For The Thrill Of It Part 11

The prosecution was delighted at the result. Robert Crowe was vindicated; his decision to put Wanderer on trial again might have backfired if Wanderer had escaped the death penalty a second time, but now Crowe was the hero of the moment. Crowe laughed and joked with reporters at the entrance to the Criminal Court Building. He puffed on a large cigar as he gave his comments to the press. "It's a great victory," Crowe exclaimed as he stood side by side with his a.s.sistant, Lloyd Heth. "Justice has been done and a great error has been corrected."43

CROWE'S SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF W WANDERER was an auspicious beginning to his career as state's attorney. Crowe, now one of Chicago's most prominent elected officials, had the responsibility for tackling the crime wave that so troubled Chicagoans during the early 1920s: if he succeeded, he might be the next mayor of Chicago; if he failed, he would be consigned to political oblivion. was an auspicious beginning to his career as state's attorney. Crowe, now one of Chicago's most prominent elected officials, had the responsibility for tackling the crime wave that so troubled Chicagoans during the early 1920s: if he succeeded, he might be the next mayor of Chicago; if he failed, he would be consigned to political oblivion.

Although Chicago was not the most dangerous city in the United States (both St. Louis and New York outranked it in per capita murders and a.s.saults), a series of gangland killings in 1920 had created a perception of the city as the epicenter of the crime wave that swept over the United States after World War I. Murder, robbery, rape, and a.s.sault seemed almost routine; and nothing better ill.u.s.trated the lawlessness of the United States than comparisons between Chicago and other American cities, on the one hand, and comparable cities in Canada and Europe. Thus Chicago, which recorded 352 murders in 1921, had a murder rate approximately fourteen times greater than that of Berlin; Los Angeles, with a population one-tenth that of London, recorded a greater number of murders than were committed in London; there were more murders in New York City in a single year than in Britain and France combined. Only a few hundred miles separated Cook County from Canada; yet the discrepancy in the crime figures was startling: twice as many burglaries, four times as many robberies, and four times as many murders were committed in Chicago as in the whole of Canada.44 What could be the cause of such an avalanche of crime? Was it a consequence of economic and social conditions: of poverty, unemployment, and inadequate housing? Was a high level of crime inevitable in a society divided so sharply between the wealthy and the impoverished? Crime was a result of socioeconomic circ.u.mstances, reformers argued, and until poverty was eliminated, the crime wave would continue.

Such sentiments had significant support within American society in the 1920s, yet the opposite viewpoint, that crime was less a consequence of impersonal forces and more a matter of free agency and deliberate choice, also had widespread backing. The murderer chose to kill his or her victim; crime was the result of a conscious decision, freely undertaken, and talk of determining circ.u.mstances served only to absolve the criminal of responsibility, to undermine the rule of law, and thus to make a bad situation worse.

Those who a.s.sumed that crime was the consequence of deliberate choice, malevolence, and evil intent recommended a stricter application of the law. Punishment was failing to deter only because it was not sufficiently stringent. Too few judges sentenced murderers to death; and too few death sentences were carried out. Unscrupulous and devious lawyers exploited loopholes in state const.i.tutions and criminal codes in order to save their clients from punishment. Delays in the courts and procedural inefficiency postponed trials for years and allowed criminals to escape punishment. The Eighteenth Amendment against the sale and manufacture of alcohol was widely disregarded, and in consequence contributed to indifference and apathy among the public toward crime and criminal behavior. The inadequacy of the police and the courts found its counterpart in the increased competence and organization of criminals. Professional criminals arranged burglary as one might organize a commercial business-they paid the police to look the other way; sent stolen goods, often ordered ahead of time, to fences in distant states; and, in the unlikely event of capture, colluded with professional fixers, including bondsmen and corrupt lawyers, to fix juries and spirit away witnesses.45 To solve such problems, it was necessary, according to those who believed in free agency, to enforce the law and to apply sufficient punishment to deter the criminal. Remove the loopholes in the law, restore morale in the police force and the judiciary, reestablish respect for the law among the general public, impose draconian sentences for wrongdoing-and crime and murder would stop. Punishment acted to deter, and just as soon as the criminal appreciated the increased probability of arrest and the disadvantages of a lengthy prison sentence, so at that moment the crime wave would subside.

The idea that impersonal forces had any bearing on crime was, to Robert Crowe, nonsense. Criminal behavior was no different from any other type of behavior, Crowe believed; it was freely decided on and deliberately chosen. To claim that impersonal forces compelled the criminal to act was tantamount to removing the concept of responsibility from the criminal justice system; it questioned the very foundations of the law. Crowe's att.i.tude toward deterministic theories of crime was contemptuous and dismissive-it was not even worth his time, he contended, to argue against such fallacious and erroneous notions.

And in any case, Crowe's political ambitions provided him with little reason to concede ground to a viewpoint that might be interpreted as offering leniency to criminals. He hoped to be mayor of Chicago, and he could best realize that ambition by demonstrating his competence and ability in fighting crime. He had limited resources-the state's attorney traditionally had just forty police officers at his disposal-but soon after taking office he began to use them against the spread of illegal gambling houses. "Gambling in Chicago must stop," Crowe announced in May 1921. "It does not matter whether it flourishes in cigar stores and the back rooms of saloons or in the society residence district; it must be driven out." Crowe's campaign against crime made good copy: each evening, Crowe's men would raid gambling dens, seizing dice tables, slot machines, roulette wheels, tally sheets, and racing handbooks. Most of the raids occurred in the Second Ward, in the area south of the Loop notorious for its black-and-tan cabaret clubs: the Dreamland at 3518 State Street, the Green Mill on the corner of 37th Street and Vernon Avenue, the Stopover on 35th Street, the Excelsior on Indiana Avenue, the Saratoga at 3445 State Street, and the Waiters' and Porters' Club at 3415 State Street. The journalists would follow behind-waiting patiently beside the patrol wagons as the police battered down the doors of pool rooms and gambling houses and filing their reports in time for the morning editions. Crowe zealously cultivated the reporters, feeding them inside information and anecdotes; the journalists repaid the favor, liberally quoting Crowe, praising his administration of the state's attorney's office, and supporting his initiatives.46 It was all calculated to win publicity in the media. It was more for show than for effect-how could Crowe's forty constables have any meaningful impact on crime in Chicago?-and Charles Fitzmorris, the chief of police, angrily denounced the state's attorney for interfering with the work of his own department. Fitzmorris had reason to feel aggrieved-the police under Crowe's command were technically on loan from the Chicago police department-and Fitzmorris moved to withdraw them from the state's attorney's office. But Fitzmorris himself was under attack for allowing corruption to spread within the police department-by his own admission, at least half of the men under his command were involved in the liquor trade-and he had little inclination to pursue a confrontation with the state's attorney over the inappropriate use of police resources.47 The crackdown on gambling emphasized Crowe's independence and integrity-his war on crime, no matter that it was essentially fleeting and transitory, could only redound to his credit. And it enabled him to lessen his dependence on Fred Lundin and the City Hall machine.

