Clarence Seward Darrow (1857-1938) stands as one of the most influential defense attorneys in American legal history. His career spanned nearly six decades, during which he participated in over a hundred murder trials and countless other legal matters that captured national attention. Darrow's approach to legal defense was revolutionary for his time, emphasizing moral advocacy over technical legal expertise, and focusing on the humanity of his clients while challenging the injustices of the legal system. His cases ranged from defending labor leaders and anarchists to wealthy socialites and accused murderers, and his willingness to take on unpopular causes made him both celebrated and controversial throughout his career.
Darrow's legal philosophy was grounded in determinism, the belief that human behavior is shaped largely by heredity, environment, and social circumstances rather than simple moral choice. This perspective influenced his defense strategies and his arguments against capital punishment. He believed that society, not the individual, bore responsibility for crime, and that punishment should be replaced by understanding and rehabilitation whenever possible. Throughout his career, he earned up to a quarter million dollars per case, yet he often took on cases where he was paid little or nothing at all, driven by his commitment to justice and his sympathy for the marginalized.
This document examines the major legal cases that defined Clarence Darrow's career, exploring the circumstances of each case, his innovative defense strategies, the outcomes, and the lasting impact on American law and society. These cases demonstrate not only Darrow's remarkable legal skills but also his willingness to use the courtroom as a forum for addressing broader social issues including labor rights, civil liberties, racial justice, and the conflict between science and religious orthodoxy.
The Pullman Strike of 1894 was one of the most significant labor conflicts in American history, and it marked Darrow's emergence as the leading labor lawyer in the country. The dispute began when workers at the Pullman Palace Car Company, located in the company town of Pullman south of Chicago, went on strike to protest wage cuts and poor working conditions. The company, owned by wealthy industrialist George Pullman, had reduced wages by an average of twenty-eight percent during the economic depression known as the Panic of 1893, while refusing to reduce rents in the company town or to discuss grievances with workers. When the workers attempted to organize a strike through their union, the American Railway Union, the company responded by firing union leaders, and the strike spread rapidly across the country.
The strike quickly paralyzed rail traffic and threatened the national economy. In response, President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops to break the strike, leading to violent confrontations in Chicago and other cities. The federal government obtained an injunction against the strike, claiming it interfered with interstate commerce and the delivery of mail, and when the workers refused to comply, union leaders including Eugene Debs were arrested and charged with conspiracy to restrain trade. The arrest of Debs and other leaders effectively ended the strike, but it also set the stage for a dramatic legal confrontation that would establish Darrow's national reputation.
At the time of the Pullman Strike, Darrow held a prestigious position as general counsel for the Chicago and North Western Railway, one of the major railroads involved in the dispute. However, when the workers went on strike and their leaders were charged with conspiracy, Darrow made the remarkable decision to resign his position with the railroad and defend the union leaders instead. This choice demonstrated his commitment to labor rights over professional advancement and aligned him with a movement that many members of his social class viewed with suspicion or hostility.
Darrow argued that the defendants had a legal right to organize a strike of their union members and that they never incited any violence or disruption. He maintained that the strike was a peaceful economic action and that the federal government's use of the injunction was an unconstitutional interference with the workers' rights. Throughout the trial, Darrow matched George Pullman's legal team in a contest that drew national attention, presenting arguments that emphasized the legitimate grievances of the workers and the injustice of their treatment by the company and the government.
Despite Darrow's passionate defense, Debs and the other union leaders were convicted of violating the injunction. Debs was sentenced to six months in jail, and the conviction effectively destroyed the American Railway Union as a national force. However, the trial established Darrow's reputation as a courageous advocate willing to take on powerful interests in defense of working people. The case also demonstrated his ability to handle complex legal matters involving federal jurisdiction and constitutional issues.
The Pullman Strike trials were significant for several reasons. They highlighted the tensions between labor and capital during the industrial age and raised important questions about the rights of workers to organize and strike. Darrow's defense introduced the idea that labor disputes should be understood in the context of economic inequality and that the legal system was often used to protect the interests of the wealthy at the expense of ordinary workers. This perspective would inform his subsequent work and contribute to the development of labor law in America.
