Editing Clarence Darrow (section)

==Legal career==

Following his departure from the University of Michigan Law School in late 1879 Darrow moved to the small village of [[Harvard, Illinois]], with his classmate L.H. Stafford, who was from Harvard.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 12, 1888 |title=Clarence Darrow will be remembered by many of our readers as the young gentleman who opened a law office |url=https://harvarddiggins.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=darrow&i=f&d=01011867-12311986&m=between&ord=k1&fn=harvard_herald_usa_illinois_harvard_18881012_english_3&df=1&dt=6 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241130100408/https://harvarddiggins.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=darrow&i=f&d=01011867-12311986&m=between&ord=k1&fn=harvard_herald_usa_illinois_harvard_18881012_english_3&df=1&dt=6 |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 30, 2024 |access-date=2023-10-25 |website=harvarddiggins.advantage-preservation.com |publisher=Harvard Herald}}</ref> It is in the [[Old McHenry County Courthouse|McHenry County Courthouse]] that Darrow successfully tried one of his first cases<ref>{{Cite web |title=January 24 1880 {{!}} C.S. Darrow Wins Case at Courthouse · Woodstock Public Library Archives |url=https://woodstockpubliclibraryarchives.omeka.net/items/show/1226 |access-date=2023-10-25 |website=woodstockpubliclibraryarchives.omeka.net}}</ref> in January 1880. Soon after Darrow decided to return to Ohio and opened a law office in [[Andover, Ohio]], a small farming town just {{convert|10|mi|km|sp=us|abbr=off|spell=in}} from Kinsman. Having little experience, he started off slowly and gradually built up his career by dealing with the everyday complaints and problems of a farming community. After two years Darrow felt he was ready to take on new and different cases and moved his practice to [[Ashtabula, Ohio]], which had a population of 5,000 people and was the largest city in the county.<ref name="Darrow 1932"/> There he became involved in Democratic Party politics and served as the town counsel.

In 1880, he married Jessie Ohl, and eight years later he moved to Chicago with his wife and young son, Paul. He did not have much business when he first moved to Chicago, and spent as little as possible. He joined the Henry George Club and made some friends and connections in the city. Being part of the club also gave him an opportunity to speak for the Democratic Party on the upcoming election. He slowly made a name for himself through these speeches, eventually earning the standing to speak in whatever hall he liked. He was offered work as an attorney for the city of Chicago. Darrow worked in the city law department for two years when he resigned and took a position as a lawyer at the [[Chicago and North Western Transportation Company|Chicago and North-Western Railway Company]]<ref name="Darrow 1932"/>in 1891.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=UY0pAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA154.w.160.0.0&hl=en | title=Yesterday and Today: A History of the Chicago and North Western Railway System | date=1910 | publisher=Winship Company, Printers }}</ref> In 1894, Darrow represented [[Eugene V. Debs]], the leader of the [[American Railway Union]], who was prosecuted by the federal government for leading the [[Pullman Strike]] of 1894. Darrow severed his ties with the railroad to represent Debs, making a financial sacrifice. He saved Debs in one trial but could not keep him from being jailed in another.

Also in 1894, Darrow took on the first murder case of his career, defending [[Patrick Eugene Prendergast]], the "mentally deranged drifter" who had confessed to murdering Chicago mayor [[Carter Harrison III]]<ref name="answers.com">[http://www.answers.com/topic/clarence-darrow Clarence Darrow: Biography and Much More from Answers.com<!-- bot-generated title -->] at http://www.answers.com</ref> Darrow's insanity defense of Prendergast failed and he was executed. Among fifty defenses in murder cases in Darrow's career, the Prendergast case was the only one that resulted in an execution, though Darrow did not join the defense team until after Prendergast's conviction, in an effort to spare him the noose.<ref name="answers.com"/>

