Did Clarence Darrow bribe those jurors?

Listen to this article

It appears that this remarkable trial lawyer, noted for his mesmerizing eloquence in court and for defending controversial individuals, may have bribed two prospective jurors in the so-called McNamara case. Clarence Darrow denied this officially, but on occasion inferred the opposite, according to some who knew him, or studied the matter.

However, the facts remain unclear. Two criminal trials occurred with Darrow as defendant for bribery of two separate jurors. The first trial resulted in acquittal; the second, hung jury. Darrow testified in both trials and participated in his defense. In taking the witness stand, he denied the charges as he did in his autobiography, “The Story of My Life,” and elsewhere.

On Oct. 1, 1910, around 1 a.m., brothers John and James McNamara dynamited the Los Angeles Times building, killing 21 people. The McNamaras were staunch supporters of emerging labor unions, and The Times was a powerful supporter of big business.

Indictments followed, with the case symbolizing the fight between labor and capital. Retained by the unions was the most famous trial lawyer in the United States, Clarence Darrow. He traveled to Los Angeles from Chicago, where Darrow was partners with lawyer-poet Edgar Lee Masters (“The Spoon River Anthology”).

Darrow had engaged Detective Bert Franklin to coordinate jury selection for the trial. Prospective jury lists were available to counsel well in advance of trial. Jury selection was scheduled to begin at the end of September 1912.

On Nov. 28, 1911, while plea negotiations were underway, Franklin was arrested two blocks from Darrow’s office while attempting to give $4,000 to prospective juror George Lockwood. Darrow was observed approaching the scene. Another juror, Robert Bain, had been offered a bribe as well.

Lockwood had reported the meeting to the authorities; the arrest was planned to apprehend Franklin in the act. Darrow was suspected to have been involved. In court on December 1, 2011, the McNamaras entered guilty pleas. See, “Once Upon a Time in Los Angeles: The Trials of Earl Rogers,” Michael Lance Trope, 173-78 (2001).

Darrow was indicted on Jan. 29, 1912 for bribery in two separate cases. The first case involved Lockwood; the second, Bain. Darrow engaged Earl Rogers, also a prominent criminal defense lawyer, as counsel.

The first trial commenced May 12, 1912. It lasted three months. The prosecution called numerous witnesses who testified on firsthand knowledge that Darrow was directing payments of bribes. Darrow took the witness stand for days. He also presented a portion of closing argument.

His defenses included: denial of giving money to Franklin for bribery, saying he did so for office expenses; a lack of motive, as he was in the midst of plea negotiations; and testifying that although he was at the scene, he was walking to the socialist headquarters nearby. The jury acquitted!

The second trial commenced Jan. 13, 1913. It involved the bribe to Bain before the plea negotiations. A hung jury resulted, divided 8 to 4 for guilt. Thus, Darrow was able to return to Chicago, and cultivate a brighter future for himself with famous courtroom successes for his clients.

Range of opinions

Did Darrow actually bribe those jurors? We just don’t know. Two juries pondered the case. Neither found him guilty. But in civil cases, the standard for guilt is far different from “more likely than not,” or “clear and convincing.” We all know acquittal is not synonymous with not actually committing the act.

John A. Farrell, in “Clarence Darrow Attorney for the Dammed” (2011), believes Darrow is guilty. He points to communications by Darrow himself  My conscience refuses to reproach me…” (278) — and from others. A close friend wrote: “Bribing a juror to save a man’s life  … He wouldn’t hesitate…” (265) In a letter written to his brother, Darrow “did not claim innocence — only righteousness: ‘Can’t make myself feel guilty.’” (278) Many friends reached the same conclusion.

Geoffrey Cowen in “The People v. Clarence Darrow” (1974) also believed Darrow was guilty. Cowan writes: “The illegal and sometimes violent acts of his clients were justified by the importance of their cause, the purity of their purpose, and the power of their oppressors, by analogy his unorthodox legal strategies were given legitimacy by the abusive power of industry and Government.” (439)

On the other hand, another biographer believes him innocent. Judge Nelson Johnson (ret.), in “Darrow’s Nightmare: The Forgotten Story of America’s Most Famous Trial Lawyer” (2021), writes: “I am as fascinated and perplexed by the question as I was when I began my research for this book. At the end of the day, it is difficult to embrace the level of recklessness that would have been required for Darrow to place himself in such a predicament.” (334)

In conclusion, there is no certainty as to guilt or innocence, but abundant circumstantial evidence can lead to any conclusion desired. What do you think?

Paul Mark Sandler, trial lawyer and author, can be reached at [email protected].