DOCSLIB.ORG

Defense's Case & Q&A Session

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defense's Case & Q&A Session JURY TRIAL BOOKLET People v. Clarence Darrow 1 TRIAL BOOKLET A. Charges: Clarence Darrow has been charged with offering a bribe to juror George N. Lockwood. Count One: Giving a bribe to a juror Count Two: Giving a bribe to a man summoned as a juror. B. Applicable Statues: 1. Penal Code- Title VII (Of Crimes Against Public Justice)-1909 Section 92: Giving Bribes to Judges, Jurors, Referees Etc.: Every person who gives or offers to give a bribe to any judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire or to any person who may be authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matter or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than ten years. Section 93: Receiving Bribes by Judicial Officers, Jurors, Etc., : Every judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire and every person authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matters or question which is or may he brought before him for decision, shall be influenced thereby, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more then ten years Section 95: Improper Attempts to Influence Jurors, Referees, Etc., Every person who corruptly attempts to influence a juror, or any person summoned or drawn as a juror, or chosen as an arbitrator , or umpire , or appointed a referee, in respect to his verdict, in, or decision of any cause, or proceeding pending, or about to be brought before him, either: 1. By means of any communication, oral, written, had with him except in the regular course of proceedings; 2. By means of any book, paper, or instrument exhibited, otherwise than in the regular course of proceedings; 3. By means of any threat, intimidation, persuasion, or entreaty; or, 4. By means of any promise, or assurance of any pecuniary or other advantage; 2 is punishable by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years. 2. Penal Code Section 1324- Testimony and Immunity: (For the complete statue see attached photocopied documents) Cal. Penal Code § 1324 (1911) declares that a person who is himself an offender may be compelled to be a witness and give testimony against another person for an offense of which both are guilty, and he shall not be excused from testifying on the ground that his testimony might, even though he may demand to be excused, incriminate him, but in such case, except for perjury, his testimony shall not be used against him, nor shall he be liable thereafter to prosecution for the offense with reference to which his testimony was given. The second paragraph declares that no such witness shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for such offense where he testifies voluntarily, or fails to ask to be excused from testifying on the ground that his testimony may incriminate himself, but his testimony so given may be used against him The third paragraph of Cal. Penal Code § 1324 provides, in part: A witness shall be deemed to have asked to be excused from testifying unless before any testimony is given the judge, foreman or other person presiding at such trial, hearing, proceeding or investigation, shall distinctly read this section of this code to such witness, and the form of the objection by the witness shall be immaterial, if he in substance makes objection that his testimony may incriminate himself, and he shall not be obliged to object to each question, but one objection shall be sufficient to protect such witness from prosecution for any offense concerning which he may testify A witness cannot refuse to testify in a criminal case though his testimony may incriminate him, but if he demands that he be excused on that ground he shall not be liable thereafter to prosecution. If, however, he testifies voluntarily, or if he fails to ask to be excused from testifying on the ground above stated, his testimony may be used against him. But he is deemed to have asked to be excused from testifying under Cal. Penal Code § 1324, unless before any testimony is given the judge, foreman or other person presiding at such trial, hearing, proceeding or investigation, shall distinctly read § 1324 to the witness. And one objection to a question shall be sufficient to protect such witness from prosecution Cal. Penal Code § 1324 gives complete immunity and is not violative of the constitution 3 C. Jury Instructions: 1. 1-200 CALCRIM 200 200 Duties of Judge and Jury Members of the jury, I will now instruct you on the law that applies to this case. [I will give you a copy of the instructions to use in the jury room.] [Each of you has a copy of these instructions to use in the jury room.] [The instructions that you receive may be printed, typed, or written by hand. Certain sections may have been crossed-out or added. Disregard any deleted sections and do not try to guess what they might have been. Only consider the final version of the instructions in your deliberations.] You must decide what the facts are. It is up to all of you, and you alone, to decide what happened, based only on the evidence that has been presented to you in this trial. Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision. Bias includes, but is not limited to, bias for or against the witnesses, attorneys, defendant[s] or alleged victim[s], based on disability, gender, nationality, national origin, race or ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, [or] socioeconomic status (./,) [or _________________ <insert any other impermissible basis for bias as appropriate> .] You must follow the law as I explain it to you, even if you disagree with it. If you believe that the attorneys' comments on the law conflict with my instructions, you must follow my instructions. Pay careful attention to all of these instructions and consider them together. If I repeat any instruction or idea, do not conclude that it is more important than any other instruction or idea just because I repeated it. Some words or phrases used during this trial have legal meanings that are different from their meanings in everyday use. These words and phrases will be specifically defined in these instructions. Please be sure to listen carefully and follow the definitions that I give you. Words and phrases not specifically defined in these instructions are to be applied using their ordinary, everyday meanings. Some of these instructions may not apply, depending on your findings about the facts of the case. [Do not assume just because I give a particular instruction that I am suggesting anything about the facts.] After you have decided what the facts are, follow the instructions that do apply to the facts as you find them. 4 2. 1-200 CALCRIM 220 220 Reasonable Doubt The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant[s] is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/have) been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise]. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves the defendant[s] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must find (him/her/them) not guilty. 3. 1-200 CALCRIM 222 222 Evidence You must decide what the facts are in this case. You must use only the evidence that was presented in this courtroom [or during a jury view]. "Evidence" is the sworn testimony of witnesses, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and anything else I told you to consider as evidence. Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses' answers are evidence. The attorneys' questions are significant only if they helped you to understand the witnesses' answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asked a question that suggested it was true. During the trial, the attorneys may have objected to questions or moved to strike answers given by the witnesses. I ruled on the objections according to the law. If I sustained an objection, you must ignore the question. If the witness was not permitted to answer, do not guess what the answer might have been or why I ruled as I did. If I ordered testimony stricken from the record you must disregard it and must not consider that testimony for any purpose. You must disregard anything you saw or heard when the court was not in session, even if it was done or said by one of the parties or witnesses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Q&A with Sheppard Mullin's Andre Cronthall
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Q&A With Sheppard Mullin's Andre Cronthall Law360, New York (April 10, 2013, 12:27 PM ET) -- Andre Cronthall of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP is a trial lawyer specializing in complex commercial litigation and has experience as lead counsel in civil jury trials involving business disputes. He has litigated matters from inception through appeal, with expertise in insurance-related litigation, products liability, commercial contract disputes and professional liability. Cronthall served two terms on the board of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and also serves on the board of Public Counsel. Q: What is the most challenging case you have worked on and what made it challenging? A: My partner Scott Sveslosky and I handled a complex marine insurance coverage case that required extensive travel to several countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention. It was a supreme challenge to arrange and take the depositions of dozens of third-party and party-affiliated witnesses located halfway around the globe, especially since our adversaries moved to quash all depositions that were potentially adverse. On two occasions, motions to quash and thereby prevent key depositions were brought on the eve of our departure overseas, which created uniquely challenging legal and practical dilemmas. For example, one of the depositions was to occur at an Indonesian prison. After numerous discovery motions and appellate proceedings, we prevailed on these issues and were permitted to use all of the testimony we obtained overseas.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring / Summer 2003 Newsletter
    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Historical Society_ NEWSLETTER S PRI NG/SU MM E R 200} A Trailblazer: Reflections on the Character and r l fo und Justice Lillie they Career efJu stice Mildred Lillie tended to stay until retire­ ment. O n e of her fo rmer BY H ON. EARL JOH NSON, JR. judicial attorneys, Ann O ustad, was with her over Legal giant. Legend. Institution. 17'ailblazer. two decades before retiring. These are the words the media - and the sources Linda Beder had been with they quoted - have used to describe Presiding Justice her over sixteen years and Mildred Lillie and her record-setting fifty-five year Pamela McCallum fo r ten career as a judge and forty-four years as a Justice on the when Justice Lillie passed California Court of Appeal. Those superlatives are all away. Connie Sullivan was absolutely accurate and richly deserved. l_ _j h er judicial ass istant for I write from a different perspective, however - as a some eighteen years before retiring and O lga Hayek colleague of Justice Lillie for the entire eighteen years served in that role for over a decade before retiring, she was Presiding Justice of Division Seven. I hope to too. For the many lawyers who saw her only in the provide some sense of what it was like to work with a courtroom, Justice Lillie could be an imposing, even recognized giant, a legend, an institution, a trailblazer. intimidating figure. But within the Division she was Readers will be disappointed if they are expecting neither intimidating nor autocratic.