===From corporate lawyer to labor lawyer===

Darrow soon became one of America's leading labor attorneys. He helped organize the [[People's Party (United States)|Populist Party]] in Illinois and then ran for U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1895 but lost to [[Hugh R. Belknap]]. In 1897, his marriage to Jessie Ohl ended in divorce. He joined the [[American Anti-Imperialist League|Anti-Imperialist League]] in 1898 in opposition to the [[Governor-General of the Philippines#United States Military Government (1898–1901)|U.S. annexation of the Philippines]]. He represented the woodworkers of Wisconsin in a notable case in Oshkosh in 1898 and the [[United Mine Workers of America|United Mine Workers]] in Pennsylvania in the [[coal strike of 1902|great anthracite coal strike of 1902]]. He flirted with the idea of running for mayor of Chicago in 1903 but ultimately decided against it. The following year, in July, Darrow married Ruby Hammerstrom, a young Chicago journalist.<ref>Passport application, accessed through familysearch.org</ref> His former mentor, Governor [[John Peter Altgeld]], joined Darrow's firm following his Chicago mayoral electoral defeat in 1899 and worked with Darrow until his death in 1902.<ref name="Stone 1919">{{Cite book |last=Stone |first=Irving |url=http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.462663 |title=Darrow For The Defence |date=1919}}</ref> From 1903 to 1911, Darrow was partners in the firm of Darrow, Masters and Wilson with [[Edgar Lee Masters]], who later became a famous poet, and [[Francis S. Wilson]], who later served as Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Association |first=American Bar |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C_SGU6gJEgIC&dq=%22darrow%2C+masters+and+wilson%22&pg=PA1084 |title=ABA Journal |date=July 1979 |publisher=American Bar Association }}</ref><ref name="Stone 1919"/>

[[File:ClarenceDarrow1902.PNG|thumb|Clarence Darrow in 1902<ref>{{cite web|last1=Donovan|first1=Henry|title=Chicago Eagle|url=http://idnc.library.illinois.edu/cgi-bin/illinois?a=d&d=CHE19021220&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------#|website=Illinois Digital Newspaper Collections|access-date=July 2, 2015}}</ref>]]
From 1906 to 1908, Darrow represented the [[Western Federation of Miners]] leaders [[William "Big Bill" Haywood]], [[Charles Moyer]], and [[George Pettibone]] when they were arrested and charged with conspiring to murder former Idaho Governor [[Frank Steunenberg]] in 1905. Haywood and Pettibone were acquitted in separate trials, and the charges against Moyer were then dropped.{{citation needed|date = July 2021}}

In 1911, the [[American Federation of Labor]] (AFL) called on Darrow to defend the [[McNamara brothers]], John and James, who were charged in the [[Los Angeles Times bombing|''Los Angeles Times'' bombing]] on October 1, 1910, during the bitter struggle over the [[open shop]] in Southern California. The bomb had been placed in an alley behind the building, and although the explosion itself did not bring the building down, it ignited nearby ink barrels and natural gas main lines. In the ensuing fire, 20 people were killed. The AFL appealed to local, state, regional and national unions to donate 25 cents per capita to the defense fund, and set up defense committees in larger cities throughout the nation to accept donations.{{citation needed|date = July 2021}}

In the weeks before the jury was seated, Darrow became increasingly concerned about the outcome of the trial and began negotiations for a plea bargain to spare the defendants' lives. During the weekend of November 19–20, 1911, he discussed with pro-labor journalist [[Lincoln Steffens]] and newspaper publisher [[E.W. Scripps]] the possibility of reaching out to the ''Times'' about the terms of a plea agreement. The prosecution had demands of its own, however, including an admission of guilt in open court and longer sentences than the defense proposed.<ref name="Darrow">Darrow, Clarence. ''The Story of My Life'', 1932. [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500951h.html Project Guttenberg.]</ref><ref name="Foner">Foner, Phillip S. ''History of the Labor Movement in the United States: The AFL in the Progressive Era, 1910–1915'', 1980.</ref>

