Rhetoric is not praised as much as it was in the past, but it is still a powerful strategy in the battle of persuasion. It employs certain tactics, such as sharpening one’s eloquence and convincing the public in any and every matter, which includes court affairs. Beginning in the 20th century, the renowned American defense attorney Clarence Darrow demonstrated the silver tongue of rhetoric in many of his trials. After a close analysis, one realizes that he displayed a particular speech pattern to convince the jury of his client’s side of the story.

Darrow began most of his trials with a logos appeal; he used a certain kind of diction to shift the perspective on his defendants. One example was the 1914 Leopold & Loeb trial in which two young murderers faced the death penalty. During the case, he announced, “Here is a boy harassed by everything that harasses children…A boy with… as brilliant in intellect as any boy that you could find…and yet he goes out and commits this weird, strange, wild…act…?” (“Leopold & Loeb” par 125).

Without a doubt, the jury did not initially support the killers, so Darrow attempted to shift their point of view in favor of them. He used words such as “harassed,” “brilliant,” and “intellect” to paint an image of educated—not ignorant—children. Moreover, he employed diction, such as “weird,” “ strange,” and “wild,” as a euphemism. It downplays the act of murder as something to soften the idea of killing.

Darrow continued by saying, “wouldn’t it be a glorious triumph for the state’s attorney?…I can picture them…led to the scaffold…can see them fall through space…” (“Leopold & Loeb” par 50). Clearly, his tone was sarcastic. Its purpose was to ignite a sense of foolishness in the prosecutors. He reminded the jury to be rational through the use of rhetorical questions. Moreover, his method was woven with a graphic image of the boys’ hanging to let the jury know what horror will come of their decision.

After his logos approach, Darrow was a master at using pathos to evoke sympathy. For instance, in 1906, he defended the Western Federation of Miners leaders, who were accused of the murder of Idaho’s governor. During the trial, Darrow declared that the “men worked for 12 hours….their bones twisted. They become helpless, crippled and paralytic…”(“Essential Words and Writings” 53).

By using these specific words, like “crippled” and “paralytic,” Darrow illustrated the terrible conditions members had to work under. Ultimately, the sad image elicited empathy from the jury.

In the Leopold and Loeb trial, he painted the two boys as “irresponsible, weak, diseased, [penned]…in a cell…” (“Leopold & Loeb” par 57).  The depressing picture of “weak” and “diseased” children led members of the court to feel compassion, as he simultaneously transformed the murderers into sick victims. Darrow, in turn, used sympathy to his advantage.

Following his emotional appeal, the attorney shifted to guilt tripping his audience. This way, he dug deeper into their conscience. For instance, in 1926, he defended an African American indicted for the murder of a white man in self-defense. At one point, he criticized, “Would this case be in this court if these defendants were not black?…Would anybody be asking you to send a boy to prison…if his face wasn’t black?” (“People V. Henry Sweet” par 12). Undoubtedly, Darrow’s repetition of “would” was an anaphora. In other words, it served to emphasize the idea of racism. He attacked their conscience by questioning their fairness and convinced them the force of prejudice exists.

Darrow also explained the reason people despise criminals. He claimed, “They enjoy hating someone; and hating what they call a criminal makes them feel righteous” (“Cruelest Nation On Earth” 2). He directly attacked people for their superiority simply because they are not labeled as criminals.

He would often paint a graphic image to elicit fear from the jury, letting them know what horror would result in their guilty verdict.

The famous Scopes trial in 1925 was a perfect illustration of this tactic. Indicted for teaching evolution over religion, Scopes faced prison, but Darrow reversed his fate with simple but powerful words. He stated: “If today you can take…evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings…” (“Attorney for the Damned” 187).  This slippery slope was a logical fallacy, but its impact remained. He reminded his audience that the weight of their decision could transform a peaceful society into one of religious war, instilling a kind of fear in them.

Similarly, in the Loeb case, he cautioned, “You may hang these boys… but in doing it…you are making it harder for every other boy…” (“Leopold & Loeb” par 32). Again, Darrow warned the jury of the gravity of their decision. He used words like “maze” and “grope” to paint the boys as “blind” or unaware of their actions, which implied that they’re mentally ill. With this in mind, he told his audience that failing to consider their sickness would lead to a disadvantage to all the sick defendants in the future. Ultimately, he touched on their sense of responsibility.

Finally, the orator ended most of his trials by trusting his jury to choose the path of virtue.

In the trial of the African-American defendant, in particular, Darrow closed with a plea to his audience. He pleaded them to be “strong enough, and honest enough” (“People V. Henry Sweet” par 11). He reminded them of human virtue and trusted them to lay aside racism as any “honest” being would do.

At the end of the Leopold case, Darrow implored that “by every law of humanity…by every feeling of righteousness… Your Honor should say that…it would be monstrous to visit upon them the vengeance that is asked…”(“Leopold & Loeb” par 211). He ended with a plea for mercy.

Ultimately, Clarence Darrow employed rational and emotional appeals, then dug into his audience’s conscience with guilt and fear, ending with a notion of trust. He demonstrated his impressive speech pattern in many of his trials, and he proved that rhetoric is, without a doubt, a powerful weapon in changing the fate of his defendants in court. With his effective method, Darrow pointed out that every story has two sides.

SOURCES

Closing Argument of Clarence Darrow in the Leopold & Loeb Case.”  N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2015. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html>.

Darrow, Clarence. “The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow.”Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.

“The Closing Speech of Clarence Darrow in the Henry Sweet Trial (1926).”  Ed. Bruce W. Frier. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sweet/darrowsummation.html>.

“The Most Cruel Nation On Earth.” Island Lantern (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.       <http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Island_lantern.pdf>.

Darrow, Clarence. “Attorney for the Damned.” Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.