The McNamaras case represented one of the most challenging episodes of Darrow's career, ultimately leading to his own prosecution on bribery charges. On December 1, 1910, a bomb destroyed the Los Angeles Times building, killing twenty-one people and injuring dozens more. The bombing was one of the most deadly acts of terrorism in American history up to that point, and suspicion immediately fell on labor radicals, particularly the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, which had been involved in a bitter labor dispute with the Times and other Los Angeles newspapers.
James and John McNamaras, officials of the iron workers union, were arrested and charged with the murder of the Times employees. The case against them was strong, with evidence suggesting their involvement in a conspiracy to plant the bomb. The trial was expected to be a major confrontation between the forces of management and labor, and Darrow was recruited to defend the brothers. He threw himself into the case with characteristic energy, but as the trial approached, he became increasingly convinced that his clients were guilty and would likely be convicted and executed if the case proceeded.
In a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his career, Darrow arranged for the McNamaras to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter rather than facing a trial that would likely result in their execution. The plea bargain saved the brothers' lives but resulted in sentences of life imprisonment. This decision was deeply unpopular with organized labor, which had hoped for a complete acquittal and viewed the guilty plea as a betrayal of the labor movement's principles.
Darrow maintained that he had acted in his clients' best interests, arguing that no jury would have acquitted them given the evidence against them. He believed that accepting a plea bargain, while unsatisfactory, was the only way to prevent two more deaths. However, critics accused him of betraying his clients and his principles, and the controversy damaged his relationship with the labor movement that he had championed during the Pullman Strike trials.
The aftermath of the McNamaras plea bargain was even more damaging. A grand jury investigation revealed evidence suggesting that Darrow had been involved in attempting to bribe jurors to prevent a conviction. On January 29, 1912, Darrow was indicted on two counts each of bribery and corruption. The charges threatened to destroy his career and his reputation, and they came at a time when he was at the height of his professional success.
Darrow's own trial for bribery was one of the most dramatic episodes of his career. He faced the possibility of prison time and professional disgrace, and the case attracted national attention as one of the most famous lawyers in America found himself in the defendant's chair. Throughout the trial, Darrow conducted his own defense with the same passion and skill he had displayed in defending countless other clients, arguing that he was innocent of the charges and that the prosecution was politically motivated. He delivered a powerful plea to the jury, asking them to consider the context of his actions and the circumstances that had led him to the defense of the McNamaras.
After a lengthy trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on some charges and acquitted him on others, resulting in a mixed verdict that effectively ended the prosecution. However, the bribery trial had a profound effect on Darrow's career. It damaged his relationship with organized labor, which felt he had betrayed the McNamaras by accepting a guilty plea, and it also damaged his standing with the business community, which had viewed him as a dangerous radical. For a time, his career seemed to be in ruins, and he struggled to find work in the wake of the scandal.
The 1924 Leopold and Loeb case was perhaps Darrow's most famous trial, a case that shocked the nation with its brutality and challenged conventional notions of justice and mercy. On May 21, 1924, Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb, two brilliant young men from wealthy Chicago families, kidnapped fourteen-year-old Bobby Franks, a cousin of Loeb's, from the streets of Chicago. The young men had planned the kidnapping for months, intending to demand a ransom of ten thousand dollars from the Franks family. However, when Bobby Franks accidentally choked while being restrained during the kidnapping, the two panicked and murdered him, dumping his body in a culvert in Gary, Indiana.
The crime was particularly shocking because of who committed it and why. Leopold and Loeb were not poor or desperate young men; they came from wealthy, prominent families in Chicago. Both were exceptionally intelligent—Leopold was a brilliant student at the University of Chicago, and Loeb was on his way to law school. Their crime was not motivated by need but by what they themselves described as an intellectual experiment, an attempt to commit the perfect crime that would demonstrate their superiority over ordinary people. The revelation of their motives and their calm, calculating behavior during interrogations horrified the public and seemed to confirm the worst fears of a society worried about the corrupting influence of modernity and privilege.
The case captured national attention and seemed to polarize public opinion. Many people believed that the young men deserved the death penalty for their cold-blooded murder of an innocent child. Others, however, recognized that there were mitigating factors that might warrant mercy, including the defendants' youth, their background, and the disturbing psychological dynamics that had led them to commit their crime. The question of how to balance justice and mercy in this case would become the central issue of the trial.