The Harding landslide in November 1920 had swept all of Lundin's candidates into office. Lundin's influence over Cook County politics had metastasized-supporters of City Hall now occupied every significant political position in the county. The City Council, fiercely independent before 1920, had begun to capitulate to the Lundin regime-one by one, the aldermen were throwing their support behind City Hall. And Lundin's reach even extended as far as Springfield; the new governor of Illinois, Len Small, was one of Lundin's closest allies.

Only the judiciary still retained its independence, but now it too came under attack. The courts in Cook County had traditionally been nonpartisan, beyond the reach of party or faction, but tradition was about to be swept aside, or so it seemed. The voters would go to the polls in June 1921 to elect judges to the Superior Court and the Circuit Court; if they pulled the Republican lever, they would elect a pro-Lundin slate that was unashamedly partisan.

But Lundin had taken a step too far. The courts were the last redoubt against the excesses of City Hall, a final bulwark against the hegemony of the Republican Party machine; if Lundin controlled the judiciary there would no longer be any hope of redress against corruption and thievery.

On 6 June the voters turned out en ma.s.se and elected a nonpartisan reform ticket-City Hall had lost. It was a stunning defeat for Lundin, his first setback in thirty years. The Chicago Daily Journal Chicago Daily Journal, the sole Democratic newspaper in a Republican city, crowed that "Napoleon Fred Lundin has met his Moscow. Whether this will be followed by a Waterloo remains to be seen; but just now the city hall cohorts are trekking back toward the Beresina with a chill in their hearts.... Will this be the beginning of the end of the Lundin-Thompson power?"48 Such a spectacular failure of the machine to elect its candidates was a sure sign that Lundin had lost his magical touch; a.s.sociation with City Hall might now be as much a liability as an advantage. Over the next eighteen months, Lundin's allies began to desert him, and his enemies became increasingly emboldened. Robert Crowe, now a powerful figure within the Republican Party, split with Lundin in February 1922. Crowe explained to the newspapers that Lundin had been interfering with his duties as state's attorney, but Crowe's departure was as much a bid for leaders.h.i.+p of the Republican Party as a sign of dissatisfaction with City Hall.

The decline of Lundin's influence, and the continuing factionalism among the dissident Republicans, provided the Democrats with a rare opportunity to take power. Alfred Lueder, a political novice whose previous experience in public office amounted to a single year as postmaster, was the compromise candidate for the Republicans in the mayoral election in April 1923. Lueder, by his own admission, was a hopeless public speaker who never could arouse much enthusiasm for his candidacy among the electorate. His Democratic opponent, William Dever, won the election convincingly, receiving almost 400,000 votes.49 Dever's victory was less a consequence of Republican disunity than an effect of the corruption scandals that had begun to bubble their way to the surface in 1922. The City Hall machine under Lundin's direction had siphoned millions of dollars from the munic.i.p.al budget. Corruption was rampant, and no single area of government had been more systematically despoiled than the public school system. The Board of Education had awarded contracts for school supplies to companies-often controlled by friends of Fred Lundin-that sold substandard, shoddy goods at wildly inflated prices. Why had the board paid the Hiawatha Phonograph Company almost $500,000 for 300 phonographs? Patrick H. Moynihan, a member of the City Council, was a part owner of the company-was there any connection? Why had the board spent an exorbitant amount, almost $1 million in 1920, for the purchase of coal? Why had the Apex Supply Company received an unauthorized contract to provide athletic equipment to the Chicago public schools? Edwin Davis, president of the Board of Education, was an uncle of Walter t.i.tzel, an owner of the company-had that relations.h.i.+p influenced the board's decision to award the contract?50 In May 1922 Robert Crowe presented indictments against William Bither, an attorney working for the Board of Education, accusing Bither of stealing rents derived from school property. Later that year, in August, Crowe indicted three more officials, on charges of conspiracy to defraud the school system. In September 1922, Crowe charged an additional ten officials with malfeasance and misconduct and conspiracy to defraud.51 Crowe had always hoped to connect Fred Lundin to the corruption scandal-with Lundin in the penitentiary, Crowe would face one less obstacle in his drive for the mayoralty-and early in 1923, Crowe announced the indictment of Lundin for conspiracy to defraud. The Board of Education had awarded a contract for steel doors for school buildings to the National Steel Door Company; was it a coincidence that Lundin was president of the National Steel Door Company?52 Crowe had enlisted Jacob Loeb, a former president of the Board of Education, as the star witness for the prosecution. Few families played as prominent a role in Chicago's Jewish community as the Loebs: Jacob Loeb had made his fortune as a young man as an insurance broker, and since 1912 he had been president of the Jewish People's Inst.i.tute; his brother, Albert, was vice president of Sears, Roebuck and a generous contributor to many Jewish charities. Jacob Loeb had been one of Lundin's victims-Lundin had engineered Loeb's removal from the Board of Education-and Loeb willingly agreed to Crowe's suggestion that he testify on the witness stand about the corruption of the public school system by City Hall.53

THE TRIAL OF F FRED L LUNDIN and fifteen codefendants in the Criminal Court began on 5 June 1923. The sixth-floor courtroom was packed; Lundin's friends and supporters had turned out en ma.s.se. Lundin himself, dressed in a black frock coat, a white s.h.i.+rt, and a black Windsor tie, sat near the front of the court, his legs stretched out before him, his thumbs in the pockets of his black waistcoat, looking relaxed and untroubled. Lundin had hired Clarence Darrow to defend him. Darrow sat by Lundin's side, reading silently to himself from a sheaf of papers on his lap, occasionally pausing to confer with one of the other defense lawyers seated to his right. and fifteen codefendants in the Criminal Court began on 5 June 1923. The sixth-floor courtroom was packed; Lundin's friends and supporters had turned out en ma.s.se. Lundin himself, dressed in a black frock coat, a white s.h.i.+rt, and a black Windsor tie, sat near the front of the court, his legs stretched out before him, his thumbs in the pockets of his black waistcoat, looking relaxed and untroubled. Lundin had hired Clarence Darrow to defend him. Darrow sat by Lundin's side, reading silently to himself from a sheaf of papers on his lap, occasionally pausing to confer with one of the other defense lawyers seated to his right.

