Ken Lewis Blog

Forty miles north of Chattanooga, U.S. 27 bypasses the small town of Dayton, Tennessee. If a driver exits U.S. 27 to take Business 27 into the four-block Dayton business district, that driver will find an elegant old 3-story brick courthouse with a two-story bell tower atop the main structure. Outside this courthouse entrance sits a life size bronze statute of William Jennings Bryan and in the basement is a museum. Both the statute and the museum honor the famous Scopes "monkey trial" that occurred in that very courthouse on Dayton's Main Street in 1925. Most people who enter the museum and bother to read the historical documents there are stunned to learn the "rest of the story" about this famous clash between trial lawyer titans William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow.

Almost everyone thinks that Dayton science teacher John Scopes was arrested for violating the Tennessee law (known as the Butler Law) passed earlier that year as part of William Jennings Bryan's national campaign to prohibit any teaching of evolution in public schools and that Clarence Darrow volunteered to defend him and that William Jennings Bryan volunteered to represent the State of Tennessee. The truth is different from the more dramatic story portrayed in the movie and play "Inherit the Wind."

The American Civil Liberties Union was advertising to represent any Tennessee teacher willing the challenge the new Tennessee anti-evolution law. A Dayton coal company manager named George Rappalyea arrived at Fred Robinson's drugstore with a copy of a newspaper with the ACLU ad in it and discussed it with a group of the local businessmen and community leaders. They decided that such a trial would be great for Dayton's rapidly dwindling business and population. Even the school superintendent thought it would help local business by drawing attention, media, supporters and opponents, and tourists to Dayton, where all visitors would spend money. Rappalyea approached John Scopes, a 24-year-old football coach and general science teacher, and asked if he taught evolution. Scopes said that it was in his state-mandated textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology, and his teaching plan, and consented to be a test case defendant. That was enough for Rappalyea to get his plan started and he organized both sides, getting charges filed against Scopes and recruiting famous volunteer legal teams for both sides. Several students were coached to carefully testify about Scopes teaching evolution in class. In reality, Scopes was not even present the days the evolution section was covered in class and the lesson was delivered by other teachers on staff at the school. Similar trials in larger Tennessee cities were set to start before the Scopes trial but the Dayton boosters got the date of their trial moved up so that none of the thunder would be stolen from Dayton. The storyline was Darrow defending his belief in free will and self-determination versus Bryan defending his belief in divine salvation, science versus faith, with Darrow proclaiming in opening statement: "Scopes isn't on trial, civilization is on trial," and Bryan countering: "If evolution wins, Christianity goes." At one point in the trial, a technical defect in the prosecution's case threatened a dimissal of the case and Darrow quickly made it clear that the defense did not want the case against his client dismissed on a technicality. Darrow wanted a Supreme Court reversal on constitutional grounds. Bryan actually took the witness stand himself to defend the truth of the Bible but was portrayed in the press as a "pitiable, punch-drunk warrior," a sad closing trial for the U.S. Senator and three-time presidential candidate. Six days after the trial, Bryan died in Dayton. Before his death, he was able to get a conviction from the jury and a $100 fine from the judge against Scopes but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the conviction on a technicality. A false case brought against an innocent volunteer to create publicity and business, using known false evidence, that became known as a landmark case. Clearly, a lot of self-serving manipulation and grandstanding was involved.

Do you think maybe the egos of the lawyers involved got in the way of ethics and responsibility to clients? When lawyers lose sight of what is best for clients or put their own publicity first in their professional lives, media interviews become prevalent. Why would any lawyer do this? Publicity from cases begats more legal business. Not many clients want their personal business all over newspapers and other media. Who do you think a lawyer should put first, the lawyer or the client?

Talk to you next time.

Ken Lewis