PARALEGAL Loeb and Leopold: Clarence Darrow’s Defense

Loeb and Leopold: Clarence Darrow’s Defense

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 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

By Sharalie Albanese Chair Paralegal Section The VanNoy Firm salbanese@thevannoyfirm.com

How 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

themselves.”5 The two believed “the laws for evil

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

ENDNOTES:

1Clarence 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 5Id 6Id at 57 7People 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 8Id at 39 9Id at 54 10Id at 61-63 11People 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 12Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Mercy and Prosecutor Crowe’s Demand for Death Penalty at 57. 13Id at 59

In addition to such adverse influences as Nietzsche’s philosophy, Darrow also asserted the lasting effects of World War I go beyond the fighting on the battlefields but reach society as a whole causing an influx of violence. In asserting so, Darrow stated:

For four long years the civilized world was engaged in killing men. Christian against Christian, barbarians uniting with Christians to kill Christians; anything to kill. It was taught in every school, aye in the Sunday school.

The little children played at war. The toddling children on the street.14

In emphasizing these environmental influences on the defendants, Darrow stated plainly, “I know these boys are not fit to be at large” acknowledging the necessity for the two to go to prison away from society, but held they should not receive death for their crimes due to their age and mental state.15

On September 1, 1924, Loeb and Leopold were sentenced to prison; Loeb received ninety-nine years for kidnapping and ransom while Leopold received ninety-nine years for kidnapping and ransom and life for the murder of Robert Franks.16 Darrow’s strategy succeeded in persuading the judge to sentence the two to prison rather than condemn them to death due to their young ages.

The United States Supreme Court concurred in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ruling it unconstitutional to put to death anyone under the age of eighteen as “when a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.”17 In line with the

PARALEGAL: Loed and Leopold: Clarence Darrow's Defense continued from page 30

Supreme Court, Ohio law prevents the execution of anyone under the age of eighteen years of age.18 On the question of the death penalty, Ohio maintains capital punishment for cases with specific circumstances.19 Almost one hundred years later, this case, referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” remains relevant and the dire questions raised continue to spark fierce debate. Many believe the mercy shown by the court was just and justified. Although Richard Loeb was murdered in prison in 1936, Leopold proved to be a contributing member of his prison community and his community in Puerto Rico after his release from prison in 1958. Many others believe the court’s mercy was not just or justified as they were allowed to live while Bobby Franks was given no such mercy and the senseless nature of the murder compounded the crime. Moreover, they argue Leopold’s ability to become a contributing member of society proved he did not have a “diseased mind” and his actions were that of an adult nature, therefore, so should his punishment have been.

As a society, we each hold our own views on the age of accountability and the death penalty. These differing views stem largely from experience and deep seeded beliefs regarding right and wrong. Never will there be full agreement on when a person is fully accountable for their actions nor will there ever be agreement regarding the use of the death penalty. Nevertheless, we each should never stop listening to opposing views.

ENDNOTES:

14Clarence 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. 81. http://moses.law. umn.edu/darrow/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Darrow_Crowe_arguments.pdf 15Id at 82 16Sentencing Documents of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb http://moses.law.umn. edu/darrow/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Sentencing.pdf 17https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/u-s-supreme-court-roper-v-simmons-no-03633#consensus 18R.C. 2929.02(A) 19 R.C. 2929.04

Did You Know? You can read the past 6 years of Bar Briefs online on our archives page Just Visit: daybar.org/barbriefs

The Intili Group law firm is pleased to announce that its founder, tHoMas iNtili, has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America®. Mr. Intili is an AV-rated 5.0/5.0 trial attorney with more than thirty years of courtroom experience. He has received national and INTILI international recognition in cases involving medical negligence and trademark infringement. He has appeared on The Today Show and has been interviewed by various broadcast and print media in the United States, South America, Asia and Europe, including Der Spiegel. If you are a member of the DBA and you’ve moved, been promoted, hired an associate, taken on a partner, received an award, or have other news to share, we’d like to hear from you! • News of CLE presentations & political announcements are not accepted • Printed at no cost • Must be submitted via email and are subject to editing • Printed as space is available Contact Shayla to submit your announcement or ad: publications@daybar.org | 937-222-7902

Reach your targeted audience and advertise with the DBA! DBA ClAssIfIed Ad Rules

• Classified ads are accepted each month, September through July 1 • Copy and payment must be received by the first day of the month preceding the month of publication • Bar Briefs Editorial Board reserves the right to refuse any ad • Classified ads of greater length are allowed • Members: $20 per 25 words | NonMembers: $30 per 25 words • Additional $5 for DBA reply box

November Classifieds

AUMAN, MAHAN, AND FURRY IS HIRING ATTORNEYS.

Auman, Mahan & Furry represents large and small businesses in transactions and contracts, employer’s side labor and employment, employer’s side workers’ compensation, OSHA defense construction law, litigation, and other matters.

AM&F seeks to hire full and / or part-time Associate Attorneys to support all practice groups. Duties may include legal research and drafting of pleadings and motions, drafting and review of contracts and business transaction documents, attending hearings before the Ohio Industrial Commission, advising and representing clients in business transactions and in all phases of litigation, attending trade association meetings, and public speaking to industry groups.

The ideal candidates will have at least 2-5 years of experience, but more experienced attorneys with their own book of business and even new attorneys will be considered.

Compensation will be commensurate with experience and benefits are available. Flexible hours are available for part-time candidates.

Please submit resume to Michael W. Conrad, Office Administrator, at mwc@amfdayton.com.

BEAUTIFUL OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN DAYTON Local law firm looking to share existing office space in Performance Place, next to Schuster Center. Class A, up to 4 offices. Access to 2 conference rooms, file space, kitchen, copier/scanner. Parking under building included. Receptionist included. Cleaning included. Contact Amy Suber 937-913-0200

CROSS TRAINED FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST For expert opinion on guardianship, custody/parenting time, or emotional damage issues by Ph.D. psychologist with earned ABA approved J.D. degree jamesdanielbarna.com CLIP THIS AD + SAVE

LOCAL COURT RULES Dayton Municipal Court has proposed changes to the Local Court Rules. Please visit the Dayton Municipal Court at: daytonmunicipalcourt.org for notice of and an opportunity to view and comment on proposed local court rules.

MEDIATION.ARBITRATION

Dennis J. Langer Retired Common Pleas Judge

LangerMediation.com (937) 367-4776

MEDIATION/ARBITRATION William H. Wolff, Jr., LLC Retired Trial and Appellate Judge Phone: (937) 293-5295 (937) 572-3185 judgewolff@woh.rr.com

MEDIATIONS Jeffrey A. Hazlett Esq. 5276 Burning Bush Lane Kettering, Ohio 45429-5842 (937) 689-3193 hazlettjeffrey@gmail.com nadn.org/jeffrey-hazlett

NEED A MEDIATOR/ARBITRATOR? JOHN M. MEAGHER, Judge (Retired) Adjustable fees 25 Years Resulting in 2,100+ Mediations 50+ Arbitrations Call (937) 604-4840 Jmeagher2@gmail.com