The a.s.sistant attorney general, Marvin Barnhart, began his opening statement. Fred Lundin had conspired to appoint trustees to the Board of Education who would acquiesce in the theft of school funds. Lundin himself had profited directly in two instances. In the first, he had arranged for the school board to purchase insurance coverage for school buildings and property from Virtus Rohm & Company, despite a clear conflict of interest: Lundin was a founding partner and director of the firm. In the second, the Central Metallic Door Company, owned by Fred Lundin, had sold hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of doors and windows to the Board of Education through a noncompet.i.tive contract.54 Jacob Loeb took the stand on 7 June. Loeb testified that Lundin had badgered and threatened him to remove incorruptible trustees from the school board. Lundin had contempt for civil service laws, and he had eventually managed to fire those trustees who had refused to bend to his command, replacing them with his cronies. The Public School League, a public interest group that traditionally oversaw appointments to the school board, had protested against the new trustees, but to no effect. Lundin had been successful, Loeb admitted, in evading external supervision of his appointments, and after 1919, when Loeb himself had been removed from the Board of Education, the pilfering of school funds had begun in earnest.55 The trial continued through June and into July. The former mayor, William Thompson, interrupted a vacation in Hawaii to testify on behalf of his old friend and to excoriate Jacob Loeb as a "liar and a crook" who had wanted control of the Board of Education for his own purposes. And on 9 July, Lundin himself took the stand to deny everything. Yes, he replied in answer to a question from Clarence Darrow, he knew Jacob Loeb well, but he had never discussed appointments to the school board with Loeb or anyone else-he a.s.sumed that the mayor and the City Council dealt with such matters. And that insurance business? Darrow asked. Was there any truth to the allegations that he had sold insurance coverage to the school board? Lundin replied that he had lent a friend some money to start up an insurance firm in 1918, but Lundin himself had never made any money out of it and had had no interest in the firm-the transaction had been a loan to a friend, nothing more. What about the Metallic Steel Door Company, Darrow inquired? Had Lundin been connected with that business? Had he made any money from it? Lundin shook his head. "I had," Lundin testified, "nothing to do with selling. I sold my interest in the National Steel Door company in January 1922 to Blaine Thelin, my nephew. I received $5000. They owed me $20,000 and I took notes which I have since sold. I gave my stock in the Central Metallic company to t.i.tus Thelin, my nephew." His connection with the business had been purely pa.s.sive, he continued; he had had no knowledge of any sales to the Board of Education.56 Clarence Darrow, in his closing speech to the jury, pointed his finger at the prosecution as the real culprit in the case. The accusations against Fred Lundin-"one of the biggest, cruelest conspiracies I ever saw in a court of justice, a conspiracy to imprison a man whom they can't beat in open war"-had been cooked up by Lundin's political enemies in an attempt to send him to the penitentiary. Robert Crowe had dug and dug, looking for evidence to present before the grand jury, finally indicting Lundin for conspiracy; Jacob Loeb, like a lapdog, had tagged along behind Crowe, volunteering to testify on Lundin's supposed influence with the school board, and perjuring himself on the witness stand; and Edward Brundage, the attorney general, had coordinated the prosecution in the courtroom. Everyone knew that each man had an agenda: Crowe sought to become mayor of Chicago; Brundage hoped to be governor of Illinois; and Jacob Loeb looked to revenge himself against City Hall for his removal from the school board in 1919. Crowe and Brundage needed Fred Lundin out of the way for political reasons and, unable to defeat Lundin by fair means, they had resorted to criminal charges to get Lundin into the penitentiary.

The prosecution, Darrow sneered, had failed to find even one sc.r.a.p of evidence to convict his client. "There never was," he shouted, with ludicrous exaggeration, "a more infamous conspiracy against the liberties of men. Every law distorted, every fact magnified and lied about." Darrow turned to appeal to the jury, holding his hands palms upward, his eyes fixed on the twelve men sitting silently before him. "Gentlemen, they have given you quite a job. Loeb was on record and he had to stick to his story. Therefore we could show it a lie.... I have been long in the courts and have never heard such a baseless case brought against any citizen. If it were not a tragedy it would be a joke. What if Lundin did sell insurance and windows? You might as well indict Marshall Field & Co. for selling to the school board."57 It was a shameless performance, equal parts bombast and cynicism, by a demagogue who had long ago abandoned the principles that, in Darrow's youth, had earned him a progressive reputation. Darrow was a mesmerizing speaker who could cast a spell over any jury...but only if the jury-captivated by the cadence and inflection of his voice-could be lulled into forgetting the facts. Fred Lundin was a political fixer, a backroom operator, who had self-consciously organized the corruption of Chicago politics to a degree unequaled in the history of the city, but in Darrow's telling, he was one part saint, one part sage: "I have met many kinds of men and I will guarantee there is not one in 100,000 with his intelligence...his courage, independence, and truthfulness. He might be able to lie. I think he is too proud."

It was in vain that the prosecuting attorney, Hobart Young, in his summation, defended Jacob Loeb as "a man of good standing in this community" and showed again that gouging and price-fixing had become the normative behavior of the Board of Education. The jury deliberated for four and a half hours and acquitted Lundin and his codefendants on all charges.58 Lundin's acquittal was a consequence more of Clarence Darrow's guile than of an absence of evidence, according to an editorial in the Chicago Daily Tribune Chicago Daily Tribune. "The defense," wrote the editor, "was in the hands of the shrewdest criminal lawyers of the Chicago bar.... As a lawyers' battle, it suggested a fight between Fatty Arbuckle and Jack Dempsey." The Thompson-Lundin ring would revive itself, the newspapers predicted, and there would be renewed bloodletting among the Republican Party factions.59 Robert Crowe shared the general disappointment that Fred Lundin had escaped. But Crowe still held the lead position among the Republicans. His faction was unified and cohesive and wielded more influence than any other group within the City Council. His own position also was secure. He was confident of reelection in November 1924. And the mayoral elections were still almost four years in the future; Crowe expected to be a candidate in 1927 and saw no reason why he should not win.

PART THREE

THE COURTROOM.

