Paralegal
Loeb and Leopold: Clarence Darrow’s Defense
H
ow insane he is I care not, whether medically or legally. They did not reason; they could not reason; they committed the foolishest, most unprovoked, most purposeless, most causeless act that any two boys ever committed, and they put themselves where the rope is dangling above their heads, by their act.1 Attorney Clarence Darrow, in his twelve-hour summation, acknowledged his clients, Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, had committed an atrocious crime.2 However, in doing so, he also asserted such behavior demonstrated the diseased minds of the two because it “was a truly motiveless act, without the slightest feeling of hatred or revenge.”3 This lack of hatred and revenge stemmed from their fascination with Fredrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, which purported “supermen like qualities lie not in their genius, but in their freedom from scruple” providing that these “supermen” were “above the law.”4 “What they thought was right, not because sanctioned by any law beyond themselves, but because they did it… from the will of superabundant power within themselves.”5 The two believed “the laws for evil did not apply to anybody who approached the superman.”6 It was such a belief of superpower that prompted their endeavor to commit the perfect crime. After many months of planning the murder and ransom demand, on May 21, 1924, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb kidnapped and murdered fourteen-year-old Robert “Bobby” Franks as he walked home from school.7 After killing Franks, the two used hydrochloric acid to attempt to destroy any identifying features; however, upon their placing the body in a drain filled with water, a great deal of the acid washed away allowing the body to easily be identified.8 In addition to their failure to insure it impossible to identify Franks, Nathan Leopold dropped his glasses, which could easily be traced to him.9 Within days of killing Franks, Loeb and Leopold had confessed and the prosecution began making their case for the death penalty.10 Initially, the two defendants plead not guilty, but on July 21, 1924, they both withdrew
30
Dayton Bar Briefs November 2020
By Sharalie Albanese Chair Paralegal Section The VanNoy Firm salbanese@thevannoyfirm.com 937.952.5043
their previous not guilty pleas and both entered guilty pleas.11 Darrow also asked for a bench trial rather than a jury trial. He hoped one judge would be easier to persuade than twelve jurors. In doing so, Darrow’s strategy was to prove both to be not guilty by reason of insanity. During the trial, Darrow argued his clients were but boys with the “burden of adolescence, of puberty” plagued by fantastical thoughts.12 These fantastical thoughts embraced Nietzsche’s philosophy as truth, which Darrow asserted the two “could not have believed it excepting that it either caused a diseased mind or was the result of a diseased mind.”13 continued on page 31 END NO TES: Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Mercy and Prosecutor Crowe’s Demand for Death Penalty, “Attorney Clarence Darrow's Plea for Mercy in The Franks Case”, (1924) Wilson Publishing Company, 2 South Morgan St., Chicago,Ill., P. 20. http://moses.law. umn.edu/darrow/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Darrow_Crowe_arguments.pdf 2 People of the State of Illinois v. Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb 3 Id at 18. 4 Id at 59 5 Id 6 Id at 57 7 People of the State of Illinois v. Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb, Transcript of Court Proceedings July 23 to July 25, 1924, p. 36. http://moses.law.umn.edu/ darrow/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Transcript_July23_July_25_pp_1_508.pdf 8 Id at 39 9 Id at 54 10 Id at 61-63 11 People of the State of Illinois v. Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb, Transcript of Court Proceedings July 23 to July 25, 1924, p. 7. http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/ documents/Leopold_Loeb_Transcript_July23_July_25_pp_1_508.pdf 12 Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Mercy and Prosecutor Crowe’s Demand for Death Penalty at 57. 13 Id at 59 1
937.222.7902
