The trial began on Friday, July 10, 1925, with Judge Raulston calling on the Reverend Lemuel M. Cartright to open in prayer.

Because Judge Raulston had been so eager to get the case that he had allowed Scopes to be indicted on May 25th by a grand jury whose term had expired, the judge convened another grand jury to indict Scopes a second time (Ginger 129). Eight prospective jurors were examined and excused for various reasons. In the order of their appearance, the following were selected for the jury:

• W.F. Roberson (farmer, no church affiliation)
• Jess R. Goodrich (shipping clerk)
• J.W. Dagley (farmer, Methodist)
• Campbellite Disciples of Christ
• James W. Riley (farmer, Baptist)
• John H. Bowman (farmer and cabinet maker, Methodist Episcopal)
• W.G. Taylor (farmer, Southern Methodist)
• William G. Day (farmer, Baptist)
• R.L. Gentry (farmer and teacher, Baptist)
• R. L. West (farmer and carpenter, Baptist)
• Jack R. Thompson (jury foreman, former U.S. Marshall, farm owner, Methodist)
• John S. Wright (farmer, Baptist)
• W.D. Smith (farmer, Baptist)

On the second day, Monday, July 13, the Reverend M.H. Moffett was asked to lead in prayer.

The indictment was discussed at length, and a motion by Dr. John R. Neal to quash it failed. Because of legal technicalities regarding the question of the law’s constitutionality, the jury was retired for most of the session. The prominent speakers on this day were Dr. Neal, General Stewart, and Clarence Darrow, the last of whom concluded the day with a speech on freedom that takes up 13 of the 42 pages of the trial record for this day. Ironically, Darrow’s basic point agreed in theory and practice with Bryan and Butler, the author of the evolution bill (Trial 74-87; Olasky 10; Smith 183-184; Levine 263; Davidson 197).

When Judge Raulston called on the Reverend Dr. A.C. Stribling to begin in prayer on the third day, Tuesday, July 14, Clarence Darrow objected to the practice and to the jury being present at the discussion of the matter.

After heated discussion on both sides, the judge overruled in favor of opening the court with prayer. Court was then adjourned for much of the day in order to allow the judge to formulate a decision regarding the question raised on day two about the constitutionality of the law and the motion to quash the indictment.

On Wednesday, July 15, the fourth day of the trial was opened in prayer — despite the defense’s objection — by the Reverend Dr. Charles Francis Potter, the Unitarian minister from New York who assisted the defense as an expert on religion.

Judge Raulston then read his lengthy and carefully worded decision about the motion to quash the indictment. Finding the indictment adequately clear and the law appropriate in its relation to freedom of thought and expression, Raulston overruled the motion. In the afternoon session, Scopes pleaded not guilty. Next, Dudley Field Malone set forth the defense’s position on the law, evolution, science, the Bible, and religion. “The defense contends that to convict Scopes the prosecution must prove that Scopes not only taught the theory of evolution, but that he also, and at the same time, denied the theory of creation as set forth in the Bible,” Malone stated. Then he asserted, “While the defense thinks there is a conflict between evolution and the Old Testament, we believe there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity” (Trial 113,117)

Then the prosecution called the following witnesses: Superintendent of Schools Walter White; school board chairman F.E. Robinson; and two of Scopes’ students, Howard Morgan and Harry Shelton. Scopes at the time of the May 25th hearing and Darrow at the time of the trial both coached some of the prospective student witnesses on the details of evolution so they would appear to have learned the subject from Scopes. Darrow, in fact, roomed at the home of one witness, Howard Morgan (Allem 66; de Camp 432-433; Scopes 134). In the entire long trial, these were the only witnesses whose testimony was part of the official record. Scopes was not called to the witness stand because, as Darrow explained to Judge Raulston, “Your honor, every single word that was said against this defendant, everything was true” (Trial133). Ironically Scopes could have avoided a criminal trial with its possible conviction and loss of a job by taking advantage of his status as a professional educator, questioning the constitutionality of the anti-evolution law, and asking for a declaratory judgment (Larson 60). For their first witness, the defense team called Johns Hopkins University zoologist Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf (Trial 133-143).

In number of days but not in dramatic and legal high points, the trial was at the fifth-day halfway mark on Thursday, July 16, when the Reverend Dr. J.A. Allen of Nashville was named to open the court session with prayer.

