Eighty-three years ago today John Thomas Scopes, a 24-year-old football coach and substitute science teacher, was found guilty of violating Tennessee’s anti-evolution law in the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial.”

On July 21, 1925, the jury returned its verdict in a Dayton, Tenn. courtroom after a week-long trial that pitted religion and science — and two famous lawyers — against one another.

Scopes’ attorney, Clarence Darrow, argued that the Butler law — which prohibited teaching in public schools “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals” — was unconstitutional as it violated the freedom of religion.

William Jennings Bryan, known as a leader in the anti-evolution movement, prosecuted the case and — in an unusual twist —was at one point called by Darrow to testify as a biblical expert.

The verdict was eventually overturned on a technicality, and the Butler law was repealed in 1967.

Today, school boards continue to debate how students should be taught the origins of life. The latest proposal asks the state education board of Texas to include a discussion of the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in the curriculum.

In the “trial of century,” which lawyer would you have rooted for?

CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor

After reading about the disconcerting flesh-and-blood defense now being used by black defendants in Baltimore, another intriguing — and bit more credible — defense has caught my attention.

According to an AP story, several defendants in federal gun cases are now arguing that the recent Supreme Court decision overturning D.C.’s handgun ban allows convicted felons to keep loaded guns in their homes for self-defense.

Their defense lawyers argue that the decision makes federal laws prohibiting those convicted of felonies and domestic violence crimes from possessing handguns for any reason unconstitutional.

Do you think that the decision in D.C. v. Heller makes these blanket restrictions unconstitutional?

CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor

I could go a lot of ways with news that a federal appeals court has thrown out the $550,000 fine leveled by the Federal Communications Commission against CBS for Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show four years ago. (Quick aside: can you believe that was just four years ago? It feels more like 40 in the age of TMZ and leaked-sex-tape-as-career-advancer.)

But I’m going to stick with part of the case synopsis written by Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the opinion released today, on the theory that straightforward descriptions are better (and in many cases more entertaining) than prose:

The halftime show featured a variety of musical performances by contemporary recording artists, with Janet Jackson as the announced headlining act and Justin Timberlake as a “surprise guest” for the final minutes of the show. … He and Jackson performed his popular song ‘Rock Your Body’ as the show’s finale. …The performance ended with Timberlake singing, ‘gonna have you naked by the end of this song,’ and simultaneously tearing away part of Jackson’s bustier. … As a result, Jackson’s bare right breast was exposed on camera for nine-sixteenths of one second.

Scirica noted the exposure “caused a sensation,” which is probably an understatement. But he ruled the FCC’s response was an invalid departure from prior policy and unenforceable against CBS, calling the agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious.”

I hope the appeals court ruling means our nine-sixteenths-of-a-second national nipple nightmare is finally over.

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

Good morning! Here are some legal links for your rather warm Monday. Dontcha just love Maryland in July?

• For big firms, the question of whether or not to represent clients suing banks is getting more complicated.
• A law firm recruiter says it’s a bad idea for 2Ls to split their summer between two firms. If you already have, she has a few tips for making the most of the situation.
• Blonde Justice blogs about how criminal defendants’ online musings can come back to bite them in the buttocks. She links to this story (written by an old colleague of mine at our college paper) about a DUI defendant who, while the woman he hit struggled to recover, dressed as an inmate for Halloween. A photo wound up on Facebook and the prosecutor used it to portray the defendant as unremorseful.
• This Legal Antics post on what not to say after a car accident reminds me of the guy who rear-ended my husband and me a couple of years ago on the JFX. The first things out of his mouth were, “It’s all my fault. I only had a couple of beers. I was on my cell phone.”
• The Philadelphia Inquirer writes about law firms getting bigger and bigger. One executive partner says, “When I got out of law school [in 1978], it soon became apparent that the 50-lawyer all-purpose firm could not survive, then it became the 100-lawyer firm, and at this point it is very hard for the 200- to 300-lawyer firm to prosper.” Hat tip: Above the Law.

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Casting call: J.D.’s who can play or sing in key.

Although we could not include every musical magistrate and lilting lawyer in today’s story on lawyer bands, it’s apparent that many members of the Maryland bar devote significant out-of-the office energy to their strumming, drumming, or humming.

Like Annapolis attorney Robert D. Klein, who grew up down the street from Jane Santoni of The Objections, writes his own songs and plays in Breathless, a rock-n-roll cover band made up (mostly) of medical professionals.

Unlike R. Kelly in court last month, we (think) we would like to hear your sound. So send mp3’s, YouTube clips, or even photos of you performing — along with a note giving us permission to post it to our site — and we’ll put it up here for all to behold.

BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

* Foreign-born lawyers may have an advantage in landing clients in their own ethnic communities, but there’s a downside, too. Miss a phone call or lose a case, and, as one lawyer says, “It’s not just one person who’s unhappy. It’s potentially 50 people who are not going to go to me.” Read more in “An Ethnic Niche.”

* The Objections. The Mighty, Mighty Barristers. The Contemptations. The Appealables. Who knew that so many folks who owe their living to conflict could be so big on harmony? Read “Keeping their day jobs,” see a video of the Objections, hear a clip from Badabing Blues, and by all means, blog about these or other lawyer bands.

* In the news, a lawyer for Annapolis-based Core Communications talks about its seven-year battle against the FCC and the most recent blistering opinion by the D.C. Circuit; the Court of Special Appeals gives neighbors a partial win in their ongoing fight against a “quad” housing complex near the Johns Hopkins University; and the 4th Circuit’s Hatfill decision gets mixed reviews.

* In Verdicts & Settlements, Brendan Kearney reports on a homeowner who won $13,000 in a subprime mortgage case, along with $17,000 in attorneys’ fees.

* In “My First…,” prosecutor Adam Lippe remembers a domestic violence client who came back years later and apologized for not implicating her boyfriend in his trial for abuse.

PLUS: An Interrogatory on the most important SCOTUS decision of the term…Andy Baida wraps up his brief-writing checklist… Briefs and Week in Review…Our weekly Law Digest and 14 case summaries from the Court of Special Appeals and 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

You can let us know how you like these stories, or suggest other topics, by responding to this post.

Thanks,

BARBARA GRZINCIC, Mananging Editor/Law