    [Show full text]
  • Loyola Lawyer Law School Publications
    Loyola Lawyer Law School Publications Winter 1-1-1981 Loyola Lawyer Loyola Law School - Los Angeles Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/loyola_lawyer Repository Citation Loyola Law School - Los Angeles, "Loyola Lawyer" (1981). Loyola Lawyer. 46. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/loyola_lawyer/46 This Magazine is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Lawyer by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • Loyola's Deans in Court • Cable Cars and Canals • 1979-80 Donor Honor Roll FROM THE DEAN Loyola Law School is pleased to join Before we started construction last in honoring the City of Los Angeles on June on our downtown campus, much its Bicentennial Anniversary. In doing consideration was given to moving the so, we are also honoring ourselves, for School to the Loyola Marymount Uni­ we are indeed a resource of the Los versity grounds in Westchester. The Angeles connnunity. And, we're final analysis and decision clearly proud to be a part of this fine city. affirmed our close association with the Our first Law School class, in 1920, courts, government offices, and major began with a scant eight students. law firms of the city. We decided to Since then, we've graduated more stay here. than 5,000 lawyers, more than half of Enthusiastically, we look forward to whom are actively practicing law.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2003, Vol.26, No.1 / $3.00
    SPECIAL 125th BIRTHDAY ISSUE MARCH 2003, VOL.26, NO.1 / $3.00 - 125 Years - LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION INSIDE The face of the legal profession: legendary trials, increasing diversity, legal landmarks, leading the way in serving the public, and more. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL... especially in insurance protection! Aon Insurance Solutions Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association • High quality insurance plans designed for your professional and personal needs • Comprehensive risk management program • Personalized attention from your local broker/administrator • Attorneys’ Advantage® • Homeowners Insurance Professional Liability Insurance • Auto Insurance • Businessowners Insurance • Life Insurance • Workers Compensation Insurance • Small Commercial Auto Insurance • Health Insurance • Personal Umbrella Liability Insurance • Long Term Care Insurance For more information on any Aon Insurance Solutions product or to complete a no-obligation application for quotation visit us online. Visit www.aonsolutions.com/ais6 Call 800-634-9177 • Fax 800-977-1112 CA License #0795465 4B0AQ002 Let’s Celebrate the Soul in Solo Other lawyers say you’re a maverick. Maybe they have you figured right: You go your own way, make your own decisions — blaze your own law practice. lexisONE® likes your style. It’s why we offer LexisNexis™ research priced by the day, week or month for solos. With our research pack- ages, you’re free to access the LexisNexis research tools and materials you need, for the times you need them. Access: • LexisNexis™ Enhanced Case Law • Annotated Rules and Statutes • Shepard’s® Citations Service • Public Records • Administrative Materials • Journals and Law Reviews • News • Matthew Bender® Analytic Content • Expert Witness Directories • Verdicts and Settlements The price won’t hold you back.
