John A. Farrell. Clarence Darrow: Attorney for the Damned.
New York: Doubleday, 2011.
as reviewed by Ted Odenwald
Clarence Darrow is often regarded as a folk hero, as evidenced by two American classics: Irving Stone’s biographical novel, Clarence Darrow for the Defense and Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s depiction of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Inherit the Wind. John Farrell’s biography of Darrow shares the admiration for the great attorney; yet the author’s detailed research, including recently discovered letters, has yielded evidence of a darker, quirkier side of Darrow that deepens our understanding of a complex man.
Throughout his life, Darrow viewed himself as a radical and an anarchist, often taking on “hopeless” cases in which an individual or a group was being persecuted by monolithic corporations, by a governing body, or by public sentiment. He represented labor leader Eugene Debs in cases resulting from the Pullman Strike; he represented union leaders in the Western Federation Miners case. He defended admitted thrill-killers Leopold and Loeb. He defended an African-American doctor whose defense of his home against an all-white mob in racially troubled Detroit led to fatal shootings. He defended John Scopes against the state of Tennessee for teaching evolution in the public schools.
In each of these cases-and in many more of a much lower profile– he represented those who were clearly guilty, those who were presumed guilty, those “who had to be eradicated” because of their opposition to the principles of capitalism or because their ideas were different from the “norm.”
“Brilliance” is a recurring description of Darrow’s methods of defense. He had an uncanny knack for sifting through potential jurors-often using researchers to provide background information on those to be considered. His questioning techniques during the trials were exceptional; alternating his focus between the witness and the jury (or the judge), he would know, as if by instinct, when to be gentle or when to be aggressive. His summations were legendary: he would speak without notes for hours-sometimes for days-highlighting salient points brought out through questioning and testimony. His ability to deflect the focus of the blame from the accused to the accusers was uncanny-as was his ability to justify admittedly criminal acts because of the defendants’ “righteous” motives, e.g., the McNamara brothers’ deadly bombing of the L.A. Times building were justified because of unfair labor practices that affected the lower class worker. He had the ability to cut through the trappings of legalism to expose ultimate moral questions, e.g., in the Doctor Ossian Sweet (Detroit) shooting cases, Darrow asked an all-white jury to put themselves in the defendant’s place-and then to answer if a black person had the same right as a white person to defend himself and his property; in the Scopes trial, he asked if a state had the right to dictate what to think and teach concerning apparent discrepancies between religion and science.
Many of Darrow’s cases were clearly hopeless causes. He defended labor unions when they were being attacked by large corporations-with the government’s blessings. In some cases, the defendants had already confessed their guilt, and it fell to Darrow to seek clemency from what would probably be a death penalty. In a time period when hanging and electrocution were the “in-vogue” sentencings, Darrow was remarkably successful in convincing jurors and judges that his clients should be spared. The most striking of these cases were those of the McNamara brothers and Leopold and Loeb: in the former case, Darrow bargained to have the guilty brothers’ death sentences commuted to prison terms, claiming that while the casualties due to the bombings could not be overlooked, the bombing itself was warranted; and in the latter case, Darrow took the odd approach that the defendants, whose actions were obviously the products of sick minds, were being prosecuted to the full extent of the law due to their families’ wealth.
Several noteworthy beliefs and traits stick out in Darrow’s character-some being areas not covered in most works about him. He claimed to be an advocate of free love-thus “justifying” his abandonment of his first wife and son, his liaisons with countless admiring women, a long-term affair with a journalist, and countless propositions to young women. Darrow’s legal career was nearly ruined because of two trials in which he was indicted for jury tampering; Farrell seems to be convinced that there is evidence that Darrow, though acquitted, had actually been involved in paying off jurors in more than one case. Letters recently made available to scholars by the University of Michigan support these allegations. The fact that suborning witnesses and jurists was a common practice in the first three decades of the twentieth century still does not say much about Darrow’s ethics-though he frequently stated that if the cause was just (such as saving someone from the executioner), then the end justified the means. Darrow was also accused of hypocrisy for defending the element of society which he had previously attacked. When a touring ship capsized in Chicago, killing hundreds, he defended the engineer-in-charge against the “people’s” claims of willful negligence. Although he had helped to establish the NAACP and the ACLU, he took a case in which a jealous military husband and some of his comrades-in-arms abducted and lynched a native Hawaiian for allegedly raping the officer’s wife (apparently a charge which she had fabricated)-in a crime that oozed of the racism that Darrow hated. Additionally, Darrow had a disastrous record of handling his finances. Often he would take cases pro bono-but then he would demand extremely high fees for representing the wealthy. His Chicago law firm, which he partnered with Edgar Lee Masters, was forced to close as Darrow worked all over the country, not holding up his share of the firm’s financial obligations, but still drawing off the profits. Though he anticipated the Stock Market Crash of 1929, he did nothing to insure that he would not suffer the catastrophic losses which eventually came.
Clarence Darrow may well be the most colorful, well-known attorney in American history. He earned his reputation for greatness through his brilliant defense work in a collection of world-shaking trials-any of which would have been a “career-maker.” While recent revelations may have tarnished his saint-like image, he remains a symbol of hope for the common person-or the small minority group. He demonstrated that there can be justice for everyone, and that justice is not an issue of “yes or no,” “black or white,” or “good and evil.”
Ted Odenwald and his wife, Shirley have lived in Oakland for 40 years. He taught HS English at Glen Rock High School for all of those years plus one more. Now he is enjoying time spent with his family, singing in the North Jersey Chorus and quenching his wanderlust. Ted is also the Worship Leader at the Ramapo Valley Baptist Church in Oakland.