Attorney General Stewart moved “to exclude the testimony of the scientists” because it would be irrelevant since Scopes admitted he taught that “man descended from a lower order of animals.” William Jennings Bryan, Jr., then argued that the motion was crucial, for it could screen out mere opinions from experts, and it agreed with Tennessee law, which held that experts “will not be permitted to state their opinions upon any point the jury has to decide.” Arthur Garfield Hays responded that experts were necessary to determine what kind of evolution Scopes taught and what its relationship was to the Biblical account of creation. Sue Hicks, B.G. McKenzie, Darrow, and Neal joined the heated discussion. After four days of virtual silence, William Jennings Bryan spoke out by turning the pages of Scopes’ alleged textbook, George Hunter’s Civic Biology, noting that it was thick on broad generalizations and thin on supporting evidence. Bryan then turned the tables on Darrow by using against him his argument in the Leopold and Loeb murder case. Darrow had said, “it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for philosophy that was taught him at the university.” Since the philosophy under discussion was that of Nietzsche, who was greatly influenced by Darwin, Darrow’s reasoning illustrated Bryan’s point about the dangers of evolution being taught to the exclusion of the Bible (Trial 147, 150-152, 154, 170-182).

Following Bryan’s speech, Dudley Field Malone made an address on truth that got a good response from the audience, including Bryan (Scopes 154-155; Ginger 122). But Malone demonstrated “more of emotional appeal than of solid reasoning” (de Camp 343), for he was inconsistent in his definitions, resorted to many fallacies, and presented a one-sided view of evolutionists and creationists (Trial 183-189). Legal technicians Stewart and Hays finished out the day of stirring speeches by debating on principles of interpretation. Stewart pointed out that the intent of the legislature rather than individual words such as and in the Butler Bill was the rule in Tennessee for interpretation (Trial 194).

After calling for Rabbi Jerome Mark and getting no response, the court invited the Reverend Dr. C.G. Eastwood to pray before the sixth and shortest day of the trial, which was on Friday, July 17.

Judge John Raulston began by summarizing in clear and careful detail the arguments of the prosecution and the defense on the important matter of the admission of expert testimony presented the day before. Then he sustained the motion of the attorney general to exclude expert testimony. After a lengthy discussion, Raulston agreed to allow the defense to include the expert testimony (but in the absence of the jury), to read it into the record (though the judge and the prosecution preferred that time be saved by simply submitting it in written affidavit form), to protect it from cross-examination (though Bryan requested this privilege), and to give the defense a recess of the rest of the day to prepare documents that the defense lawyers could read into the record (though the judge preferred direct dictation from the witnesses, and the prosecution was unhappy at losing so much time). In spite of these concessions, Darrow was so frustrated at seeing the defense lose “every major point of contention” (English 7) that he insulted Judge Raulston and accused him of bias for the prosecution and against the defense. When the judge said, “I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the court?” Darrow replied, “Well, your honor has the right to hope” (Trial 204-207). The evaluation of trial historian L. Sprague de Camp is that “The record shows Raulston had upheld the defense, if not quite so often as the State, on at least a reasonable number of occasions. But he had ruled for the State on all the really big questions” (de Camp 355). Scopes wrote later that the words and actions of Darrow were such that “everyone expected Raulston to hold him in contempt of court” (Scopes 160). But without comment at 10:30 a.m., the judge dismissed the court until Monday

Though there had been some dramatic and interesting spots, the trial proceedings up to this point had been long, technical, and uninteresting to the average layman. The worldwide audience coverage continued, but the audience in and about the courtroom began to thin out. On Saturday, July 18, the exodus began: H.L. Mencken left for Baltimore (not too far ahead of a group of men who were considering running him out of town on a rail for his references to Daytonians as “morons” and “gaping primates”); Darrow’s law partner and defense assistant W.O. Thompson headed to Florida, W.J. Bryan, Jr., returned to California, and according to Scopes, “Many of the army of newspapermen had evidently deserted” (de Camp 360-361, 344-345. 440; Ginger 113, 124; Scopes 162).

Monday, July 20, the seventh day of the trial, began hot and was to get hotter both in weather conditions and word confrontations.

The opening prayer was delivered by the Reverend Standefer. Attorney General Stewart had brought the significance of Darrow’s remarks on Friday to Judge Raulston’s attention, and the judge announced that he was citing Darrow for contempt of court, setting the bail bond at $5000 (Scopes 162).

After lengthy discussion taking up ten pages of the court record and similar to that on day six, Arthur Garfield Hays was finally permitted to summarize and read verbatim into the record twelve written testimonials of the scientific and Biblical experts the defense had congregated. The reading took the rest of the morning and part of the afternoon. In order of presentation, statements from the following were inserted in the record but not as an official part of the trial as far as the jury and cross-examination were concerned but as indications of what the defense proof would have been, should the case go to a higher court in the appeal process:

• Rev. Walter C. Whitaker, rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, Knoxville
• Dr. Shailer Matthews, Dean of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago
• Dr. Fay Cooper Cole, professor of anthropology, University of Chicago
• Dr. Kirtley F. Mather, chairman of the Dept. of Geology of Harvard University
• Dr. Winterton C. Curtis, chairman of the Dept. of Zoology of the University of Missouri
• Dr. Herman Rosenwasser, rabbi linguist from San Francisco
• Dr. H.E. Murkett, pastor of First Methodist Church in Chattanooga
• Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf, zoologist from Johns Hopkins University
• Wilbur A. Nelson, state geologist of Tennessee
• Dr. Jacob Lipman, Dean of the College of Agriculture at Rutgers
• Dr. Charles Hubbard Judd, Director of the School of Edu. at the University of Chicago
• Dr. Horatio Hackett Newman, Dean of the College of Science at the University of Chicago.

