What do you think?
Rate this book
The People v. Clarence Darrow: The Bribery Trial of America's Greatest Lawyer
A recreation of Clarence Darrow's 1912 trial for jury tampering provides a study of the legal system in Los Angeles at the turn of the century and provides detailed portraits of the key personalities involved in the case
- GenresNonfictionCrimeHistory
546 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
109 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 27, 2012
In 1912 Clarence Darrow was indicted for bribery as a result of a sensational trial of John McNamara. Darrow was a mass of contradictions. He worked for companies as a lawyer, defending them against the working man, charging huge fees so he could take cases he truly believed in defending the working man against corporate power. He could be ruthless and often unethical, doing anything he believed necessary to win.
Darrow's childhood was devoid of love and affection as he remembered it. His agnostic and freethinking parents insisted their children attend church - his father had been to seminary - but rarely were the children praised, hugged or kissed, just a lot of puritanical rules. Whether because of this or not, Darrow grew up feeling enormous empathy for the less fortunate. "My sympathies always went out to the weak, the suffering and the poor. Not only could I put myself in the other person's place but I could not avoid doing so." This attitude surely lay behind his decision to take the McNamara case.
The defendant had been hired by union organizers in Los Angeles to place bombs at various sites in their fight to overcome a rigidly anti-union city. The publisher of the Los Angeles Times had spent a small fortune organizing the business leaders and they effectively controlled the labor market. McNamara was an expert, but he made several mistakes. He placed the bomb in an alley that was used to store barrels of highly inflammable ink. The resulting conflagration killed twenty people. He was distraught, as he had intended to cause only physical damage. He immediately went into hiding, but the Burns Detective Agency tracked him down.
Darrow did not want to take the case. He was getting tired, was looking forward to retirement, and he believed that McNamara was guilty. Samuel Gompers, head of the AFL, had to pull out all the stops by agreeing to a huge fee. He also threatened Darrow with the knowledge that if he did not take the case, Darrow would appear to be a traitor to the labor movement.
With Darrow's approval, the AFL began a public relations campaign trumpeting the innocence of McNamara and accusing Burns of manufacturing evidence. By doing so he put the credibility of the labor movement on trial with the defendants.
Darrow's old friend Erskine Wood did not approve of the tactics Darrow adopted. Wood believed truth was inseparable from the cause: acquittal achieved corruptly would send the message that violence works. Darrow, conversely, believed that educating the public was a primary goal of the trial, that the McNamaras were mere pawns in the struggle between capital and labor and since the prosecution had resorted to kidnaping, cajoling and coercion of witnesses, that the defense was obligated to adopt an equally aggressive posture.
The evidence against the McNamaras was overwhelming and Darrow knew it. So did Lincoln Steffans who helped negotiate a guilty plea that would spare the lives of the two. It is difficult to overestimate the impact the guilty plea had on the labor movement, which was thrown into turmoil. It changed to course of an election in Los Angeles resulting in the election of an administration unfavorable to labor and by the "time the smoke cleared, the events in Los Angeles had helped make the [labor movement:] a more conservative and mainstream organization."
Darrow, in the meantime, was in a precarious position as the evidence of his complicity in the subordination of jurors accumulated. He hired Earl Rogers, an extraordinary character, to defend him. Rogers was a spectacularly successful defense lawyer who would use any number of theatrical and devious devices to win the case. One of his favorites was to use a lorgnette as a prop to distract the jury. He would peer intently at a hostile witness through the glasses, then spin them around at the end of a long ribbon finally flying them neatly into a breast pocket. He never missed. He specialized in defending people he knew were guilty. As Darrow was famous for his bending the rules in defense of ideals, so was Rogers notorious for his zeal in defense of the less savory.
The irony is that Rogers did not win the case; it was Darrow who, in the most stirring oration of his career, convinced the jury to find him innocent.