10 THE INDICTMENTMONDAY, 2 J 2 JUNE 1924T 1924THURSDAY, 12 J 12 JUNE 1924 1924Of course, dear Mompsie and Popsie, this thing is all too terrible. I have thought and thought about it, and even now I do not seem to be able to understand it. I just cannot seem to figure out how it all came about. Of one thing I am certain tho-and that is that I have no one to blame but myself.... I am afraid that you two may try and put the blame upon your own shoulders, and I know know that I alone am to blame. I never was frank with you-Mompsie and Popsie dear-and had you suspected anything and came and talked to me I would undoubtedly have denied everything and gone on just the same.... that I alone am to blame. I never was frank with you-Mompsie and Popsie dear-and had you suspected anything and came and talked to me I would undoubtedly have denied everything and gone on just the same....I am on a floor of the jail confined entirely to young fellows under twenty years of age.... My first cell mate was a clean looking young fellow, who was exceedingly nice to me and helped very materially to make things easier. My present 'room-mate' is also a very nice chap-somewhat older than I and with a good high school education. I have managed to get along fine with all the fellows and was, in fact, made captain of the seventh floor ball-team....The jail authorities have been awfully nice about everything and I seem to get along with all of them splendidly. Upon Mr. Darrow's advice we have not asked for any special privileges, but a number of them have of their own accord gone out of the way to make things easier for me.Furthermore several of the girls have been awfully nice about visiting me at the jail. Helen, altho her Father did not want her to take the chance of newspaper publicity by coming down here, wrote me a wonderful letter. Buddy Ringer and a couple of the other boys have sent nice messages thru the girls or thru one of the newspaper reporters that I know.So you see, Mompsie and Popsie dear, that it is not at all hard for me. I intend to be very brave all the way thru and I want you both to know that I will do anything in my power to try and rectify a little the awful thing that I have done. You, dear ones, are always in my thoughts.... I shall write again.Loads of love to Erny, Adele, Jane and Tommy and especially to you two."1Richard Loeb, 28 July 1924 CLARENCE D DARROW SEEMED ONE OF the least impressive men that Nathan Leopold had ever met. Darrow sat across from him, in the small windowless room-the lawyers' cage, they called it-where prisoners in the Cook County jail conferred with their attorneys. The air in the cell was stuffy and humid, and Nathan noticed that Darrow was wearing a light seersucker jacket-just about the only kind of jacket one could comfortably wear on such a blisteringly hot day-but it was creased and wrinkled, almost, Nathan thought to himself, as if Darrow had spent the previous night sleeping in it. the least impressive men that Nathan Leopold had ever met. Darrow sat across from him, in the small windowless room-the lawyers' cage, they called it-where prisoners in the Cook County jail conferred with their attorneys. The air in the cell was stuffy and humid, and Nathan noticed that Darrow was wearing a light seersucker jacket-just about the only kind of jacket one could comfortably wear on such a blisteringly hot day-but it was creased and wrinkled, almost, Nathan thought to himself, as if Darrow had spent the previous night sleeping in it.2 Darrow's tie was askew-it had been done up carelessly and it rested awkwardly around his collar. His s.h.i.+rt had not been ironed that morning, and Nathan could see, as he looked more closely, some yellow stains on the front. Were they, Nathan speculated, egg stains left over from Darrow's breakfast? And finally, a pair of red suspenders stretched across Darrow's ample stomach and attached themselves to a pair of baggy gray trousers.

Darrow's face was lined and tired, and a shock of l.u.s.treless, mousy, iron-gray hair kept falling over his right eye; occasionally he would brush it back. There was an atmosphere of resignation in Darrow's weather-beaten face, as though Nathan's case were hopeless, doomed before it had even begun.

Nathan was shocked that his father had a.s.signed the defense to such an obvious incompetent. He had heard of Darrow only within the past twenty-four hours and knew only that Darrow had a reputation as a capable, clever lawyer; yet here Darrow sat, looking more like a country b.u.mpkin, an innocent hayseed, than a city lawyer. What could this scarecrow know of the law?3 Darrow talked in a quiet, dry voice-there was nothing in his words that suggested urgency. He cautioned Nathan not to say anything further to the state's attorney-both boys had already said a great deal, but their case was not yet entirely hopeless.

The police had now linked Nathan and Richard to other crimes on the South Side. It was important, Darrow warned, to tell the state's attorney nothing which would give Crowe evidence that they had, in fact, committed those crimes.

A twenty-one-year-old cabdriver, Charles Ream, had identified Nathan and Richard as the two men who had kidnapped him one night the previous November at the intersection of 55th Street and Dorchester Avenue as he made his way home after work. One a.s.sailant, Ream charged, had held him at gunpoint while the other had rendered him unconscious with a rag soaked in ether. Ream had awoken four hours later. His kidnappers had castrated him and left him, bruised and b.l.o.o.d.y, on industrial wasteland southeast of Chicago, near 109th Street, not far from the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks and less than one mile from the culvert where Nathan and Richard would later hide the body of Bobby Franks.4 The police could also connect Nathan and Richard to the killing of Freeman Tracy, a twenty-three-year-old student at the University of Chicago. On 25 November 1923 Tracy had left a dance late in the evening to walk home alone. Several hours later, shortly before three o'clock in the morning, a pa.s.serby had discovered his body lying near the intersection of 58th Street and Woodlawn Avenue, close to the university. There had been no robbery; his wallet was untouched. But his a.s.sailants had killed Tracy with a single gunshot to the head, and the steel-jacketed bullet, according to the police, matched the automatic revolver found in Nathan's bedroom.5 [image]

18. WAITING FOR HABEAS CORPUS. WAITING FOR HABEAS CORPUS. On Monday, 2 June, Clarence Darrow presented a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. This photograph, taken that morning, shows the attorneys and relatives of the defendants waiting for the judge's decision. Seated in front (from left) are Michael Leopold (brother), Benjamin Bachrach (attorney), Nathan Leopold Sr. (father), Jacob Loeb (uncle), and Clarence Darrow. On Monday, 2 June, Clarence Darrow presented a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. This photograph, taken that morning, shows the attorneys and relatives of the defendants waiting for the judge's decision. Seated in front (from left) are Michael Leopold (brother), Benjamin Bachrach (attorney), Nathan Leopold Sr. (father), Jacob Loeb (uncle), and Clarence Darrow.

There was also the abduction of Louise Hohley, a forty-five-year-old housewife and mother of three. Hohley had identified Nathan and Richard as the two men who had kidnapped her one evening in February in front of the Riviera Theater on Lawrence Avenue. Hohley claimed that they had beaten her and, after raping her, had driven her to the outskirts of the city and thrown her from their car.6 Finally, there was the mysterious disappearance, on 7 April 1924, of Melvin Wolf, a young man who had vanished after leaving his uncle's house at 4553 Ellis Avenue to mail a letter. Was it a coincidence that Wolf had last been seen in Kenwood, less than three blocks from the spot where Nathan and Richard would kidnap Bobby Franks?

