They had chosen two professional criminals as better men.

His whole conduct of the case instead of being commended as meritorious had resulted in a solemn public declaration that he was not worthy of credence and that he had attempted wilfully to railroad to State's prison two innocent men.

In other words, that he ought to be there himself.

What was the use of trying to do good work any longer?
He might just as well loiter in an area on a barrel and smoke a furtive cigar when he ought to be "on post." Perhaps he might better "stand in" with those who would inevitably be preferred to him by a jury of their peers.
What must have been the effect on the court officers, the witnesses, the defendants out on bail, the complainants, the spectators?
That the whole business was nonsense and rot! That the jury system was ridiculous.

That the jurymen were either crooks or fools.