1,410
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + Line 14:
Line 20: − +
Adding more information of interest to a conservative, with citations
The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challange to the Tennesse Butler Act that prohibited the teaching of evolution in publically funded schools and universities.
The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challange to the Tennessee Butler Act that prohibited the teaching of evolution in publically funded schools and universities. The willing defendant, John Scopes, was convicted of violating the Butler act, though the conviction was later overturned on a technicality. The Scopes trial was made infamous in 1955 with the play ''Inherit the Wind'', and the 1960 Hollywood motion picture with the same title, both fictionalized.
== Publicity Conspiracy ==
The Scopes trial began as a conspiracy among town leaders at a drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, in response to a newspaper advertisement placed by the American Civil Liberties Union ([[ACLU]]) offering to provide legal services to anyone willing to be prosecuted under the Butler Act.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}, {{hnb|Linder|2002}}</ref> Town leaders agreed that a trial would be provide publicity to the town,<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}</ref> whose population had dwindled to 1800.<ref>{{hnb|Linder|2002}}</ref> The town leaders found a willing defendent in John Scopes, a gym teacher and football coach who also substituted (sometimes as a biology teacher), though Scopes could not recall ever teaching evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref> John Scopes told the town leaders, "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."
== Grand Jury ==
Racing other Tennessee towns, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=108}}</ref> He was indicted on May 25, after three students testified against Scopes at the Grand Jury, at Scopes' behest.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=108}}</ref>
== The Trial ==
== The Trial ==
So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.
So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.
A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.
A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage on cross-examination, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. On cross-examination, Attorneys are allowed to ask leading(yes or no) questions to force the desired response, unlike on direct examination. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.
Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>
Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>