On 8 May, one month after the disappearance of Wolf, the police had found his badly decomposed body floating in Lake Michigan. Could Wolf's death have been a suicide? But Wolf had been a happy, carefree young man, at least according to family members, and he had shown no signs of depression or melancholy. Had kidnapping and murder resulted in his death? Were Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb the culprits in this case also?7

CLARENCE D DARROW WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT Nathan and Richard's involvement in the kidnapping of Louise Hohley. Both boys strenuously denied the accusation, and even the state's attorney doubted Hohley's truthfulness; it remained to be proved that Nathan and Richard were connected with the castration of Charles Ream and the deaths of Freeman Tracy and Melvin Wolf. Nathan and Richard's involvement in the kidnapping of Louise Hohley. Both boys strenuously denied the accusation, and even the state's attorney doubted Hohley's truthfulness; it remained to be proved that Nathan and Richard were connected with the castration of Charles Ream and the deaths of Freeman Tracy and Melvin Wolf.8 In any case, Darrow was too preoccupied with winning Nathan and Richard their const.i.tutional rights. His clients, he protested to the chief justice of the Criminal Court, had been in the custody of the state's attorney for more than three days and only now, on the morning of Monday, 2 June, had they obtained access to legal counsel. He had presented pet.i.tions for writs of habeas corpus earlier that morning asking that Robert Crowe relinquish the prisoners and remand them to the custody of the sheriff.

CLARENCE D DARROW, REPRESENTING THE L LOEB family, and Benjamin Bachrach, the attorney for the Leopold family, stood in front of the chief justice, John Caverly. They listened in silence as Robert Crowe spoke to the judge, urging that he, Crowe, be allowed to keep Leopold and Loeb in his custody, at least until after the inquest into Bobby Franks's death. family, and Benjamin Bachrach, the attorney for the Leopold family, stood in front of the chief justice, John Caverly. They listened in silence as Robert Crowe spoke to the judge, urging that he, Crowe, be allowed to keep Leopold and Loeb in his custody, at least until after the inquest into Bobby Franks's death.

"That's a most extraordinary request," Darrow exploded angrily.

"What an astonis.h.i.+ng proposition!" he continued. "I never heard the like of it in court before. These boys are minors and under the const.i.tution ent.i.tled to more than ordinary protection from the court..."

"A cold-blooded, vicious murder," Crowe interrupted, almost shouting at the defense attorney, "and these boys have confessed to it."

"It matters not how cold-blooded the murder was," Darrow shouted back, "citizens have rights. There is but one place for them to be held, in the county jail, in the custody of the sheriff. That question is not debatable and the matter of an indictment has nothing to do with it."9 John Caverly agreed. He would place Leopold and Loeb in custody of the sheriff. Both the defense attorneys and the prosecution would have access to the boys and would be able to question them further before the start of the trial.

THE FOLLOWING DAY, TUESDAY, 3 June, John Caverly impaneled the twenty-three members-all men-of the Cook County grand jury. LeRoy Fairbank, an a.s.sistant state's attorney, had prepared two indictments: one for murder and the second for kidnapping for ransom. 3 June, John Caverly impaneled the twenty-three members-all men-of the Cook County grand jury. LeRoy Fairbank, an a.s.sistant state's attorney, had prepared two indictments: one for murder and the second for kidnapping for ransom.

Both indictments carried the death penalty in Illinois.10 [image]

19. LEOPOLD AND LOEB ENTER COOK COUNTY JAIL. LEOPOLD AND LOEB ENTER COOK COUNTY JAIL. After Clarence Darrow presented a writ of habeas corpus, Leopold and Loeb were put in the custody of the sheriff of Cook County and transferred to the Cook County jail. From left: Nathan Leopold, Richard Loeb, David Edfeldt (deputy sheriff), and Hans Thompson (a.s.sistant jailer). After Clarence Darrow presented a writ of habeas corpus, Leopold and Loeb were put in the custody of the sheriff of Cook County and transferred to the Cook County jail. From left: Nathan Leopold, Richard Loeb, David Edfeldt (deputy sheriff), and Hans Thompson (a.s.sistant jailer).

Grand jury proceedings were customarily brief, especially in a case such as this, where the corpus delicti-the facts necessary to establish the commission of a crime-were not in dispute. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb had confessed and there was a ma.s.s of evidence to affirm their statements-the grand jury would surely not need long to decide that the evidence warranted formal charges against the prisoners.

But Crowe intended to use the grand jury proceedings as a record of the evidence. The Leopold and Loeb families had enormous resources-many millions of dollars-and perhaps they would use their money to postpone and prolong the trial indefinitely. Witnesses might change their minds or, if the trial were to stretch on for several months, might even die. The families of the prisoners might conceivably use their money to fix the result and to bribe witnesses to change their testimony.11 Crowe would call the witnesses now. They would testify to the grand jury, and if any witnesses subsequently changed their testimony, Crowe announced, he would prosecute them for perjury.12 And so, that Tuesday afternoon, the witnesses began their testimony. Jacob Franks appeared first: he wept as he described the clothing Bobby had worn to the Harvard School on the morning of 21 May. Then Tony Minke took the witness stand to tell the grand jury how he had discovered Bobby's body in the culvert by the Pennsylvania Railroad. Paul Korff told how he had found the eyegla.s.ses lying a few feet from the culvert. Sven Englund also testified that first day, telling the grand jury that Leopold's red w.i.l.l.ys-Knight had remained in the garage the entire day.13 On and on it went, a succession of witnesses-seventy-two in total that week-all linking Nathan and Richard to the crime and providing an unbroken chain that fastened them to the murder of Bobby Franks.

MICHAEL H HUGHES, THE CHIEF OF detectives, had never known a case like it; he could not imagine that the accused could escape the gallows. The evidence was overwhelming. detectives, had never known a case like it; he could not imagine that the accused could escape the gallows. The evidence was overwhelming.

"We have unearthed too much corroborative evidence...to permit them to escape," he confided to a reporter from the Chicago Daily Journal, Chicago Daily Journal, "I am certain they will receive the death penalty." It was ironic, Hughes thought, that Nathan and Richard had-directly or indirectly-provided much of that evidence themselves. "The police knew only that young Franks had been murdered and that a pair of tortoisesh.e.l.l eyegla.s.ses and one of young Franks' stockings had been found. We had nothing else. Guided entirely by Leopold and Loeb, we were led to the place where they buried Franks' belt and buckle, and these we recovered. On their information...we also located the blood-stained automobile in which the boy was murdered and found the robe which they wrapped around his body. We now also have the tape-bound chisel with which young Franks was beaten over the head, and the boy's shoes. We have been led by Leopold and Loeb to the drug stores from which they made their telephone calls to the father of the Franks boy." "I am certain they will receive the death penalty." It was ironic, Hughes thought, that Nathan and Richard had-directly or indirectly-provided much of that evidence themselves. "The police knew only that young Franks had been murdered and that a pair of tortoisesh.e.l.l eyegla.s.ses and one of young Franks' stockings had been found. We had nothing else. Guided entirely by Leopold and Loeb, we were led to the place where they buried Franks' belt and buckle, and these we recovered. On their information...we also located the blood-stained automobile in which the boy was murdered and found the robe which they wrapped around his body. We now also have the tape-bound chisel with which young Franks was beaten over the head, and the boy's shoes. We have been led by Leopold and Loeb to the drug stores from which they made their telephone calls to the father of the Franks boy."