The defense's position weakened when, on November 28, Darrow was accused of orchestrating to bribe a prospective juror. The juror reported the offer to police, who set up a sting and observed the defense team's chief investigator, Bert Franklin, delivering $4,000 to the juror two blocks away from Darrow's office. After making payment, Franklin walked one block in the direction of Darrow's office before being arrested right in front of Darrow himself, who had just walked to that very intersection after receiving a phone call in his office. With Darrow himself on the verge of being discredited, the defense's hope for a simple plea agreement ended.<ref name="Farrell">Farrell, John A. "[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Clarence-Darrow-Jury-Tamperer.html Darrow in the Dock] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121011202214/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Clarence-Darrow-Jury-Tamperer.html |date=October 11, 2012 }}". ''Smithsonian Magazine'', December 2011, Volume 42, Number 8, pp. 98–111.</ref><ref name="Cowan">Cowan, ''The People v. Clarence Darrow: The Bribery Trial of America's Greatest Lawyer'', 1994</ref> On December 1, 1911, the McNamara brothers changed their pleas to guilty, in open court. The plea bargain Darrow helped arrange earned John fifteen years and James life imprisonment. Despite sparing the brothers the death penalty, Darrow was accused by many in organized labor of selling the movement out.{{citation needed|date = July 2021}}

====From defense lawyer to defendant====
Two months later, Darrow was charged with two counts of attempting to bribe jurors in both cases. He faced two lengthy trials. In the first, defended by [[Earl Rogers]], he was acquitted. Rogers became ill during the second trial and rarely came to court.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cowan|first=Geoffrey|title=The People V. Clarence Darrow: The Bribery Trial of America's Greatest Lawyer|year=1993|publisher=Random House|location=New York}}</ref> Darrow served as his own attorney for the remainder of the trial, which ended with a [[hung jury]]. A deal was struck in which the district attorney agreed not to retry Darrow if he promised not to practice law again in California.<ref>see in "Clarence Darrow: A Sentimental Rebel" by Arthur and Lila Weinberg.</ref> Darrow's early biographers, [[Irving Stone]] and Arthur and Lila Weinberg, asserted that he was not involved in the bribery conspiracy, but more recently, Geoffrey Cowan and John A. Farrell, with the help of new evidence, concluded that he almost certainly was.<ref name="Farrell" /><ref>Farrell, John A., "[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-darrow-jury-tamperer-109085/ Clarence Darrow: Jury Tamperer?]" ''Smithsonian Magazine,'' December  2011. Retrieved 22 December  2021.</ref> In the biography of Earl Rogers by his daughter [[Adela Rogers St. Johns|Adela]], she wrote: "I never had any doubts, even before one of my father's private conversations with Darrow included an admission of guilt to his lawyer."<ref>Adela Rogers St. Johns: ''Final Verdict'', (Doubleday, 1962) 457.</ref>

===From labor lawyer to criminal lawyer===

[[File:Clarence Darrow cph.3b31130.jpg|thumb|upright|Darrow in 1913]]

As a consequence of the bribery charges, most labor unions dropped Darrow from their list of preferred attorneys. This effectively put Darrow out of business as a labor lawyer, and he switched to civil and criminal cases. He took the latter because he had become convinced that the criminal justice system could ruin people's lives if they were not adequately represented.<ref name="Riggenbach">{{cite journal|last=Riggenbach|first=Jeff|title=Clarence Darrow on Freedom, Justice, and War |journal=Mises Daily |publisher=[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] |date=March 25, 2011|url=https://mises.org/daily/5147/Clarence-Darrow-on-Freedom-Justice-and-War}}</ref>

Throughout his career, Darrow devoted himself to opposing the [[capital punishment in the United States|death penalty]], which he felt to be in conflict with [[Humanitarianism|humanitarian]] progress. In more than 100 cases, only one of Darrow's clients was executed. He became renowned for moving juries and even judges to tears with his eloquence. Darrow had a keen intellect often hidden by his rumpled, unassuming appearance.{{citation needed|date = July 2021}}

A July 23, 1915, article in the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' describes Darrow's effort on behalf of J.H. Fox, an [[Evanston, Illinois]], landlord, to have Mary S. Brazelton committed to an insane asylum against the wishes of her family. Fox alleged that Brazelton owed him rent money, although other residents of Fox's boarding house testified to her sanity.{{citation needed|date = July 2021}}

===National renown===

====Leopold and Loeb====

In the summer of 1924, Darrow took on the case of Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb, the teenage sons of two wealthy Chicago families who were accused of kidnapping and killing [[Bobby Franks]], a 14-year-old boy, from their stylish southside [[Kenwood, Chicago|Kenwood]] neighborhood. Leopold was a law student at the [[University of Chicago]] about to transfer to [[Harvard Law School]], and Loeb was the youngest graduate ever from the University of Michigan; they were 19 and 18, respectively, when they were arrested.<ref name="Darrow 1932"/> When asked why they committed the crime, Leopold told his captors: "The thing that prompted Dick to want to do this thing and prompted me to want to do this thing was a sort of pure love of excitement ... the imaginary love of thrills, doing something different ... the satisfaction and the ego of putting something over."

