Changes

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in government schools that man descended from more primitive life forms.  The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of [[evolution]].  The textbook at issue in the case suggested indirectly (through a tree-like diagram) that man descended from lower life forms.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in government schools that man descended from more primitive life forms.  The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of [[evolution]].  The textbook at issue in the case suggested indirectly (through a tree-like diagram) that man descended from lower life forms.

Bryan attacked Darrow in court, noting how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was [[Nietzsche]]'s atheistic philosophy.  Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ...  Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan attacked Darrow in court, noting how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was [[Nietzsche]]'s atheistic philosophy.  Bryan quoted Darrow as saying, "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ...  Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history.  Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history.  Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

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.

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.

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>

:Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

:Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause).

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, and, from his viewpoint, he sometimes succeeded. For example, Darrow grilled Bryan on the topic of Bryan's literal interpretation of the Bible. Notably, Darrow pressed Bryan on the issue of how the sun stood still for [[Joshua]] in the [[Old Testament]]. In the end he showed that it could not have taken place through natural causes, which, as an atheist, was all he felt he needed.  For those who believed it was a miracle for the sun to stop at all in the sky, as the Bible infers, the concept that it could not have taken place naturally was irrelevant.     

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, and, from his viewpoint, he sometimes succeeded. For example, Darrow grilled Bryan on the topic of Bryan's literal interpretation of the Bible. Notably, Darrow pressed Bryan on the issue of how the sun stood still for [[Joshua]] in the [[Old Testament]]. In the end, he showed that it could not have taken place through natural causes, which, as an atheist, was all he felt he needed.  For those who believed it was a miracle for the sun to stop at all in the sky, as the Bible infers, the concept that it could not have taken place naturally was irrelevant.     

:Darrow--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?  

:Darrow--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?  

After eight days of trial, and a mere nine minutes of deliberation, Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered by the judge to pay a fine of $100.

After eight days of trial, and a mere nine minutes of deliberation, Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered by the judge to pay a fine of $100.

Scopes' conviction was overturned on appeal by a technicality: the Tennessee Constitution at that time had a clause that any fine in excess of $50 must be set by a jury, not by the judge.  The state's Supreme Court vacated the verdict on that basis, and further ruled that, because Scopes no longer lived in the state, the case was moot.

Scopes' conviction was overturned on appeal by a technicality: the Tennessee Constitution at that time had a clause that any fine in excess of $50 must be set by a jury, not by the judge.  The state's Supreme Court vacated the verdict on that basis and further ruled that, because Scopes no longer lived in the state, the case was moot.

== Aftermath ==

== Aftermath ==