Of course, Hughes had heard the rumor that the fathers of the boys were preparing to spend millions of dollars in defense of their sons-but how could their wealth stand against such an acc.u.mulation of evidence? "They talk about 'millions for defense,'" Hughes said, "but I don't believe all the money in the world could save these boys."14 Thomas Marshall, an a.s.sistant state's attorney, explained to the same reporter the precautions taken by the state in drawing up the indictments. There was, for example, some ambiguity over the cause of death. Had Bobby Franks died from the blows to the head or from asphyxiation when Richard had jammed the rag down his throat? Or perhaps the murderers had poisoned the boy with the hydrochloric acid. The coroner's physician, Joseph Springer, had determined that asphyxiation was the cause of death, but Robert Crowe was taking no chances: the indictments for murder and kidnapping had to be sufficiently broad to cover all possible challenges from the defense.

Marshall's final draft of the murder indictment contained eleven counts: the first count charged murder with a chisel; the second, murder with a club; and the third, murder by smothering with a bandage. Other counts included smothering with a piece of cloth; murder with chisel, club, and smothering; smothering with hands; smothering with hands and a cloth gag; killing with deadly poisons; and poisoning with unknown ingredients.15 The second indictment, charging Leopold and Loeb with kidnapping for ransom, contained sixteen counts: seizing and confining for the purpose of extorting money; inveigling, decoying, and kidnapping for ransom; seizing and confining for $10,000; inveigling to extort $10,000; and so on. Each count repeated the same charge, albeit in different phrases.16 By the end of the week, the jurors had heard enough evidence; they would now vote on the indictments. Frederick Hoffman, the foreman of the grand jury, announced that the jurors had endorsed both indictments; the state's attorney had indeed demonstrated that the evidence warranted the prosecution of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb.17

IT WAS A PREDICTABLE OUTCOME, of course: no one had expected the grand jury to refuse the indictments. Robert Crowe was satisfied with the result and boasted to the press that it was "the most complete case ever presented to a grand or pet.i.t jury. The evidence against the two undoubtedly const.i.tutes a hanging case." But did not Crowe's case, one reporter asked, rest on the confessions? What if Leopold and Loeb repudiated the confessions? And if the judge excluded the confessions because the police had obtained them by duress, how would Crowe's case stand then? of course: no one had expected the grand jury to refuse the indictments. Robert Crowe was satisfied with the result and boasted to the press that it was "the most complete case ever presented to a grand or pet.i.t jury. The evidence against the two undoubtedly const.i.tutes a hanging case." But did not Crowe's case, one reporter asked, rest on the confessions? What if Leopold and Loeb repudiated the confessions? And if the judge excluded the confessions because the police had obtained them by duress, how would Crowe's case stand then?

"When this murder trial is called," Crowe replied, "I shall place on the stand the three stenographers from the state's attorney's office who alternated in taking the statements from Leopold and Loeb.... The stenographers will be backed by attorneys, police officers and other witnesses who were present when Leopold and Loeb declared they had kidnaped and murdered young Franks. I am confident that...we will be able to get the two youths' statements before the jury in the event they repudiate their confessions and plead not guilty of the crime."18 It was not true that his men had tortured the prisoners. "They were not given 'goldfish' treatment or kept in 'goldfish' rooms," Crowe a.s.serted, using the slang term for a beating by the police. "Because of kindness mixed with firmness, we were able to obtain the confessions, which were voluntary and given without fear.... No one ever laid a hand on them or spoke a harsh word to them."19 Crowe reminded the reporters that he also had handwritten notes that Leopold and Loeb had made on each other's account of the slaying. Each had recounted the killing in Crowe's office on Sunday, 1 June, but the boys' versions of the murder had differed in certain details-most significantly, each had accused the other of striking the blows with the chisel-and the state's attorney had helpfully suggested that each boy make notes on the other's version of events.

They had complied, willingly, even enthusiastically, not realizing that their notes might be used by the state's attorney as evidence against them. Crowe had now secured those notes-he had locked them away in a safe in his office-and he intended to use them to convince a jury, first, that the prisoners had given their confessions voluntarily; and, second, that both of the accused were aware of the nature of their crime and hence were, in a legal sense, sane.20 Crowe's optimism that his evidence against the boys was sufficient to send them to the gallows found an echo among other, less partisan, legal observers. Nevertheless, it was cause for concern that Clarence Darrow might exploit some technicality to free his clients; he had done it in the past and he might do it again. Leopold and Loeb were guilty, of course, but would they therefore necessarily receive the appropriate punishment? Or would their lawyers find some loophole that would allow the accused to get off lightly?

John Clinnin, a former district attorney, was cautiously optimistic that justice would prevail but warned, nevertheless, that Crowe should zealously watch for any tricks from the defense. "I am certain," Clinnin remarked, after the grand jury had voted on the indictments, "that Mr. Crowe will prosecute this case to the full extent of his power.... But the people are watching the case with very suspicious eyes because of the money involved. The state must be on its guard at every point of the legal conflict."

Julius Smietanka, a member of the Board of Education, agreed with Clinnin that Crowe should be on guard. Smietanka urged that the trial "be expedited in every possible way. Public feeling is running high and there will be no toleration of unnecessary delay.... The full penalty of the law should be invoked."21 Leopold and Loeb had already confessed; there were no mitigating circ.u.mstances; a jury would surely find them guilty; and the sentencing would quickly follow. Any delay would, therefore, a.s.sist the defense: public feeling would die down and the atrocity of the murder would be forgotten. Edmund Jarecki, a judge on the County Court, wondered why the United States "should not follow the example of England in expediting its trials in criminal cases and particularly in a case like this one. I am sure," Jarecki continued, "that the state will not lose any time in satisfying the public demand that justice be done in this case."22 Const.i.tutional rights seemed beside the point in a case such as this. The killers had confessed and had substantiated their confessions by revealing physical evidence of their crime to the police. What more needed to be said? Of course, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb did have the right to a trial, but there was not much more that the law should grant them, at least according to the editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner Chicago Herald and Examiner: "For every reason this is a case for steady judgment and not for the introduction of technicalities. The remaining right of the young men who have confessed is for such a trial.... The people of this city, whom this thing has shaken with its horror, have a right to immediate procedure. This is not a case the details of which anybody cares to cherish in his memory.... Delay can serve no purpose of justice. The evidence is at hand; there is not need to wait for distant witnesses or to search for hidden testimony.... The quick, firm action of investigation calls for equally quick and firm action in prosecution!"23 Already, rumors were circulating that the families were prepared to spend as much money as was necessary to free the boys. Albert Loeb had, according to one report, paid Clarence Darrow a retainer of $25,000 and had provided Darrow with $1 million to spend on the defense.