Chicago newspapers labeled the case the "[[Trial of the Century]]"<ref>[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials5.htm JURIST – The Trial of Leopold and Loeb] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101103143040/http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials5.htm |date=November 3, 2010 }}, Prof. Douglas Linder. Retrieved November 2, 2010.</ref> and Americans around the country wondered what could drive the two young men, blessed with everything their society could offer, to commit such a depraved act. The killers had been arrested after a passing workman spotted the victim's body in an isolated nature preserve near the Indiana border just half a day after it was hidden, before they could collect a $10,000 ransom. Nearby were Leopold's eyeglasses with their distinctive, traceable frames, which he had dropped at the scene.

Leopold and Loeb made full confessions and took police on a hunt around Chicago to collect the evidence that would be used against them. The state's attorney told the press that he had a "hanging case" for sure. Darrow stunned the prosecution when he had his clients plead guilty in order to avoid a vengeance-minded jury and place the case before a judge. The trial, then, was actually a long sentencing hearing in which Darrow contended, with the help of expert testimony, that Leopold and Loeb were mentally diseased.

Darrow's closing argument lasted 12 hours. He repeatedly stressed the ages of the "boys" (before the Vietnam War, the age of majority was 21) and noted that "never had there been a case in Chicago where on a plea of guilty a boy under 21 had been sentenced to death." His plea was designed to soften the heart of Judge John Caverly, but also to mold public opinion, so that Caverly could follow precedent without too huge an uproar. Darrow succeeded. Caverly sentenced Leopold and Loeb to life in prison plus 99 years. Darrow's closing argument was published in several editions in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and was reissued at the time of his death.<ref name="Riggenbach" />

The Leopold and Loeb case raised, in a well-publicized trial, Darrow's lifelong contention that psychological, physical, and environmental influences — not a conscious choice between right and wrong — control human behavior. Darrow's psychiatric expert witnesses testified that both boys "were decidedly deficient in emotion". Darrow later argued that emotion is necessary for the decisions that people make. When someone tries to go against a certain law or custom that is forbidden, he wrote, he should feel a sense of revulsion. As neither Leopold nor Loeb had a working emotional system, they did not feel revolted.<ref name="Darrow 1932"/>

During the trial, the newspapers claimed that Darrow was presenting a "million dollar defense" for the two wealthy families. Many ordinary Americans were angered at his apparent greed. He had the families issue a statement insisting that there would be no large legal fees and that his fees would be determined by a committee composed of officers from the [[Chicago Bar Association]]. After trial, Darrow suggested $200,000 would be reasonable. After lengthy negotiations with the defendants' families, he ended up getting some $70,000 in gross fees, which, after expenses and taxes, netted Darrow $30,000, worth over $375,000 in 2016.<ref>''See'', A. Weinberg, ed., ''Attorney for the Damned'', pp. 17–18, n. 1 (Simon & Schuster, 1957)); Hulbert papers, Northwestern University.</ref>

====Scopes Trial====

[[File:Clarence S Darrow.jpg|thumb|right|Clarence Darrow {{Circa|1925}}]]

In 1925, Darrow defended [[John T. Scopes]] in the ''[[Scopes Trial|State of Tennessee v. Scopes]]'' trial. It has often been called the "Scopes Monkey Trial," a title popularized by author and journalist [[H. L. Mencken]]. The trial, which was deliberately staged to bring publicity to the issue at hand, pitted Darrow against [[William Jennings Bryan]] in a court case that tested Tennessee's [[Butler Act]], which had been passed on March 21, 1925. The act forbade the teaching of "the [[evolution|Evolution Theory]]" in any state-funded educational establishment. More broadly, it outlawed in state-funded schools (including universities) the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the [[creationism|Divine Creation]] of man as taught in the [[Bible]], and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm|title = Tennessee Anti-evolution Statute - UMKC School of Law}}</ref>