Darrow's childhood was devoid of love and affection as he remembered it. His agnostic and freethinking parents insisted their children attend church - his father had been to seminary - but rarely were the children praised, hugged or kissed, just a lot of puritanical rules. Whether because of this or not, Darrow grew up feeling enormous empathy for the less fortunate. "My sympathies always went out to the weak, the suffering and the poor. Not only could I put myself in the other person's place but I could not avoid doing so." This attitude surely lay behind his decision to take the McNamara case.
The defendant had been hired by union organizers in Los Angeles to place bombs at various sites in their fight to overcome a rigidly anti-union city. The publisher of the Los Angeles Times had spent a small fortune organizing the business leaders and they effectively controlled the labor market. McNamara was an expert, but he made several mistakes. He placed the bomb in an alley that was used to store barrels of highly inflammable ink. The resulting conflagration killed twenty people. He was distraught, as he had intended to cause only physical damage. He immediately went into hiding, but the Burns Detective Agency tracked him down.
Darrow did not want to take the case. He was getting tired, was looking forward to retirement, and he believed that McNamara was guilty. Samuel Gompers, head of the AFL, had to pull out all the stops by agreeing to a huge fee. He also threatened Darrow with the knowledge that if he did not take the case, Darrow would appear to be a traitor to the labor movement.
With Darrow's approval, the AFL began a public relations campaign trumpeting the innocence of McNamara and accusing Burns of manufacturing evidence. By doing so he put the credibility of the labor movement on trial with the defendants.
Darrow's old friend Erskine Wood did not approve of the tactics Darrow adopted. Wood believed truth was inseparable from the cause: acquittal achieved corruptly would send the message that violence works. Darrow, conversely, believed that educating the public was a primary goal of the trial, that the McNamaras were mere pawns in the struggle between capital and labor and since the prosecution had resorted to kidnaping, cajoling and coercion of witnesses, that the defense was obligated to adopt an equally aggressive posture.
The evidence against the McNamaras was overwhelming and Darrow knew it. So did Lincoln Steffans who helped negotiate a guilty plea that would spare the lives of the two. It is difficult to overestimate the impact the guilty plea had on the labor movement, which was thrown into turmoil. It changed to course of an election in Los Angeles resulting in the election of an administration unfavorable to labor and by the "time the smoke cleared, the events in Los Angeles had helped make the [labor movement:] a more conservative and mainstream organization."
Darrow, in the meantime, was in a precarious position as the evidence of his complicity in the subordination of jurors accumulated. He hired Earl Rogers, an extraordinary character, to defend him. Rogers was a spectacularly successful defense lawyer who would use any number of theatrical and devious devices to win the case. One of his favorites was to use a lorgnette as a prop to distract the jury. He would peer intently at a hostile witness through the glasses, then spin them around at the end of a long ribbon finally flying them neatly into a breast pocket. He never missed. He specialized in defending people he knew were guilty. As Darrow was famous for his bending the rules in defense of ideals, so was Rogers notorious for his zeal in defense of the less savory.
The irony is that Rogers did not win the case; it was Darrow who, in the most stirring oration of his career, convinced the jury to find him innocent.
August 27, 2007
am a criminal defense lawyer by profession, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I didn't go to law school with that thought in mind- far from it- I pictured myself as some kind of corporate lawyer- frankly, when I decided to attend law school in the first place I anticipated "selling out"- but no one wanted to "buy" me, so I drifted into criminal defense, and was fortunate to find a kind of law for which I possess the perfect temperment and apitude. And to think- I had no idea until I'd actually been practicing for over a year before.
Sometimes I have conversations with people that involve some variant of the question, "How can you defend people if you know they're guilty?" My answer: It's called a judicial system, asshole- and defense lawyers are a critical part of that system. I have clients, my job is to represent them. That's how the system works. If you don't understand that concept- you are a Nancy Grace fan.
Clarence Darrow is one of America's most famous defense attorney. Who can forget the Scopes Monkey Trial- the basis for the book/movie "Inherit the Wind"? Leopold and Loeb? Darrow was the epitome of the "folksy country lawyer". He came up from humble roots and scored big in Chicago- working first for labor, then for corporations, boning Settlment House workers, pompously pontificating, etc. Darrow was a very modern figure- a celebrity who relished his fame and embraced the moral ambiguity of being a leftist icon and a shill for emerging industrialists with lots of cash and plenty of legal action. Cowan hints that some of his darker um... tactics... were learned mid career after business opened up its wallet to him.