The grand jury had recommended that Leopold and Loeb be held for trial without bond, but now a second rumor, that the defense would attempt to have the prisoners released on bail, had appeared in the newspapers. And would Darrow seek to move the trial out of Cook County, thus incurring additional delay, arguing that the notoriety of the case made it impossible to obtain an unprejudiced jury in Chicago?

Public opinion had never favored the murderers of Bobby Franks, and now, as it appeared probable that Darrow would use some subterfuge to evade justice, public sentiment hardened in favor of the death penalty for Leopold and Loeb. Chicagoans who had previously opposed capital punishment wrote to the newspapers demanding that the murderers be sent to the gallows. Both Leopold and Loeb had confessed their guilt and had yet to express any remorse for the killing; why, therefore, should they be spared the noose?24 On Friday, 6 June, Albert Loeb and Nathan Leopold Sr. issued a joint statement denying their intention to influence the result by using their wealth. Their sons would expect the same treatment in a court of law that every American was ent.i.tled to receive-nothing more and nothing less-and rumors that the fathers would use their fortunes to evade justice were unfounded: "the families of the accused boys...have not the slightest inclination or intention to use their means to stage an unsightly legal battle with an elaborate array of counsel and an army of high-priced alienists in an attempt to defeat justice. Only such defense as that to which every human being is ent.i.tled will be provided for their sons.

"They emphatically state that no counsel for the accused boys will be retained other than those lawyers now representing them, with the possible, but not probable, retention of one additional local lawyer. There will be no large sums of money spent either for legal or medical talent. The fees to be paid to medical experts will be only such fees as are ordinary and usual for similar testimony.

"The lawyers representing the accused boys have agreed that the amount of their fees shall be determined by a committee composed of the officers of the Chicago Bar a.s.sociation.

"If the accused boys are found by a jury to be not mentally responsible, their families, in accordance with their conscious duty toward the community, agree that the public must be fully protected from any future menace by these boys. In no event will the families of the accused boys use money in any attempt to defeat justice."25 The letter was eminently reasonable, calculated to appeal to the better instincts of Chicagoans. All of Chicago's newspapers printed the statement, and most also published editorials praising the fathers and supporting their sons' right to a fair trial. The Chicago Daily Tribune Chicago Daily Tribune, which considered itself the highest-minded of the city's newspapers, expressed itself satisfied with the fathers' statement and confident that the lawyers would conduct the defense on its merits: "Undoubtedly there was a very general a.s.sumption in the public mind that money would be used without stint to r.e.t.a.r.d, complicate, and, if possible, defeat the ends of justice and the public good. The American public has had too much reason to fear such procedure. It sees year in and year out the escape of offenders through the meshes of the law, in cases where the accused has fewer resources of evasion than the accused in this case possess.... The determination of the families concerned in the coming trial to regard their duty to the community as well as the legitimate rights of the accused, should ease public disquiet."26

ON W WEDNESDAY, 11 J 11 JUNE, at ten o'clock in the morning, Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold stood before the judge's bench in the sixth-floor courtroom in the Cook County Criminal Court. Antic.i.p.ation had been mounting throughout the week; hundreds of spectators had been standing outside the building at seven o'clock that morning, hoping to gain entrance; hundreds more had descended on Austin Avenue in the interim; and now the courtroom was packed. Peter Hoffman, the sheriff, had been caught unawares; he had ordered a special detail of fifteen deputies, in addition to the customary guard, but it had been inadequate to control the thousands of Chicagoans who tried to enter the building. The crowd, in its initial surge to enter the courtroom, had torn one of the heavy oak doors off its hinges, and now a line of bailiffs stood in the doorway, nightsticks drawn, ready to repel a second invasion of the courtroom. at ten o'clock in the morning, Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold stood before the judge's bench in the sixth-floor courtroom in the Cook County Criminal Court. Antic.i.p.ation had been mounting throughout the week; hundreds of spectators had been standing outside the building at seven o'clock that morning, hoping to gain entrance; hundreds more had descended on Austin Avenue in the interim; and now the courtroom was packed. Peter Hoffman, the sheriff, had been caught unawares; he had ordered a special detail of fifteen deputies, in addition to the customary guard, but it had been inadequate to control the thousands of Chicagoans who tried to enter the building. The crowd, in its initial surge to enter the courtroom, had torn one of the heavy oak doors off its hinges, and now a line of bailiffs stood in the doorway, nightsticks drawn, ready to repel a second invasion of the courtroom.

Inside the courtroom, hundreds of spectators squeezed into every available s.p.a.ce. Some sat, precariously, on the windowsills; others stood in the aisles or leaned against the walls; and others stood on temporary benches at the rear of the room, craning their necks over the heads of the crowd for a glimpse of the accused.27 John Caverly, chief justice of the Criminal Court, peered down from the bench at the crowd in front of him. The previous day, Caverly had announced that he would be the trial judge. Frederic Robert DeYoung, a judge on the Superior Court, would normally have presided over the trial (since he was first in sequence), but he was to ascend to the Illinois supreme court on 19 June. Since DeYoung might hear the case on appeal, Caverly had decided that he himself would be a better choice.28 Caverly's decision had pleased Darrow. Caverly was a liberal judge. During his three years on the Criminal Court, he had sentenced five men to death, but in each case he had merely been giving formal utterance to a decision of the jury. And on the one occasion when Caverly might have sentenced a prisoner to hang-when Sam Rosen pleaded guilty to the brutal murder of his wife, Jennie-he had handed down a life sentence instead.29 Caverly waited patiently for the crowd to come to order. On his left, just a few feet away, Robert Crowe sat with his a.s.sistants-John Sbarbaro, Joseph Savage, and Thomas Marshall-at the prosecution table. Caverly could see Samuel Ettelson, representing the Franks family, sitting immediately behind Crowe; at Ettelson's side, Caverly noticed the wan figure of Jacob Franks, wearing a coal-black suit, white s.h.i.+rt, and black necktie, his eyegla.s.ses dangling from a black ribbon attached to his waistcoat.

