Not infrequently one side or the other really wishes to get rid of the
best men and willing to take the risk that this will not be apparent.
In a real estate case, counsel for the plaintiff not having a strong
case succeeded in eliminating every man who had ever owned or who had
ever had the slightest experience in houses or property. It was a bold
confession that no one who understood the case would decide for him.
In railway accident cases, the plaintiff, who asks damages against the
company, will often excuse so far as he can, every juror who appears
well-to-do or a man of property.

A prominent New York lawyer, when a young man, had defended a case
brought against a corporation. The plaintiff and his attorneys were
Jews, and the jury-box when first filled was seven-twelfths Hebraic.
Counsel for the plaintiff immediately excused the five Gentiles and
when the corporation's lawyer stood up, not a man in the jury-box was
of his own race. He accepted them. The trial went on, and it appeared
that the plaintiff's claim was very weak indeed. At last counsel for
the defendant had to sum up and he concluded in this way:

"Gentlemen of the Jury: The plaintiff hopes to win this case not on
the law, nor on his evidence, nor on any consideration of justice. He
hopes to succeed because of the simple fact that he is a Jew, his
lawyer is a Jew, and every one of you men are Jews." With an
expression of faith in the sense of justice inherent in the Jewish
race and of confidence in the verdict, the attorney for the defendant
sat down. The jury decided in his favor.

Such boldness, when successful, is often rewarded, but it is of
course inherently dangerous.