Darrow's decision to defend Leopold and Loeb was controversial from the start. Many people, including some of his closest associates, believed that the crime was so terrible that the young men did not deserve a vigorous defense. Darrow, however, believed that every person accused of a crime deserved the best possible representation, regardless of the nature of the alleged offense. He also believed that the death penalty was unjust and that even the most terrible criminals should not be executed.
Darrow's strategy in the case was distinctive and innovative. He changed the boys' initial pleas from not guilty to the charges of murder and kidnapping, moving away from a traditional insanity defense that would have claimed they were legally insane at the time of the crime. Instead, Darrow argued that while the young men had committed a terrible act, they were not responsible for who they were. He presented an extended argument based on determinism and environmental determinism, arguing that heredity and upbringing had shaped their characters and that no one could be held fully responsible for actions that were the product of forces beyond their control.
The defense strategy was risky and controversial, but it was also brilliant in its understanding of human psychology and the power of emotional appeal. Rather than trying to deny the crime or minimize its severity, Darrow acknowledged it fully while asking the court to consider the broader context in which it had occurred. He argued that the young men's privileged upbringing, their isolation from ordinary human connection, and their intellectual arrogance had created a perfect storm that led to tragedy. He asked Judge John R. Caverly to show mercy rather than vengeance, arguing that the death penalty would serve no useful purpose and would simply add another death to the tragedy that had already occurred.
Darrow's strategy ultimately succeeded in persuading Judge Caverly to sentence the two young men to prison rather than condemn them to death. The sentence of life imprisonment for Loeb with a possibility of parole after a specified period and ninety-nine years for Leopold was widely seen as a victory for mercy over vengeance. The sentence reflected the judge's acceptance of Darrow's arguments about the complex factors that had contributed to the crime and the potential for rehabilitation even in the most difficult cases.
The Leopold and Loeb case established Darrow's reputation as the master of criminal defense and made him a national celebrity. The trial was covered extensively by the press, and Darrow's closing argument was published and discussed throughout the country. His performance demonstrated his remarkable ability to connect with juries and judges, to acknowledge the worst aspects of his clients' conduct while still arguing for compassion, and to rise above the passions of the moment to appeal to higher principles of justice.
For Leopold and Loeb themselves, the case had tragic consequences. Loeb was killed in prison in 1936 by a fellow inmate who apparently targeted him because of the nature of his crime. Leopold was released in 1958 after serving over twenty-nine years in prison, but he spent the rest of his life trying to escape the notoriety of his crime and the judgment of a society that never fully accepted his rehabilitation. The case remained controversial for decades, with some people arguing that Darrow had enabled a grave injustice by preventing the execution of young men who had murdered an innocent child.
The year after the Leopold and Loeb case, Darrow found himself at the center of another dramatic trial that would define his legacy and capture the attention of the American public. In 1925, the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, pitted the forces of modernism against traditionalism in a confrontation that became a symbol of the broader cultural conflicts of the 1920s. The case began when John Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was charged with violating a state law that forbade teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. The Butler Act, passed earlier that year, made it illegal to teach any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation.
The case was organized by the American Civil Liberties Union as a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee law. Scopes agreed to be the defendant, and the ACLU recruited Clarence Darrow to lead the defense. The prosecution was led by William Jennings Bryan, the famous orator and former presidential candidate who had become a leading figure in the fundamentalist Christian movement. Bryan saw the trial as an opportunity to defend traditional Christian values against what he considered the dangerous influence of modern science. The combination of Darrow and Bryan as opposing counsel guaranteed that the trial would be a spectacle, with two of the most famous speakers of the era facing each other in a confrontation that drew national attention.
Darrow's decision to defend Scopes was consistent with his long-standing commitment to civil liberties and his opposition to the influence of religious orthodoxy on public life. He believed that academic freedom was essential to democracy and that the Tennessee law represented an unconstitutional establishment of religion. He also had personal reasons for wanting to take on the case: he was an agnostic who had long opposed the influence of religion on public affairs, and he saw the trial as an opportunity to challenge what he considered the dangerous anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalist movement.
The Scopes Trial began on July 10, 1925, and quickly became a media sensation. Reporters from around the country descended on Dayton, Tennessee, and the trial was broadcast via radio to millions of listeners. The proceedings were held outdoors because of the heat and the crowds, and the atmosphere was more like a carnival than a courtroom. The trial became a stage for a broader cultural debate about science, religion, and the direction of American society.