During the trial, Darrow requested that Bryan be called to the stand as an expert witness on the [[Bible]]. Over the other prosecutor's objection, Bryan agreed. Popular media{{citation needed|date=August 2018}} at the time portrayed the following exchange as the deciding factor that turned public opinion against Bryan in the trial:

<blockquote>
:Darrow: "You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
:Bryan: "Yes, sir; I have tried to.... But, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was a boy."
:Darrow: "Do you claim then that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
:Bryan: "I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people."
</blockquote>

<!--  Commented out: [[Image:scopes trial.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Clarence Darrow and [[William Jennings Bryan]] chat in court during the Scopes Trial.{{Deletable image-caption|date=March 2012}}]] -->
After about two hours, Judge [[John T. Raulston]] cut the questioning short and on the following morning ordered that the whole session (which in any case the jury had not witnessed) be expunged from the record, ruling that the testimony had no bearing on whether Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution. Scopes was found guilty and ordered to pay the minimum fine of $100.<ref>See Tenn. Const. art. VI, s. 14; see also, Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1926)</ref>

A year later, the [[Tennessee Supreme Court]] reversed the decision of the Dayton court on a procedural technicality — not on constitutional grounds, as Darrow had hoped. According to the court, the fine should have been set by the jury, not Raulston. Rather than send the case back for further action, however, the [[Tennessee Supreme Court]] dismissed the case. The court commented, "Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/scopes/id/157|title=Tennessee Supreme Court - Scopes Trial - Page 1}}</ref>

The event led to a change in public sentiment and an increased discourse on the creation claims of religious teachers versus those of secular scientists {{mdash}} i.e., [[creationism]] compared to [[evolutionism]] {{mdash}} that still exists. It also became popularized in a play based loosely on the trial, ''[[Inherit the Wind (play)|Inherit the Wind]]'', which has been adapted several times on film and television.<ref name=1960Film>{{AFI film|53192}}</ref><ref name=1988Film>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/18/arts/tv-weekend-inherit-the-wind-and-hot-paint.html |title=TV Weekend; 'Inherit the Wind' and 'Hot Paint' |first=John J. |last=O’Connor |date=March 18, 1988 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 18, 2022|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=1999Film>{{cite web |url=http://geoffgould.net/990330_inheritthewind.htm |title=Geoffrey Gould reports from the set of ''Inherit the Wind'' |website=jeffgould.net |access-date=February 18, 2022}}</ref>

====Ossian Sweet====
On September 9, 1925, a [[white people|white]] mob in Detroit attempted to drive a black family out of the home they had purchased in a white neighborhood. During the struggle, a white man was killed, and the eleven black people in the house were later arrested and charged with murder. [[Ossian Sweet]], a doctor, and three members of his family were brought to trial, and after an initial deadlock, Darrow argued to the [[all-white jury]]: "I insist that there is nothing but prejudice in this case; that if it was reversed and eleven white men had shot and killed a black man while protecting their home and their lives against a mob of blacks, nobody would have dreamed of having them indicted. They would have been given medals instead...."<ref>{{cite book|last=B. J.|first=Widick|title=Detroit: City of Race and Class Violence |edition=Revised|date=May 1, 1989|publisher=[[Wayne State University Press]]|location=Detroit, MI|page=8}}</ref>

Following a mistrial, it was agreed that each of the eleven defendants would be tried individually. Darrow, alongside Thomas Chawke, would first defend Ossian's brother Henry, who had confessed to firing the shot on Garland Street. Henry was found not guilty on grounds of [[Right of self-defense|self-defense]], and the prosecution determined to [[nolle prosequi|drop]] the charges on the remaining ten. The trials were presided over by [[Frank Murphy]], who went on to become [[Governor of Michigan]] and an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].<ref>*[[Kevin Boyle (historian)|Boyle, Kevin]], ''[[Arc of Justice]]: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights and Murder in the Jazz Age'' (Henry Holt & Company, New York: 2004) ([[National Book Award]] Winner) {{ISBN|978-0-8050-7933-3}}.</ref>

