The conviction of Clarence Norman Jr. on three of the eight counts brought against him in the latest trial leaves open the question of who, in this showdown with the people of New York, is the big winner. The trial was Norman’s fourth. Unless the district attorney of Kings County, Charles Hynes, intends to indict Norman again, it looks like the former county chairman of Brooklyn’s Democratic machine can finally take his exit from the public stage and retire to prison.

If so, what have — or have not — the trials accomplished? These have been show trials in the best sense of the phrase. In each instance, Mr. Hynes’ prosecutors put on public display what evidence they have amassed against Norman in an attempt to illuminate a wider canvas. But it is also true that the charges for which Norman has been tried are not a hundredth as sensational as allegations involving the sale of judgeships that first put Mr. Hynes on Norman’s trail back in 2003.

The trials have offered any Brooklynite who cares to watch a public accounting of how the Democratic machine in the borough conducts its affairs. Norman’s misdeeds, juries have found, include stealing from his own campaign and soliciting illegal campaign contributions. On Friday, he was found to have extorted a judicial candidate into paying a friend of his for campaign help, though he was acquitted of extorting a second judicial candidate. Last year he won an acquittal on charges he had billed the state for mileage he put on a Lincoln automobile that did not belong to him.

There are those who will say that as the process of trying Norman has worn on the onetime political powerhouse was beginning to come across in a more sympathetic light. And there are those who will not be cheering if when and if Norman loses his appeals and heads to prison, for as many as seven years. He has long declared himself innocent and was proved correct some of the time. And, as it stands now, he is still innocent of the main allegation against him: offering the backing of the Democratic machine in return for cash.

The frustration felt by prosecutors at not having gotten Norman on the big charge was audible at the recent trial. Norman is a “thug,” albeit a well-dressed one, an assistant district attorney, Michael Vecchione, told the jury. Another prosecutor, Kevin Richardson, told the jury how Norman would sit behind his desk and give to the candidates who came to ask for his support either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. But there were those in the courtroom who began to sense that it was a relatively wan picture of a thug the prosecutors were painting; it’s not as if people were being dragged into alleys and beaten for failure to cooperate with the machine.

For our part, we have encouraged Mr. Hynes to press this investigation and, if one can judge by the tantalizing nature of the leads that prosecutors said are still coming in, New Yorkers will be well-served if Mr. Hynes sticks with the case. The suspicion of selling judgeships, even if it has not yet been proven, is a matter that couldn’t be more serious for New Yorkers and the Democratic Party, indeed for all parties, indeed for America herself.

It was in Brooklyn that the method of choosing judges erupted into a case — brought by Margarita Lopez Torres — in which the highest court has just granted certiorari. We’re not certain that Judge Lopez Torres is going to, or even should, win that case. But we are certain that the issues in the muck that Mr. Hynes has been raking are as important as any facing this city or state and many other local jurisdictions around the country.