The documents ranged from one to eighteen pages. Each expert gave detailed “proofs” of evolution in his area of expertise and then concluded with a statement so similar in its outlook that it could have been composed in the same law office. Dr. Charles H. Judd’s version of the motif is as follows: “In my judgment it will be quite impossible to carry on the work in most of the departments in the higher institutions of the state of Tennessee without teaching the doctrine of evolution as the fundamental basis for the understanding of all human institutions.” Three scientists cited such “proofs” of evolution as the Java man (now questionable evidence) and the Piltdown man (now exposed as a hoax). Dr. Newman concluded the testimony by saying, “The evolution principle is thus a great unifying and integrating scientific conception” (Trial 238, 251, 232, 280).

In between the statements by Dr. Curtis and Dr. Rosenwasser, the court recessed for lunch. Judge Raulston inspected cracks in the first-floor ceiling caused by the weight of the crowd upstairs. Stewart conferred with the defense and arranged for Darrow to apologize to the court. After the recess, Darrow apologized grudgingly but sufficiently to satisfy the big-hearted judge, who quoted Scripture and forgave Darrow. Because of the building stress, the heat, and the crowd, Judge Raulston reconvened the court on a platform in the courtyard below.

The heat, the boredom of the expert testimonials being read by Hays, and the dim prospects of anything important or exciting happening from this point on tempted all but a half dozen of the more than one hundred reporters either to go back home or seek cooler, more inviting surroundings that afternoon. As a result they missed not only the cooler court setup of being out under the trees but also one of the hottest exchanges of the entire trial. When one reporter was asked by his Dayton hosts why he never attended trial sessions, he replied, “Oh, I don’t have to know what’s going on; I know what my paper wants me to write” (Allem 92). Because so few reporters were present when Bryan took the stand to be interrogated by Darrow, Scopes was conscripted to write covering news stories for the delinquent newsmen (Scopes 183-184).

Much of the Scopes Trial news coverage in 1925 and ever since leaves a great deal to be desired. Even when allowance is made for the pressures of deadlines, the demands of diverse events reporters have to describe with discernment, and the shadow of every publication’s editorial bias, most accounts of the trial are found wanting when weighed in the balances of truth, accuracy, fair play, and thoroughness.

On the lowest level there was character assassination. H.L. Mencken, for example, referred to Bryan as “a charlatan, a mountebank, a zany without shame or dignity” (Mencken 68). On a level not much higher was the one-sided, biased reporting which presented the remarks of Darrow, Malone, and Hays as virtually flawless but described the utterances of Bryan as vividly faulty. In addition to the inexcusable bias, the press also did a poor job on the level of the trial issues. Reporters emphasized the important issue of faculty freedom of speech but confused it with freedom of belief and disregarded the equally important issue of students’ academic freedom to learn by being exposed to all the major options of a controversial matter.

The prosecution’s main proposition that the state, which represents the tax-paying parents through the legislature, has the right to control its schools by prescribing or proscribing the content of the curriculum tended to be ignored by the press. Also largely ignored was the fact that Bryan was not against the teaching of evolution — if it were taught as a theory rather than as a true fact — and if equal time were given to other major options, such as creationism. Another overlooked point was that Bryan did not ask that religion be taught in the public schools. What he objected to was religion being attacked in the public schools (Smith 183-184; Levine 263, 278-279, 285-286).

The most notable incident in the Scopes Trial that evidenced bias by journalists at the time and by historians ever since occurred right after Darrow objected to a large sign “Read Your Bible” and successfully moved to have it taken down. Arthur Garfield Hays then announced: “The defense desires to call Mr. Bryan as a witness.” This tactic had been carefully planned for several days and even rehearsed, using Dr. Kirtley Mather, the Harvard geologist and Baptist Bible school teacher, to play Bryan. The highly irregular procedure of calling an opposition lawyer as a witness was objected to by Attorney General Stewart but permitted by Judge Raulston and agreed to by Bryan — with the understanding that he would be allowed to put Darrow, Malone, and Hays on the stand (Trial 264, 241, 284; de Camp 346, 36.