    [Show full text]
  • The People V. Clarence Darrow
    In a mostly forgotten piece of Americana, 95 years ago in Los Angeles, arguably one of this country’s greatest lawyers was tried on a charge of bribery—bribery of jurors in a murder case. If his defense and history are any indi- cators, it was that lawyer’s controversial legal career—as much as jury tampering— that were being judged in that California courtroom in 1912.1 By the time Clarence Darrow headed west to represent defendants in a notorious murder case, he was already famous for representing those whom others would not represent. History would remember Darrow as the man who defended the right of John Thomas Scopes to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution—dramatized in the play and eventual movie Inherit the Wind; for his plea for clemency for Richard Loeb, who, with Nathan Leopold, tried to commit the perfect crime by murdering a classmate— made into the novel and film Compulsion; and as the “greatest champion of labor and the poor, the ‘attorney for the damned.’”2 It is no hyperbole to say that Darrow was the most famous lawyer of his time. Most lawyers in the early 1900s were not courtroom artists, but he was. Starting as a railroad lawyer, he later went on to defend unpopular people and causes. Darrow rep- resented the coal miners during their 1902 The People v. Clarence Darrow BY HON. ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD strike. He was against the death penalty, Hon. Robert L. Gottsfield is a organized religion and social discrimination retired but called-back full-time (Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnamara Bombing Trial
    McNamara Bombing Case (1911) Michael Hannon (2010) Introduction At 1:07 a.m. on October 1, 1910, a huge explosion rocked the building of the Los Angeles Times newspaper. The explosion caused a fire that destroyed the building and killed twenty people.1 The nation was stunned by the crime which would be called the “Crime of the Century.” Suspicion quickly fell on organized labor. Los Angeles was the scene of a bitter struggle between labor and capital, and the Los Angeles Times was the most vocal critic of the unions. Soon several labor union members were arrested for the crime. Labor rank and file believed the union members accused of the crime were innocent, had been unjustly targeted, arrested and kidnapped when they were taken to Los Angeles to stand trial. Because of the similarities, labor viewed the Los Angeles Times bombing case as a repeat of the Haywood trial in 1907. The government’s 1906 arrest and extradition across state lines of Big Bill Haywood and the other defendant’s to stand trial for the assassination of Frank Steunenberg in Idaho was universally viewed by labor as a frame-up complete with illegal arrests and kidnapping. Labor also saw the same forces at work—ruthless and greedy capitalists using their wealth and colluding with the government prosecution to crush labor. Just as it had in the Haywood trial, labor turned to Clarence Darrow to defend the accused men. Darrow’s stunning defense of Haywood in which he and his co-counsel saved Haywood from the gallows made Darrow a legend to labor leaders and rank and file union members.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2017 Rupert J
    Supporting Equal Access to Law in Florida Summer 2017 Rupert J. Smith Law Library is located at 221 So. Indian River Dr. Ft. Pierce, Florida Summer 2017 Table of Contents Published since September 2011 for the purpose of promoting intelligent education of the Bar and general public about law as a basis for growth of justice and the common welfare, while combating the indifference which might hinder such growth. On Behalf of the Publisher By James T. Walker Page 3 An Introduction to Workers’ Compensation Law By The Hon. Keef F. Owens Page 5 U.S. Law Schools Facing New Challenges, Part 2 of 2 By Leonard Pertnoy Page 8 Jerry Giesler, Hollywood’s Favorite Attorney By Richard Wires Page 10 Supreme Court Betting on New Jersey? By Mark Miller Page 11 Hit ‘em Again Harder: By Adrienne Naumann Page 13 Star Athletic, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. et. al. Supporting Equal Access to Law in Florida Summer 2017 “Sunrise from the River” Photograph by Jim Wilder President of the Friends and General Manager James T. Walker 772-461-2310 Editor: Nora J. Everlove 727-644-7407 Graphic Design: Paul Nucci Assistant Editor: Katie Everlove-Stone Assistant Editor: Kim A. Cunzo James T. Walker, President By email, you can reach the editor at: Andrew Blum, Vice President [email protected] Rene Arteaga, Treasurer We wish to thank our authors and other contributors for Nora Everlove, Secretary making this issue a success! Kim Cunzo, Chair, Art Contest 2 Pub. Law 87-20 April 7, 1960 On Behalf of Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
    [Show full text]