Darrow's most dramatic moment in the trial came when he cross-examined William Jennings Bryan himself. Bryan had taken the stand as a witness for the prosecution, and Darrow used the opportunity to challenge his literal interpretation of the Bible and his views on evolution. The cross-examination was brilliant and devastating, as Darrow systematically dismantled Bryan's claims and exposed the difficulties of taking a literal approach to biblical interpretation. He asked Bryan if he believed that the sun was created on the fourth day, how plants could have survived without sunlight, and whether Jonah could have survived inside a whale. Bryan's answers were evasive and uncomfortable, and the cross-examination was widely seen as a humiliation for the aging orator.
The trial ended with Scopes convicted of violating the law, a conviction that was later overturned on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court. More importantly, the trial was a defeat for the forces of fundamentalism and a victory for the principle of academic freedom. Darrow's performance, particularly his cross-examination of Bryan, established him as a champion of science and reason against religious dogma. The trial also marked the beginning of a decline in the influence of the fundamentalist movement, which would not recover its former prominence for decades.
The Scopes Trial had a profound effect on both participants. William Jennings Bryan died just a few days after the trial ended, exhausted by the demands of the confrontation and the public ridicule he had endured. His death was mourned by many who saw him as a sincere and principled man, even if they disagreed with his views. Darrow, by contrast, emerged from the trial with his reputation enhanced, though he was widely criticized by religious conservatives who saw him as a hostile force attacking faith and tradition.
The Scopes Trial and the Sweet trial were the last big cases that Darrow took on before he retired from full-time practice at the age of sixty-eight. The trial demonstrated his ability to take on not just criminal defendants but also broader social and political issues, using the courtroom as a forum for debates that extended far beyond the immediate legal questions. It also showed his willingness to take on powerful opponents and unpopular causes, confident in his ability to persuade juries and the public through the force of his arguments.
In 1925, the same year as the Scopes Trial, Darrow defended Dr. Ossian Sweet and his co-defendants in one of the most important civil rights cases of the early twentieth century. The case arose from the racial tensions that were sweeping America during the so-called Red Summer of 1919 and the years that followed. Racial violence had erupted in cities across the country, and the struggle against housing segregation was becoming a central focus of the civil rights movement. Detroit, where the case originated, had experienced serious race riots in 1917 and 1919, and tensions between the Black and white communities remained high.
Dr. Ossian Sweet was a successful African American physician who had bought a house in a white neighborhood, defying the informal segregation that confined Black residents to specific areas of the city. When white neighbors objected to his presence, threats and harassment followed, culminating in a violent attack on Sweet's home by a mob. The attackers threw bricks and stones at the house and threatened to burn it down. During the attack, someone from inside the house fired a shot that killed one of the attackers, Leonard French. Sweet, his wife Gladys, his two brothers Otis and Henry, and seven family friends were arrested and charged with first-degree murder.
The case was taken up by the NAACP, which saw it as an important test of the legal system's treatment of African Americans defending themselves against racial violence. The organization recognized that a conviction would establish a dangerous precedent that could be used to punish Black Americans who resisted racial violence. They recruited Darrow to lead the defense, recognizing that his reputation and skill would provide the best chance of achieving a favorable outcome. Darrow accepted the case without hesitation, seeing it as an opportunity to challenge the injustice of racial segregation and to demonstrate that Black Americans deserved the same legal protections as white citizens.
Darrow's defense strategy in the Sweet case was typically innovative and effective. He wanted the trial to be about more than the events of one night in Detroit, using the case to present a broader indictment of the racial injustice that had created the situation in the first place. He argued that his clients had been subjected to threats and violence solely because of their race, and that they had acted in self-defense against a mob that was seeking to drive them out of their home simply because they were Black.
Darrow presented evidence of the pattern of racial violence that had swept through American cities, arguing that his clients had legitimate reason to fear for their lives. He challenged the prosecution's characterization of the defendants as murderers, pointing out that they were the victims of an unprovoked attack by a racist mob. His closing argument was a powerful plea for justice and equality, asking the jury to recognize that Black Americans had the same right to self-defense as white citizens. He argued that the real crime was not the killing of Leonard French but the racism and violence that had created the situation in which someone had been killed.
The trial was a dramatic confrontation over the meaning of justice in a segregated society. Darrow's argument that his clients had acted in self-defense against a racist mob resonated with many in the audience, though the all-white jury remained a significant obstacle to justice. The first trial ended in a hung jury, with the jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The second trial resulted in the acquittal of all defendants on the charge of murder.