On October 1st, 1910- a couple of labor activist blew up the Los Angeles Times Building in downtown Los Angeles. Even the events before Darrow's entrance on the scene were dramatic- cross country train enabled kidnapping, the involvement of San Francisco labor leaders, Theodore Roosvelt, William Howard Taft. The leaders of the American Labor Movement prevailed on Darrow to take up the defense of the two accused. The accused were brothers who were affiliated with the ultra violent sky scrapers union from new york city. They were players, they had people, they needed the best, and the best in the mind of America's labor movement- was Clarence Darrow.
He took the case, and almost instantly regretted it. The brothers were guilty, but try telling that to the labor movement! The McNamara brothers were believed to be innocent, but Darrow knew better. He responded by using tactics that he had used before- leaning on witnesses and, in fact, bribing jurors. I think it's quite fair to say that Darrow believed that the ends justified the means. He did what he had to do. He worked for powerful men. He knew how to get things done.
Unfortunately for Darrow, he was far from the easy corruption of Chicago and its immediate hinter land. He was in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles was ready to get Clarence Darrow. During the selection of the jury, Darrow's chief investigator was arrested in flagrante trying to bribe a witness (who was cooperating with the authorities at the time). What's more, Darrow was standing right there when the arrest went down! Bummer.
Sometimes I have conversations with people that involve some variant of the question, "How can you defend people if you know they're guilty?" My answer: It's called a judicial system, asshole- and defense lawyers are a critical part of that system. I have clients, my job is to represent them. That's how the system works. If you don't understand that concept- you are a Nancy Grace fan.
Clarence Darrow is one of America's most famous defense attorney. Who can forget the Scopes Monkey Trial- the basis for the book/movie "Inherit the Wind"? Leopold and Loeb? Darrow was the epitome of the "folksy country lawyer". He came up from humble roots and scored big in Chicago- working first for labor, then for corporations, boning Settlment House workers, pompously pontificating, etc. Darrow was a very modern figure- a celebrity who relished his fame and embraced the moral ambiguity of being a leftist icon and a shill for emerging industrialists with lots of cash and plenty of legal action. Cowan hints that some of his darker um... tactics... were learned mid career after business opened up its wallet to him.
On October 1st, 1910- a couple of labor activist blew up the Los Angeles Times Building in downtown Los Angeles. Even the events before Darrow's entrance on the scene were dramatic- cross country train enabled kidnapping, the involvement of San Francisco labor leaders, Theodore Roosvelt, William Howard Taft. The leaders of the American Labor Movement prevailed on Darrow to take up the defense of the two accused. The accused were brothers who were affiliated with the ultra violent sky scrapers union from new york city. They were players, they had people, they needed the best, and the best in the mind of America's labor movement- was Clarence Darrow.
He took the case, and almost instantly regretted it. The brothers were guilty, but try telling that to the labor movement! The McNamara brothers were believed to be innocent, but Darrow knew better. He responded by using tactics that he had used before- leaning on witnesses and, in fact, bribing jurors. I think it's quite fair to say that Darrow believed that the ends justified the means. He did what he had to do. He worked for powerful men. He knew how to get things done.
Unfortunately for Darrow, he was far from the easy corruption of Chicago and its immediate hinter land. He was in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles was ready to get Clarence Darrow. During the selection of the jury, Darrow's chief investigator was arrested in flagrante trying to bribe a witness (who was cooperating with the authorities at the time). What's more, Darrow was standing right there when the arrest went down! Bummer.
June 12, 2019
There is so much more involved in a criminal trial than the determination of guilt or innocence. All the power of society is brought to bear against the defendant who has to rely on his/her own funds. Bertrand Russell wisely said that there should be a department of government for the defense of the accused, as dedicated and well funded as is the prosecution by the state. He said that it is just as important to society to defend the innocent as it is to convict the guilty.
