{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022843822843822845, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011188811188811189, 'mean_word_length': 4.647368421052631, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Counsel for the Defence

The Invasion of the Criminal Courts by the Lawyers So well established today is the English adversary system of trial, with counsel as its forensic giants, that it is often forgotten that historically the whole process is of recent origin and was largely brought to its apotheosis by the reform movement of the industrial middle class in the 1830s. Before the nineteenth century the judge and the accused played the main roles in the criminal trial, but by 1820 they were yielding the centre of the stage to the lawyers. The latter proceeded to alter the whole dynamic of jury trial by breaking up the ancient relationship of judge and jury and costing the judge his mastery of the proceedings. By 1845 the lawyers had captured the courtroom, made the trial accusatorial, and obliged the accused to recede into the dock. The pace of change was slow, however, and in the early days of fact-finding juries the judges to a large extent did the work that today would be done by lawyers. Producing witnesses, crossexamination, and giving evidence unsworn were all required of the prisoner himself but he was not permitted to have counsel address the jury. However, the judge would assist him and also exercise fairly close control over the jury, even requiring a revised verdict on occasions. As Sir Matthew Hale put it: "If the jurors by mistake or partiality give their verdict in court, yet they may rectify their verdict before it is recorded, or by advice of the court go together again and consider better of it, and alter what they have delivered". (Pleas of the Crown, vo1.2. (1736) pp.299-300). According to J.H. Baker, the Harvard Law School manuscripts written in the early seventeenth century by Arthur Tumour, a young barrister of the Middle Temple, reveal that, although there were no arguments by counsel, the judges of the day concerned themselves at all times with legal and procedural refinements, "evidently before a critical audience". The jury also raised questions and sometimes discussion was promoted by the clerks. Clearly a far more open court scene than with the adversary trial procedure of today.