The verdict in the Sweet case was a significant victory for the civil rights movement, demonstrating that it was possible to achieve justice in the American legal system even when confronting deeply entrenched racial prejudice. The case established an important precedent for the defense of Black Americans facing charges arising from resistance to racial violence. It also demonstrated the importance of skilled legal representation in civil rights cases and helped to establish the pattern of litigation that would characterize the civil rights movement for decades to come.
The Sweet case was part of a broader pattern of resistance to racial violence and segregation that would culminate in the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. Darrow's involvement in the case demonstrated his commitment to civil rights and his willingness to use his legal skills to challenge injustice. The case also illustrated his ability to connect legal arguments to broader social issues, using the courtroom as a forum for examining the root causes of inequality and discrimination in American society.
By the early 1930s, Clarence Darrow was in his seventies and beginning to slow down, though he continued to take on cases that interested him. In 1931, he was recruited to participate in the Massie Trial in Hawaii, one of the most controversial and racially charged cases of the decade. The case had begun the previous year when Thalia Massie, the twenty-year-old wife of a naval officer stationed in Hawaii, claimed to have been raped by several Hawaiian men in the hills above Honolulu. The subsequent investigation and trial became a flashpoint for tensions between the white military establishment and the native Hawaiian population.
The case took a dramatic turn when Joseph Kahahawai, one of the accused in the original rape case, was murdered in January 1932. The murder was committed by Grace Fortescue, a socialite and relative of Thalia Massie, along with several accomplices who had taken justice into their own hands after the initial rape trial ended in a hung jury. The killing of Kahahawai was an attempt to avenge the alleged assault on Thalia Massie, and it shocked the Hawaiian community. The murder case brought together all the racial, social, and political tensions that had simmered in the islands, and it became clear that a fair trial would be difficult to achieve in the charged atmosphere.
Darrow was initially reluctant to take on the case, recognizing its complexity and the difficulty of defending clients who had committed a clearly unjustifiable murder. He was also aware that the case would require him to travel far from his home in Chicago and that his involvement might be seen as controversial given the circumstances of the crime. However, he eventually agreed to join the defense team, perhaps seeing it as an opportunity to demonstrate his principles even in an unfavorable situation.
The Massie murder trial was held in April 1932 in Honolulu, and it marked the final appearance of Clarence Darrow in a highly publicized criminal case. The defense argued that the defendants had acted out of a misguided but understandable desire to avenge the assault on Thalia Massie, and that their actions, while illegal, were motivated by the highest human emotions of love and protection. Darrow's participation in the case was notable for his attempt to appeal to the jury's sense of compassion, even in defense of clients who had committed an unquestionably wrongful act.
The trial was dramatic and controversial, drawing intense media attention and dividing public opinion in Hawaii and on the mainland. The defense's argument that the defendants deserved sympathy rather than punishment was risky, but it reflected Darrow's longstanding belief that understanding and compassion were more important than vengeance in the administration of justice. The trial demonstrated that even at the age of seventy-five, Darrow retained his ability to connect with juries and to present compelling arguments in defense of his clients.
The trial resulted in convictions for the defendants, though with relatively lenient sentences that reflected the public sympathy for their motivation. Grace Fortescue and her accomplices were sentenced to prison terms, but they served only a small portion of their sentences before being pardoned. The case forever changed the nature of Hawaiian race relations and became a symbol of the tensions between the military presence and the local population.
Before his involvement in the major cases that made him famous, Darrow handled numerous criminal defense cases that established his reputation as a skilled advocate. His first criminal case came early in his career when he defended a man accused of murder in Ohio. The case was successful, and it launched Darrow's career as a criminal defense attorney. Over the following decades, he would handle hundreds of cases, ranging from minor offenses to the most serious crimes, always maintaining his commitment to providing a vigorous defense to every client.
Darrow's approach to criminal defense was distinctive from the beginning. He focused not just on the legal technicalities of each case but on the human being facing prosecution. He took time to understand his clients' backgrounds and circumstances, and he used this understanding to craft defenses that appealed to juries' sense of compassion as well as their sense of justice. This approach, combined with his powerful courtroom presence and his ability to connect with ordinary people, made him one of the most effective criminal defense attorneys of his era.