While it is assumed that a jury will decide a case on the basis of reason, we all know that reason is only one part of any case. Also involved is the impression made by the defendant, the judge and the lawyers for both sides. When the defendant is a famous person, that fame, that reputation plays a large part in the thinking of the jurors. What does the defendant represent?
Geoffrey Cowan spent years researching the record for this book and the result is a revealing look at a time, the teens of the 20th century, a place, Los Angeles as it was first exploding in population, and a man, Clarence Darrow, a heroic figure known for defending the little guy and organized labor against the assault from big business. Any one of these themes could make a good story. Woven together under Cowan's pen, the tale is enthralling.
Today, in 2019, with organized labor virtually powerless and big business in command not only of the workplace but of American government, it is hard to imagine what a threat unions presented to business 100 years ago and the warfare that took place between the two. Bombings of company property occurred not infrequently and pitched battles took place between private security forces such as the Pinkertons and union members, most famously at the Homestead works of Carnegie Steel and at the Pullman railroad car works near Chicago in the late 19th century.
In the early 1900's two brothers, the McNamaras, one a good looking, upstanding member of society and the other a scrawny suspicious looking guy, conducted bombings in the cause of organized labor. J.J., the socially accomplished one, made the arrangements and his brother Jim carried them out always with the intent of avoiding harm to people while maximizing the damage done to company property. It went very wrong when the offices of the Los Angeles Times were bombed, the bomb touched off barrels of printing press ink, half the building came down and many employees died.
Los Angeles was a company town, whereas San Francisco was a union town. The McNamara's were apprehended from evidence gathered after the bombing and the trial to be held in LA became a national sensation. Organized labor said the brothers were being framed, big business lead by the owner of the LA Times said they were guilty beyond doubt. Labor implored Clarence Darrow to take the case and against his better judgement he took the case, realizing at the start that the brothers were guilty but keeping his own council and having them plead not guilty.
The job was an impossible task for Darrow unless something underhanded such as bribing jurors could be done, and he goes with that. Cowan provides a fascinating story full of colorful characters as he follows the bribery attempt, even as labor unions nationwide are sending in money to support the defense in the belief that the brothers are innocent. It ends badly, the bribery is exposed and Darrow must change the plea to guilty with twists and turns I will leave you to discover. Feeling betrayed, labor turns hard against Darrow for his deceit.
The book is only half finished. Now Darrow's character is fully explored as he is brought up on bribery charges and falls into deepest despair. His close friends, wife and mistress do not desert him and famous muckraker Lincoln Steffens comes to his aid in desperately trying to head off a slam dunk conviction. What was good reading now becomes great reading.
The evidence of bribery is strong, yet the jury brings in an innocent verdict. A guilt party set free despite the evidence of the law being broken? Geoffrey Cowan on the basis of his research has no doubt Darrow was guilty and as the reader is given the evidence will find him/herself in agreement. The crime is that blatant.
A flamboyant lawyer, Earl Rogers, does an outstanding job of defending Darrow and Darrow himself steps in at the last to deliver the kind of eloquence that had built his national reputation, including in his oratory external matters that hovered like a dense overcast over the trial, leaving a packed courtroom in tears. We don't make such speakers these days.
If you get this book I promise you will enjoy the story from start to finish, yet another chapter from the treasure trove of Americana that you can be sure hardly a soul knows about today. I didn't. You be left pondering how the law should be interpreted and the meaning of extenuating circumstances.
While it is assumed that a jury will decide a case on the basis of reason, we all know that reason is only one part of any case. Also involved is the impression made by the defendant, the judge and the lawyers for both sides. When the defendant is a famous person, that fame, that reputation plays a large part in the thinking of the jurors. What does the defendant represent?
Geoffrey Cowan spent years researching the record for this book and the result is a revealing look at a time, the teens of the 20th century, a place, Los Angeles as it was first exploding in population, and a man, Clarence Darrow, a heroic figure known for defending the little guy and organized labor against the assault from big business. Any one of these themes could make a good story. Woven together under Cowan's pen, the tale is enthralling.
