• • •

In the closing argument, the lawyer ideally gives the performance that wins the hearts and minds of the jury.

Until now, only the actual jurors of famous cases were able to truly appreciate the virtuoso performance. After weeks of testimony presented with flair, wit and high drama, the case is concluded.

The authors researched court archives and court transcripts of these famous cases. Readers can now lose themselves in the summations of America's finest litigators.

Clarence Darrow was retained in 1911 by the McNamara brothers, who were charged with murder. The brothers were controversial members of the labor union movement. One of them ignited dynamite under the Los Angeles Times building where several people died.

Both entered guilty pleas shortly before their trial began. Subsequently, Darrow was charged with attempting to bribe jurors, a charge based on the testimony of his lead investigator, Bert Franklin.

The matter went to trial and the prosecution's case against Darrow was very strong. After three weeks of trial, he started his close at 2:22 p.m. in August 1912.

Darrow's argument lasted eight hours, leaving his jury spellbound. Developing his central theme quickly, then repeating it throughout summation.

He was able to shift the focus of the trial from a fact-based legal argument, where he was vulnerable, to more of an emotional-based perspective. He prided himself on his ability to speak in plain terms by creating clear mental anchors.

Darrow's theme was that he was a victim of a corrupt social and criminal system. Interweaving case facts into his themes wherever possible, he portrayed himself as a victim.

“I am on trial because I have been a lover of the poor, a friend of the oppressed, because I have stood by labor for all these years, and have brought down upon my head the wrath of the criminal interest of this country.”

Darrow described himself as a smaller player caught up in a larger maelstrom of the growing labor movement. If the jurors were to convict him, they would be damning the entire labor cause.

Darrow advocated the right issue and seized the high ground to wage war. He connected with jurors by saying, “I am a stranger in a strange land, 2000 miles from home and friends...” These words paint him as a righteous warrior battling the forces of evil in a distant place.

Finally, Darrow argues, “if you haven't made three or four enemies, gentlemen, you have lived a very weak and useless life.” Throughout his closing, he never used a word that might have been above his audience. He truly spoke with his jurors as equals.

Darrow proclaimed that his case was not about bribery, and he chided the many witnesses who were given immunity. No jury in the country could dare convict him based upon the modest evidence, he said. There were more serious crimes to fight than this piddly one.

Darrow concluded that he needed a vacation, but the penitentiary was not the type of vacation he had in mind. “If government can do this, who is next?” he pondered aloud, warning the jurors that they could be next.

“I have taken the cards as they came. I have tried to play them honestly, manfully, doing for myself and for my fellow man the best I could, and I will play the game to the end, whatever the end may be.”

Darrow came to Los Angeles as a stranger, and he was willing to leave the fate of his future in their hands. He admitted to “not being perfect and that he felt the heart beat of every man who ever lived.”

Darrow's approach to closing argument had little to do with truth and logic. He didn't slow down for factual details but spoke of the larger issues involving the poor, the oppressed and the working man. He placed himself among those who fought the oppressors.

Darrow was acquitted of the charge, although contemporaries assumed he was guilty.

If you want to understand the arguments of the great ones, I suggest you study this book. Remember when it comes to winning a case, it's not what you say, and it's not what you do. It's how you make jurors feel.

• • •