Across the aisle from Crowe, on Caverly's right, Clarence Darrow sat next to Benjamin Bachrach. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, each accompanied by a guard, sat directly behind their attorneys. Bachrach was a familiar figure in the Criminal Court and a celebrated attorney in his own right. He had graduated from the University of Notre Dame, and, after studying at Columbia University, had returned to Chicago to receive his law degree from the Kent College of Law in 1896. Bachrach had a magical touch in the courtroom, winning acquittals for prominent and wealthy clients charged with murder, embezzlement, conspiracy, and fraud.30 [image]

20. JOHN CAVERLY. JOHN CAVERLY. After studying law at Lake Forest University, Caverly was elected city attorney of Chicago in 1906. In 1910 he won the election for judge of the Munic.i.p.al Court. He served on the Munic.i.p.al Court until 1920, when he was elected to the Circuit Court. Caverly served as chief justice of the Cook County Criminal Court in 1923 and 1924. After studying law at Lake Forest University, Caverly was elected city attorney of Chicago in 1906. In 1910 he won the election for judge of the Munic.i.p.al Court. He served on the Munic.i.p.al Court until 1920, when he was elected to the Circuit Court. Caverly served as chief justice of the Cook County Criminal Court in 1923 and 1924.

Bachrach, like Darrow, had made his reputation in a series of sensational trials, most notably in his defense of Jack Johnson, the black heavyweight boxing champion. Johnson, a flamboyant extrovert who had outraged public opinion by marrying a white woman, had paid the train fare for a woman friend to visit him from Pittsburgh. Unfortunately for Johnson, his friend also happened to be a prost.i.tute, and federal authorities could thus charge Johnson with violating the White Slave Traffic Act, legislation that banned the promotion of prost.i.tution across state lines. Bachrach doggedly fought Johnson's case through the courts, and eventually the charges were dismissed in the Circuit Court of Appeals in April 1914. It had been an unpopular cause-Johnson, by far the most prominent black Chicagoan at the time, had become the most visible target for white hostility and racism in the city-yet Bachrach, in his defense of Johnson, had made his reputation as a methodical and persistent lawyer capable of successfully defending a client who had seemed destined for the penitentiary.31 Darrow and Bachrach const.i.tuted a formidable defense team and a striking sartorial contrast. Whereas Darrow dressed carelessly, never bothering greatly about his appearance, Bachrach was impeccably dressed in a conservative business suit, white s.h.i.+rt, and expensive necktie. He was almost too meticulous, too careful about his appearance-journalists covering his cases occasionally poked fun at a fastidiousness that bordered on self-absorption.

JOHN C CAVERLY BROUGHT THE COURTROOM to order. The clerk of the court, Ferdinand Scherer, read the indictments and then turned toward the accused: "On June 6 the grand jury returned indictments, charging both of you with murder. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?" to order. The clerk of the court, Ferdinand Scherer, read the indictments and then turned toward the accused: "On June 6 the grand jury returned indictments, charging both of you with murder. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?"

Richard Loeb answered first: "Not guilty, sir." Leopold, standing slightly behind the other boy, repeated the same phrase.

"On June 6 the grand jury returned indictments charging you two with kidnaping for ransom. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?"

"Not guilty."

The photographers maneuvered among the spectators at the front of the court, stepping around the bailiffs to get the best position; a dozen flashbulbs popped and hissed and crackled.

Caverly motioned to Clarence Darrow and Benjamin Bachrach for the defense and Robert Crowe for the state to step forward.

"This case," Caverly began, "will be a.s.signed to Branch No. 1, my own court. Have you gentlemen any objections?"

Neither the defense nor the prosecution had any reason to protest against Caverly as the trial judge.

"Have you gentlemen agreed upon a date for trial?" Caverly asked.

"No, your honor," answered Bachrach, "we haven't had a chance."

"I would suggest," Crowe interrupted, "that your honor follow out the procedure you have been adopting in murder cases and set this for an early date. July 15 would give the defense a month and a half for trial."

"This case is not in the cla.s.s with other murder cases." Darrow brushed his hair away from his eyes impatiently. "There isn't a man in Chicago who would say we could get a fair trial within a month. We are as anxious as anyone to get ready, but we must have a fair trial."

"That is a very short time in which to prepare the case," Bachrach added, a trace of anxiety in his voice. "The state must know the defense can not get ready within that time. Your honor must be aware of the public feeling arising from the statements in the newspapers. According to the newspapers, Mr. Crowe has boasted he'll hang the boys...."

"I've made no such statement. I am not responsible," Crowe snapped back angrily, "for the articles in the press.... It has been the policy of judges to speed up murder trials. I don't see why this case should be handled any differently."

"The defense is anxious to get through with the case as soon as possible," Darrow spoke now, pleading with the judge to allow them more time, "but I believe it will be impossible to obtain a fair trial if the trial is held immediately. It will take a large amount of preparation to get the defense side of the case ready. We need time to prepare the case and time," he added meaningfully, "for public sentiment to die down."

Caverly listened patiently to the attorneys. He had a characteristic pose on the bench, seated forward, away from the back of his chair, peering through wire-rimmed gla.s.ses, a pen in his right hand, ready to scribble notes on a pad before him.

He turned to look at a calendar on the wall behind him, and as the attorneys waited for his decision, he silently counted out the days and turned back to face the court.

"I will set the case then, for July 21. All motions will be disposed of on that day. I will then set the trial for August 4."

Darrow relaxed. Perhaps, he suggested to the judge, the defense would require an adjournment, some additional time to prepare; if so, he added, the defense might present a motion for a continuance on 21 July.

Caverly nodded. He would hear the motions then, he repeated, and he would a.s.suredly consider any request from the defense to delay the opening of trial. "Of course," Caverly replied, "if anything occurs that makes a continuance necessary, the motion can be heard."32 The judge gathered up his papers, as if to leave the room. The crowd began to drift away, melting back down to the street outside, to the bright sunlight that flooded Austin Avenue as Richard and Nathan, each handcuffed to a guard, exited through a side door to cross the bridge that connected the Criminal Court Building to the Cook County jail.

Robert Crowe bustled about purposefully for a few minutes, conferring with the sheriff, Peter Hoffman, before leaving for his office on the third floor. A small retinue of a.s.sistants-five or six, perhaps more-trailed along in his wake, to prepare for a conference later that day in the state's attorney's office.

Clarence Darrow also lingered in the courtroom. He murmured some words to Benjamin Bachrach, and then turned to greet Richard Loeb's brother Allan. Neither Albert Loeb nor Nathan Leopold Sr. had been in court that morning, but Darrow expected to talk with them later that day to discuss his strategy. In five weeks, he reminded Bachrach, they would be back in court to present motions to the judge; there was no time to lose!