Reactions by reporters and subsequently by historians ranged the gamut. A few were positive. The Arkansas Gazette affirmed that Bryan “emerges as a hero.” But most were negative. The New York Times, for example, considered Bryan’s testimony “an absurdly pathetic performance”(Olasky 17). The first historian to write a book-length account of the Scopes Trial, Ray Ginger of Brandeis University, summed up the Darrow/Bryan confrontation by saying, “Darrow’s manhandling of Bryan had a shattering impact” (Ginger 152). Other commentators tended to hum Ginger’s dirge.

The above-mentioned conflicting evaluations necessitate an examination of the trial transcript. Darrow’s approach was in one sense “masterly trial tactics” (Ginger 152), but it seemed to heed Mencken’s admonition “to make a fool out of Bryan” rather than defend Scopes or seek for truth (Fecher 199). Some of Darrow’s questions were impossible to answer with certainty: “Do you know about how many people there were on this earth 3,000 years ago?” Bryan responded, “You ought not to ask me a question when you don’t know the answer to it.” Again, Darrow: “Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?” Bryan’s rejoinder: “No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.” When Darrow asked a question with a definite answer, he attempted to detract from Bryan’s remarks with inane, scene-stealing questions. Bryan referred to a Buddhist he had met, and Darrow asked, “What did he look like, how tall was he?” Bryan quipped, “I think he was about as tall as you but not so crooked.” Then there were reversals of quotations and jousting with semantics, in which Darrow tried to get Bryan to use his opponent’s terminology (Trial 292-295, 284-285).

And so it went for almost two hours, ranging over some fifty topics with several related questions each. Bryan was careful to define terms, adhere to known facts, distinguish between literal and figurative language, and frankly admit when he did not know the answer. From time to time Stewart questioned the legality of the proceedings, especially when Darrow cross-examined his own witness. “He is an hostile witness,” Darrow complained. In approximately 70% of the questions and answers, Bryan bested Darrow, in about 20% Darrow outshone Bryan, and in about 10% it was a draw. The 20% that Bryan lost to Darrow tended to portray Bryan as a student of the Scripture but not of science or ancient civilizations. And they disclosed that Bryan was flexible enough to allow for the days of creation being longer than twenty-four hours each and perhaps as long as millions of years. This opened the door for Hays to jump a step in reasoning and exclaim, “These things are not to be taken literally, but that each man is entitled to his own interpretation.” After Darrow told Bryan, “I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes,” Judge Raulston adjourned court for the day (Trial 288, 299, 302-304).

The eighth and final day of the trial, Tuesday, July 21, was opened in prayer by the Reverend Dr. R.C. Camper of Chattanooga.

Rainy weather moved the trial back into the courtroom. Judge Raulston began by expunging the testimony of Bryan from the previous day, stating that it “can shed no light upon any issues that will be pending before the higher courts” (Trial 305; Ginger 152). Another reason for this move may have been a secret visit by Sheriff Harris and other officials to the judge, urging him to bring the trial to a conclusion as soon as possible in order to avoid injury, for emotions were running high, and both Darrow and Bryan had received threats (de Camp 415; Harris). Then Darrow said, “I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty” (Trial 306).

This move prepared the way for an appeal to a higher court, spared Darrow from having to be questioned by Bryan, and circumvented the summation arguments and the threat posed by the concluding address that Bryan had been working on (Scopes 186). Since there were indications that some of the jury were getting feisty over being excluded from so much of the trial, and others were showing sympathy for Scopes, there was reason to suspect that the jury might find Scopes innocent. Stewart, Raulston, and Darrow consulted together.

After Raulston gave a lengthy charge to the jury, Darrow was permitted to explain to the jury that they should not worry about their verdict, for it could enable the defense to take the matter to a higher court. A discussion of who should set the fine resulted in Stewart stating correctly it should be the jury, Raulston overruling him, and Darrow promising, “We will not take an exception, either way you want it, because we want the case passed on by the higher court.” The jury retired, deliberated for nine minutes, returned, and found Scopes guilty. The judge fined him $100 and then, after being prompted by Dr. Neal, asked Scopes if he had anything to say (de Camp 418; Trial 309-313).

Scopes then gave his first and last official statement in his trial: “Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom — that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think that the fine is unjust.” The Baltimore Evening Sun took care of Scopes’ bond. In the closing round of comments, Bryan declared that this case was one of those great causes that “stir the world,” and Darrow remarked that “here we have done our best to turn back the tide that has sought to force itself upon this. . .modern world, of testing every fact in science by a religious dictum.” Judge Raulston called on the Rev. Dr. Jones to pronounce the benediction, and the World’s Most Famous Court Trial ended at 12:04 p.m. (Trial 313-319; de Camp 425).