Response To Clarence Darrow Essays - Clarence Darrow, Determinists

Response To Clarence Darrow: Response to Clarence Darrow: Organization and Development of Arguments in Response to Darrows Henry Sweet and Leopold and Loeb Cases In responding to Clarence Darrows arguments in the Henry Sweet case and in the Leopold and Loeb case, there are some considerations that would have to be addressed in the same manner in both cases. The cases however, differ in many ways that would result in very different responses to the cases. An advocate opposing Darrow would face two factors described above. First, simply opposing Darrow creates some necessary response by the advocate, covered by those arguments that remain constant in the two cases. Second, individual aspects of each case dictate specific response by an advocate, which is covered by those arguments that differ in each case. Opposing Darrow would be a daunting task for any attorney, but winning a case against him would not be impossible if the advocate minds both his opponent and his argument. General Response to Darrow: In responding to Darrow generally, there are a number of things that an advocate would have to keep in mind. The advocate would have to be aware of his own presence in the courtroom and how that plays against Darrows, factors in the case would likely play into this as well. The advocate should show respect for Darrow. He should further point out the aspects of Darrows arguments as to neutralize them. In any trial, and especially any trial against Darrow, it is important to examine the presence that the advocate opposing Darrow has and mold it so that it can stand up to his or use an attorney who does have a presence that can stand up to Darrows if possible. This point will be covered more in relation to each individual case. In addressing his opponent, an advocate facing Darrow would do best to recognize Darrows prowess. This should be done early, but carefully. It should be done largely through simple respect for, but not deference to, Darrow. While recognizing Darrows skill, it is important not to place the opposing attorney in a subservient position. The opposing attorney does not want to diminish his own prowess. Taking an aggressive stance against Darrow personally is not likely to yield results, as he is skilled enough to turn that aggression against the aggressor. Beyond a generally respect full attitude towards Darrow, the opposing advocate would have to acknowledge his skill in argumentation. That is the advocate should not just ignore Darrows arguments and proceed on the weight of his own. It is important for the advocate to expose Darrows arguments and respond to them. This should be done in a manner that points out the arguments being made and responds to them, but does not degrade Darrow himself. Undertaking such a task would not only be difficult, it would be tempting to use a bland list type format, taking on Darrows points one by one. This type of response must be avoided. In contrast with Darrow, this type of response would be ineffective. Any response lacking a compelling pathos will fail against Darrow. Responding to Darrow in the Leopold and Loeb Case: The first issue to be addressed in the Leopold and Loeb Case is who should represent the state. This case is being in an unusually manner; Not only is it being tried in front of a judge, but it is only the sentencing phase, with the defense already stipulating the guilt of the defendants. For these reasons, as well as the fact pattern and the possibility of the death sentence, this case is somewhat intellectual. It is a case that needs an advocate that presents himself as wise, not just smart. The state is attempting to put two young men to death and the judge will want to see more than a zealous prosecution and black letter law; wisdom or the appearance of would help the prosecution. For this reason I would not recommend that someone like me, young, female, try this case for the prosecution, especially in 1924. The prosecution would want to present someone who had a strong presence in the courtroom that conveyed confidence, but not over zealousness. Or whats better they would like t o present someone who was