Changes

The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challenge to the Tennessee Butler Act that prohibited teaching in public school the theory that man had evolved.  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 of which completely lied about the facts and were promoted to harm [[Christianity]].<ref>"'Inherit the Wind' relentlessly distorts what happened in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925."[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/2/story_226_1.html]</ref><ref>As recently as April 17, 2007, the ''Village Voice'' endorsed a new Broadway rendition of ''Inherit the Wind'' as "a dramatization of the 1925 [Scopes] trial."[http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0716,feingold,76394,11.html]</ref>

The '''Scopes Trial''' of 1925 was engineered as a challenge to the Tennessee Butler Act that prohibited teaching in public school the theory that man had evolved.  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 of which were fictionalized accounts intended as relevant criticism of current political problems, as opposed to historical accounts.<ref>"'Inherit the Wind' relentlessly distorts what happened in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925."[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/2/story_226_1.html]</ref><ref>As recently as April 17, 2007, the ''Village Voice'' endorsed a new Broadway rendition of ''Inherit the Wind'' as "a dramatization of the 1925 [Scopes] trial."[http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0716,feingold,76394,11.html]</ref>

== Publicity Motivation ==

== Publicity Motivation ==

== The Trial ==

== The Trial ==

The trial in 1925 of [[John Scopes]] for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of [[Darwinism]].  The [[ACLU]] and [[liberal]] trial lawyer [[Clarence Darrow]] brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the evangelical [[Christian]] who had been Secretary of State in the Wilson Administration, decisively beat them.

The trial in 1925 of [[John Scopes]] for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of [[Darwinism]].  The [[ACLU]] and [[liberal]] trial lawyer [[Clarence Darrow]] brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]], the evangelical [[Christian]] who had been Secretary of State in the Wilson Administration, gained victory once Darrow realized the defense's aims were better served by Scopes being convicted.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in government [[school]]s 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 taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in government [[school]]s 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 taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

Bryan quoted for the court 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 quoted for the court 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 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, despite the fact that he had not argued a case in decades.  Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to carry forward his case.

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, due to the fact that the court had barred all witnesses presented by the defense<ref>Scopes and Presley, Center of the Storm, 154-56</ref>.  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, though some witnesses insist that Bryan wished to regain his reputation after a devastating oration by Dudley Malone, a lawyer for the defense<ref>Scopes and Presley, Center of the Storm, 154-56</ref>.

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, Bryan may have indeed fallen victim to Darrow's insidious courtroom skills. Bryan repeatedly failed to answer Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

:Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

:Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.

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

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

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but failed to get answers out of his opponent. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing:

:Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

:Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

: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 conclusion===

===The conclusion===

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>   

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined, but Judge Raulston ruled the exchange irrelevant before the defense had the chance to take the stand.<ref>New York Times, July 22, 1925: 2</ref> Instead, Darrow stunned the public by taking the step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes. By Tennessee law, Darrow's refusal to make a closing statement also barred Bryan from a closing oration. <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, 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>

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, which was eliminated 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 ==

== Aftermath ==

== Aftermath ==

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep during his afternoon nap after church five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=199}}</ref>  Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep during his afternoon nap after church five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006|p=199}}</ref>  Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career, which included at least three failed attempts at the presidency.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes never had to pay the fine - the judge had set the amount but Tennessee law at the time prohibited judges from setting fines over $50.

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years.  In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.  

The law challenged by the [[ACLU]] in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years.  In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'', 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent.