The writer, who prosecuted the case, regarded the trial as a mere formality and hardly felt that it was necessary to sum up the evidence at all.
Imagine his surprise when an intelligent-looking jury acquitted both the defendants after practically no deliberation.

Both had offered to plead guilty to a slightly lower degree of crime before the case was moved for trial.
These two defendants, who were neither insane nor degenerates, consorted with others in Bowery hotels and saloons,--incubators of crime.

What effect could such a performance have upon them and their friends save to inculcate a belief that they were licensed to commit as many burglaries as they chose?
They had a practical demonstration that the law was "no good" and the system a failure.

If they could beat a case in which they had already pleaded guilty, what could they not do where the evidence was less obvious?
They were henceforth immune.

Who shall say how many embryonic law-breakers took courage at the story and started upon an experimental attempt at crime?
The news of such an acquittal must instantly have been carried to the Tombs, where every other guilty prisoner took heart and prepared anew his defence.