manifestation of that unreasoning brute instinct to torture and kill dominant in the lower order of men, and which when encouraged by numbers and incited by the chance of a helpless victim, finds its active expression in a lynching.
When Winters had taken his place, the clerk read the indictment on arraignment and then put the usual question: "Are you guilty or not guilty?" to which the answer, in a low voice, was, "Not guilty!"
Next followed the selection of a jury. This task proved less difficult than usual in such cases, mainly because Littell showed no disposition to captious challenges, seeming only desirous of securing the services of intelligent men.
In a little more than two hours therefore, the twelve men were in their places and had been sworn, and as I looked over the jury, I felt that Littell had obtained his object, for its personnel was above the average.
The opening address of the junior for the State, which followed after a recess, was a clear and a concise statement of the facts, free from argument and dispassionate as it should be.
Upon its conclusion the State proceeded to offer its testimony. Witness after witness was called in rapid succession. First the technical requirements of the case were established: the death of the deceased, the character of the wound, the nature of the instrument used, and then other similar formal details; and thus in categorical questions and answers that were uninteresting, but essential, the first day's proceedings drew to a close.
During each examination Littell had been an attentive listener, but had portrayed no special concern and had rarely interrupted. He was too good a lawyer to lessen his prestige with the jury by indulging in aimless cross-questions of witnesses who had simply told the truth about undisputed facts. When he did cross-examine at all in such cases it was but briefly and with no attempt to break down the witness, but rather to develop more fully the facts and possibilities of the case, and the result of his questions in each instance had been to throw additional light upon the subject and to help the jury to its better understanding.
After adjournment I stood with others an interested observer of a short conversation the lawyer was holding with his client. Whatever the substance of it might have been, it was such as to bring a smile to the face of the prisoner as he turned away with his guards to go back to his prison.