  • J". D. FREDERICKS. in the SUPERIOR COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA• .IN and for the COUNTY of LOS ANGELES. Dept. No
    ,( J". D. FREDERICKS. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA • . IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Dept. No. 11. Hon. Geo. H. Hutton. J"udge. ----0--- \ The People of the State of California. I ) Plaintiff, ) ) VB. ) No. 7373. ) Clarence Darrow, ) .I Defendant .-. ~ ---0--- REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT. VOL. 23 INDE X. Direct. Cross. Re-D. Re-C. v'Sazr.uel L. Browne, 1682 1710 JGeorge! K. Home 1710 -1726 1757 1764 j Dana D. Ong, 1768 1772 -j b(j~ AFTERNOON SESSION. June 12, 1912; 2 1 P"1 18 2 Defendant in oourt With counsel. 3 4 SAM UEL t. B ROW N E, 5 on the stand for further oross-examination: 6 MR. ROyERS. Q ~. Browne, how soon after the blowing up of 7 the Times Building wer e you engaged in an effor t to de teo t I 8 the perpetrators of the orime 7 A About 6 hours. 9 Q From that time on state whether or not you devoted your 10 self for some months to the effort to discover who, as a 11 matter of fact, did blow up the Times and where they were1 12 YR. FREDERICKS. Objected to upon the ground it is not 13 cross-examination. 14 A"R. ROGERS· Preliminary to some other matters. 15 THE COUR T. All r ight--overru1ed. 16 A The Times was blown up on the first of october, 1910, 17 midnight. 1 reoeived orders from b~r. Ford 'Nho was then 18 acting district attorney, Captain Fredericks being absent 19 frou, the City, to take up the matter of th1s explosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Darrow's Bribery Trial
    Bribery Trials of Clarence Darrow (1912 & 1913) Michael Hannon (2010) Bombing of the Los Angeles Times In the early morning hours of October 1, 1910, a bomb made of numerous sticks of dynamite exploded in an alley next to the Los Angeles Times building. The dynamite ignited barrels of nearby printing ink and the resulting fire killed twenty Times employees who were working to get the next edition of the paper ready for delivery. General Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the Times, was staunchly against labor unions, as was the paper itself. Otis and other business owners immediately accused labor supporters of the crime. At the time, labor was struggling to gain an influence in Los Angeles similar to what it enjoyed in San Francisco. Labor adamantly denied the allegations, blaming the explosion on an accident that Otis was exploiting or alternatively accusing him of intentionally causing the explosion in order to blame it on labor. An intense investigation was launched to identify and arrest the perpetrators. In April 1911, two members of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers (IABSIW) were in arrested in Detroit for the bombing. One of those arrested, Ortie McManigal, confessed and implicated James B. McNamara in setting the bomb and his brother John J. McNamara, secretary of the IABSIW, in directing and supporting the bombing. The McNamara brothers and McManigal were taken to Los Angeles to stand trial under a questionable extradition process. To labor, their extradition to California appeared to be a kidnapping instead of a legal extradition. In July, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) started a national campaign to raise money for a defense fund for the accused.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime in the City of Angels
    father to the county jail and courthouse, Crime in the City ofAngels: but was skeptical of her claim that her Two Views of the Past father had pu lled a gun in court during a high-profile murder trial. BY SABR I NA CORSA A curious Trope set out to conduct his own research into Rogers' conduct during the trial of People v. Boyd. Poring Whether yo u're interested in historical events, high­ through 1902 newspaper articles, Trope profile trials, legal anecdotes, or celebrity scandals, stumbled across a Los Angeles Times yo u'll find them in Michael T rope's book, Once Upon headline that read, "Buffalo Bill's hottest a Time in Los Angeles - The Ih'als of Ea rl Rogers. O n show was a tame performance compared the other side, For The People - Inside the Los Angeles with Earl Rogers in the Boyd trial yester­ County District Attorney's Office, 1850-2000, high­ day. It was so effective that he drove the lights the role of the DA, providing a captivating look jury under the table and the audience out inside some of the most notorious criminal cases to the fire escapes." haunt the dockets of the Los Angeles courts since the Having confirmed St. Johns' account, mid-nineteenth century. Trope dove into further research on Earl Do yo u know the origin of the name "Griffith Rogers. H e sifted through numerous Park?" Or, that the man who donated that land to Los microfiched newspapers at the downtown Angeles shot his wife in the head while they were Los Angeles public library.
    [Show full text]