Leopold and Loeb Trial - The Clarence Darrow Collection

What we most feared was that if the State had any conception of our plan
they would bring up only one case at a time, saving a chance, if given a
life-sentence, to bring up the second case and, and as it were, catch us on
the rebound. We were conscious of the risk we were taking and
determined to take one chance instead of facing two. 74
The most important factor that led Darrow and the other members of the defense to
conclude their best choice was a guilty plea was the weight of evidence against them; this
included the confessions of the defendants and the great deal of evidence that
corroborated the confessions. But two other factors were important. First was the
overwhelming publicity the crime generated. The defense believed it simply could not
take a chance on a jury trial given the notoriety of the crime. The second factor was time:
the defense was not granted the delay it asked for. Even if they wanted to the try the case,
they did not think they had enough time to prepare.
So worried was Darrow and the defense about the prosecution getting word of their plan
that it was a closely guarded secret. Even Leopold and Loeb were not informed until just
before the trial was to start. In his autobiography, Leopold recounted that Darrow told
them he was worried that if they knew ahead of time, they might be overheard discussing
the plea or might even talk in their sleep.
Before the defense came to the conclusion that the case was hopeless, it did conduct some
investigations. A 2003 article includes this reference to the case: “My late uncle Jacob
Alschuler (University of Chicago Law School Class of 1927) recalled Darrow's visit to
the Jewish fraternity Zeta Beta Tau in search of character witnesses for his clients. Upon
ascertaining my uncle's opinion of Nathan Leopold, Darrow told him, ‘Obviously we
can't use you.’” 75
Shocking Pleas
The two sides were in Judge Caverly’s courtroom on Monday, July 21, 1924 for the
beginning of the trial. There was some speculation that the defense would change the
defendants’ pleas to guilty by reason of insanity. But at the beginning of what would have
been the trial of the century, Clarence Darrow addressed Judge Caverly:
Your Honor, we have determined to withdraw our pleas of not guilty and
enter pleas of guilty. We dislike to throw this burden upon this court or
any court. We know its seriousness and its gravity. And while we wish it
could be otherwise we feel that it must be as we have chosen. The statute
provides, your Honor, that evidence may be offered in mitigation of the
punishment, and we shall ask as such time as the court may direct that we
be permitted to offer evidence as to the mental condition of these young
men, to show the degree of responsibility they had, and also to offer
74 Id.
75 Albert W. Alschuler, Centennial Tribute Essay: The Changing Purpose of Criminal Punishment: A
Retrospective on the Past Century and Some Thoughts About the Next, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 1, 5 n. 22 (2003).
46