Darrow's closing statement, which lasted over seven hours, is seen as a landmark in the [[civil rights movement]] and was included in the book ''Speeches that Changed the World'' (given the name "I Believe in the Law of Love"). The two closing arguments of Clarence Darrow, from the first and second trials, show how he learned from the first trial and reshaped his remarks.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sweet/Summpage.html |title=Darrow's Summations in the Sweet Trials (1925 &1926) |publisher=Law.umkc.edu |date=May 11, 1926 |access-date=October 20, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100624025813/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/sweet/Summpage.html |archive-date=June 24, 2010 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

====Massie Trial====
The Scopes Trial and the Sweet trial were the last big cases that Darrow took on before he retired from full-time practice at the age of 68. He still took on a few cases such as the 1932 [[Massie Trial]] in Hawaii.

In his last headline-making case, the Massie Trial, Darrow, devastated by the [[Great Depression]], was hired by Eva Stotesbury, the wife of Darrow's old family friend [[Edward T. Stotesbury]], to come to the defense of [[Grace Fortescue]], Edward J. Lord, Deacon Jones, and Thomas Massie, Fortescue's son-in-law, who were accused of murdering [[Joseph Kahahawai]]. Kahahawai had been accused, along with four other men, of raping and beating [[Thalia Massie]], Thomas's wife and Fortescue's daughter; the resulting 1931 case ended in a hung jury (though the charges were later dropped and repeated investigation has shown them to be innocent). Enraged, Fortescue and Massie then orchestrated the murder of Kahahawai in order to extract a confession and were caught by police officers while transporting his dead body.

Darrow entered the racially charged atmosphere as the lawyer for the defendants. He reconstructed the case as a justified [[honor killing]] by Thomas Massie. Considered by ''[[The New York Times]]'' to be one of Darrow's three most compelling trials (along with the Scopes Trial and the Leopold and Loeb case), the case captivated the nation and most of America strongly supported the honor killing defense. In fact, the final defense arguments were transmitted to the mainland through a special radio hookup. In the end, the jury came back with a unanimous verdict of guilty, but on the lesser crime of manslaughter.<ref>David Stannard.[http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Oct/14/op/op03a.html "The Massie case: Injustice and courage"]. ''The Honolulu Advertiser'', October 14, 2001.</ref> As to Darrow's closing, one juror commented, "[h]e talked to us like a bunch of farmers. That stuff may go over big in the Middle West, but not here."<ref>{{cite book | last = Stannard | first = David E. | author-link = David Stannard | title = Honor Killing: Race, Rape, and Clarence Darrow's Spectacular Last Case | orig-year = First published 2005 | year = 2006 | publisher = Penguin Group | isbn = 978-0-14-303663-0 | page = 382}}</ref> Governor [[Lawrence Judd]] later commuted the sentences to one hour in his office.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://darrow.law.umn.edu/Clarence_Darrow_Timeline.pdf |title=Clarence Darrow Timeline of His Life and Legal Career |author=Michael Hannon |page=86 |access-date=February 3, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131008005846/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/Clarence_Darrow_Timeline.pdf |archive-date=October 8, 2013 }}</ref> Years later Deacon admitted to shooting Kahahawai;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Confession of the Killer of Joe Kahahawai, Deacon Jones |url=https://famous-trials.com/massie/302-jonesconfession |access-date=2025-03-09 |website=famous-trials.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Van Slingerland |first=Peter |title=Something Terrible Has Happened |publisher=Harper & Row |year=1966 |isbn= |edition=1 |location=New York |pages=316-322}}</ref> Kahahawai was found not guilty in a [[posthumous trial]].{{citation needed|date=June 2013}}<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dang |first=Marvin |date=August 11, 2006 |title=MOCK TRIAL ENDS WITH 'NOT GUILTY' VERDICT |url=https://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/11/op/FP608110334.html |access-date=March 9, 2025 |work=The Honolulu Advertiser}}</ref>