Changes

Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

The next day, Bryan's testimony was to continue. The judge however ruled against any further examination of this sort, contrary to a myth that Darrow "reneged."  Darrow asked for a guilty verdict, which was the ACLU plan all along, as without a guilty verdict, the case could not be appealed to a higher court in an attempt to rule the law unConstitutional. ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>   

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But instead of upholding his end of the bargain, Darrow stunned the public by taking the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>   

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation.  Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.  The Tennessee Constitution had a clause that any fine that high must be set by a jury, not by the judge.  The state's Supreme Court vacated the verdict due to that, and then ruled that because Scopes no longer lived in the state, the case was moot. The ACLU's hopes of raising a Constitutional issue were dashed.

After 8 days of trial, the jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested, after 9 minutes of deliberation.  Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US, which was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.  <ref>The Tennessee Constitution had a clause that any fine that high must be set by a jury, not by the judge.  The state's Supreme Court vacated the verdict due to that, and then ruled that because Scopes no longer lived in the state, the case was moot.</ref>

== The movie and play ==

== The movie and play ==