1E9Ct5D

• I have never experimented with Christian Scientists; they are much tooserious for me. … You may defy all the rest of the rules if you can get aman who laughs. Few things in this world are of enough importance towarrant considering them seriously. So, by all means, choose a man wholaughs. A juror who laughs hates to find anyone guilty. Never take awealthy man on a jury. He will convict, unless the defendant is accused ofviolating the anti-trust law, selling worthless stocks or bonds, or somethingof that kind. …. If you are defending, you want imaginative individuals.You are not interested in the morals of the juror. If a man is instinctivelykind and sympathetic, take him.• Then, too, there are the women. These are now in the jury box. ….Womenstill take their new privilege seriously. They are all puffed up with theimportance of the part they feel they play, and are sure they represent agreat step forward in the world. They believe that the sex is co-operatingin a great cause. Like the rest of us, they do not know which way isforward and which is backward, or whether either one is any way at all.Luckily, as I feel, my services were almost over when women invaded thejury box. 45Darrow’s approach must have worked for him a century ago, but it may be difficult toimagine how it could work in a courtroom today. We may think the American meltingpot has blurred and combined our ancestries, religions, and even our genders. Butmaybe not. Religion continues to divide and unite us. A research poll by the Pew4545 Clarence Darrow, "How to Pick A Jury" (1936) (accessed on 12/06/2014 athttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/DAR_JURY.HTM).21