51
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:: Darrow is considered to be one of America's greatest lawyers ever, and Bryan was also an experienced lawyer, so your impression that they were not technically competent lawyers appears to be nothing more than your impression.
:: Darrow is considered to be one of America's greatest lawyers ever, and Bryan was also an experienced lawyer, so your impression that they were not technically competent lawyers appears to be nothing more than your impression.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::: The very fact that they agreed to testify in a trial about a subject wholly unrelated to their area of professional expertise is evidence that they were more orators than lawyers, although, as I implied above, this is based on what the transcripts seemed to say about them, to me. Of course, oratory is a large part of litigating, but these men were delivering polemics when they should have been serving their clients. I'm not sure how much clearer I can state this, but the fact of the matter is, the Attorney General intervened both to prevent the continuing examination of Bryan by Darrow (which would have commenced on the next day of the trial), and the scheduled examination of Darrow by Bryan. And besides, Bryan's interest in having Darrow on the stand was to ask him about his religious beliefs, trying to use Darrow's rude anti-Christianity to provoke the public. None of what they did during their battling was relevant to the legal matter at hand. I think when the two possible plots are compared, one is more plausible than the other.
1. Darrow agrees to testify so that he can question Bryan. He either becomes afraid of testifying (unlikely on its own, given his incredibly outsize ego), or never plans to testify. Then, he pleads his client guilty to avoid testifying, but requests, in front of the press, that Bryan question him in public. Indeed, it appears that Bryan didn't want to do such a thing, instead, he stated that he would send the press a list of questions he intended to ask Darrow, and when darrow responded that he should do the questioning in public, Bryan effectively refused.
2. Darrow and Bryan agree in good faith to be put on the stand. After two hours of theological argument, the judge and attorney general see this as sidetracking the trial, and so further testimony is halted (This is supported by the fact that the judge called for Bryan's testimony to be thrown out). Because there are no more witnesses relevant to the case, the trial ends. Darrow asks for a guilty plea so that the case can be brought to a higher court, where the legality of the statute can be challenged (if the jury had acquitted Scopes, the law would remain in effect, the jury would have effectively been saying "we do not believe Scopes taught evolution").
I know I'm new here, but it's important, if this project is to make progress, that we do not prejudge those who disagree with us. Just because Darrow was an arrogant anti-christian on the opposite side of the issue from most of us, we should let his statements stand for themselves unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, and in this case, it's hard to find enough. I may've run a little long, but it's key that we limit ourselves to the truth, and not conjecture. [[User:JakeW|JakeW]]