In addition to his work in state courts, Darrow participated in numerous federal cases involving constitutional issues. He defended Eugene Debs in connection with the Pullman Strike, arguing that the federal government's use of the injunction was unconstitutional. He represented defendants in cases involving free speech and press rights, including the defense of Benjamin Gitlow in New York v. Gitlow, a landmark case involving the constitutionality of criminal anarchy laws.
Darrow's work in federal court demonstrated his ability to handle complex constitutional issues and to argue effectively before appellate courts as well as juries. His commitment to civil liberties was consistent throughout his career, and he was willing to take on cases that challenged government overreach and protected individual rights against the power of the state. This work contributed to the development of constitutional law and helped to establish precedents that would protect civil liberties for decades to come.
After the Massie Trial, Darrow largely retired from active legal practice, though he continued to write and speak on legal and social issues. His final years were spent reflecting on his career and his legacy, and he died on March 13, 1938, at the age of eighty. With him when he died were his wife Ruby, his son Paul, and a sister, Mrs. Jennie Darrow Moore, as well as his close friend and long-time associate.
Darrow's final cases demonstrated his continued commitment to using the law as a tool for justice, even as his physical abilities declined. The Massie Trial, while not as successful as some of his earlier cases, showed that he remained capable of effective advocacy into his later years. His career as a whole represented a remarkable commitment to principle and a willingness to use his considerable talents in defense of those who needed it most.
Clarence Darrow's legal cases represent a remarkable body of work that shaped American criminal defense and civil liberties law. From his early defense of labor leaders during the Pullman Strike through his landmark cases involving the most controversial defendants of his era, Darrow consistently demonstrated a commitment to justice that went beyond mere technical advocacy. His deterministic philosophy led him to see crime as a product of social forces rather than individual moral failure, and this perspective influenced his defense strategies and his arguments against capital punishment.
The cases examined in this document reveal the breadth and depth of Darrow's legal career. The Pullman Strike cases established his reputation as a champion of labor rights. The McNamaras case and his subsequent bribery trial tested his personal integrity and forced him to confront the ethical complexities of legal practice. The Leopold and Loeb case demonstrated his ability to secure mercy even for the most despised defendants. The Scopes Trial pitted him against William Jennings Bryan in a confrontation that symbolized the broader cultural conflicts of the 1920s. The Sweet Trial showed his commitment to civil rights and racial justice. The Massie Trial marked his final appearance in a major criminal case.
Throughout his career, Darrow maintained that every person, regardless of how terrible their alleged crimes, deserved a vigorous defense. He believed that the legal system could only function fairly if every defendant had effective representation, and he dedicated his life to providing that representation to those who needed it most. His legacy continues to influence criminal defense practice and civil liberties law more than eighty years after his death.
1.Britannica. "Clarence Darrow | Books, William Jennings Bryan, Education." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Clarence-Darrow
2.University of Minnesota Law Library. "The Clarence Darrow Digital Collection." https://librarycollections.law.umn.edu/darrow/
3.Famous Trials. "The Leopold And Loeb Trial: An Account." https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1741-home
4.Wikipedia. "Leopold and Loeb." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb
5.Wikipedia. "Scopes trial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
6.Famous Trials. "State of Tennessee v. John Scopes (The Monkey Trial)." https://famous-trials.com/scopesmonkey/2127-home
7.PBS American Experience. "Clarence Darrow | American Experience | Official Site." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/monkeytrial-clarence-darrow/
8.Famous Trials. "Sweet Trials: A Chronology." https://famous-trials.com/sweet/131-chronology
9.Wikipedia. "Massie Trial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massie_Trial
10.Famous Trials. "Massie Trials (1931 & 1932)." https://famous-trials.com/massie
11.Wikipedia. "Pullman Strike." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
12.Geoffrey Cowan. "The People v. Clarence Darrow: The Bribery Trial of America's Greatest Lawyer." http://geoffreycowan.com/books-plays/the-people-v-clarence-darrow/
13.EBSCO Research Starters. "Clarence Darrow | Research Starters." https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/clarence-darrow
14.Notable Biographies. "Clarence Darrow Biography - life, family, children, parents, story." https://www.notablebiographies.com/Co-Da/Darrow-Clarence.html
15.UMKC School of Law. "Who is Clarence Darrow?: An Essay." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/daresy.htm