Today, in 2019, with organized labor virtually powerless and big business in command not only of the workplace but of American government, it is hard to imagine what a threat unions presented to business 100 years ago and the warfare that took place between the two. Bombings of company property occurred not infrequently and pitched battles took place between private security forces such as the Pinkertons and union members, most famously at the Homestead works of Carnegie Steel and at the Pullman railroad car works near Chicago in the late 19th century.
In the early 1900's two brothers, the McNamaras, one a good looking, upstanding member of society and the other a scrawny suspicious looking guy, conducted bombings in the cause of organized labor. J.J., the socially accomplished one, made the arrangements and his brother Jim carried them out always with the intent of avoiding harm to people while maximizing the damage done to company property. It went very wrong when the offices of the Los Angeles Times were bombed, the bomb touched off barrels of printing press ink, half the building came down and many employees died.
Los Angeles was a company town, whereas San Francisco was a union town. The McNamara's were apprehended from evidence gathered after the bombing and the trial to be held in LA became a national sensation. Organized labor said the brothers were being framed, big business lead by the owner of the LA Times said they were guilty beyond doubt. Labor implored Clarence Darrow to take the case and against his better judgement he took the case, realizing at the start that the brothers were guilty but keeping his own council and having them plead not guilty.
The job was an impossible task for Darrow unless something underhanded such as bribing jurors could be done, and he goes with that. Cowan provides a fascinating story full of colorful characters as he follows the bribery attempt, even as labor unions nationwide are sending in money to support the defense in the belief that the brothers are innocent. It ends badly, the bribery is exposed and Darrow must change the plea to guilty with twists and turns I will leave you to discover. Feeling betrayed, labor turns hard against Darrow for his deceit.
The book is only half finished. Now Darrow's character is fully explored as he is brought up on bribery charges and falls into deepest despair. His close friends, wife and mistress do not desert him and famous muckraker Lincoln Steffens comes to his aid in desperately trying to head off a slam dunk conviction. What was good reading now becomes great reading.
The evidence of bribery is strong, yet the jury brings in an innocent verdict. A guilt party set free despite the evidence of the law being broken? Geoffrey Cowan on the basis of his research has no doubt Darrow was guilty and as the reader is given the evidence will find him/herself in agreement. The crime is that blatant.
A flamboyant lawyer, Earl Rogers, does an outstanding job of defending Darrow and Darrow himself steps in at the last to deliver the kind of eloquence that had built his national reputation, including in his oratory external matters that hovered like a dense overcast over the trial, leaving a packed courtroom in tears. We don't make such speakers these days.
If you get this book I promise you will enjoy the story from start to finish, yet another chapter from the treasure trove of Americana that you can be sure hardly a soul knows about today. I didn't. You be left pondering how the law should be interpreted and the meaning of extenuating circumstances.
November 27, 2022
In the first half of the book there is a lot dealing with the unions at their beginning. Great history. I actually liked the part on the unions better than the actual trial of Darrow.
March 7, 2008
Clarence Darrow at the end of an illustrous career defends the McNamara brothers, two labor leaders (members of the Iron workers) who were accused of blowing up the Los Angeles Times and killing several workers--the LA Times was a right wing anti-labor paper in the early years of the 20th century. It was as celebrated a trial as Sacco and Venzetti would become 15 years later and organized labor smelled a frame up. The greatest lawyer of his day, Clarence Darrow was recruited to defend the brothers. Trouble was that the brothers were not innocent and Darrow cops a plea and gets life deflating the expectations of progressives everywhere. then in a strange twist, Darrow is tried for bribing several jurors and, according to this author, Darrow was guilty even though the jury failed to convict. The stroy is compelling, riveting, and the facts will suprise you.
March 19, 2016
A thoughtful, in-depth account of a dark time in the life of my one-time hero Clarence Darrow who, much to my chagrin, was willing to bend the rules to serve his clients' interest as well as his own.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews