Trial Summary: Day Six
July 17, 1925
Minneapolis Daily Star. July 17, 1925
Following the previous day’s arguments, Judge Raulston ruled against allowing the defense’s expert witnesses to testify. Darrow and Hays were quick to challenge the decision. Hays asked that statements from their expert witnesses be admitted into evidence either as sworn oral affidavits or in written form. Bryan argued that the prosecution should be allowed to cross-examine any of the defense witnesses if they were allowed to have oral affidavits in the court transcripts. Raulston agreed with Bryan, leading the defense to instruct their witnesses to submit written briefs.
Angered by the ruling, Darrow requested an adjournment until Monday morning, in order for the defense’s expert witnesses to prepare their written statements. Raulston countered that Darrow’s witnesses shouldn’t need that much time. At this point, Darrow snapped that Raulston himself had taken half a day to rule on the case’s constitutional issues. He then insulted Raulston, stating that “I do not understand why every request of the State and every suggestion of the prosecution should meet with an endless amount of time and a bare suggestion of anything that is perfectly competent on our part should be immediately overruled.” Raulston responded sharply to Darrow’s impertinence:
Raulston—I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the court?
Mr. Darrow—Well, your honor has the right to hope.
Raulston—I have the right to do something else, perhaps.
Mr. Darrow—All right; all right.
Raulston hinted at the possibility of citing Darrow for contempt of court, but he let the comments pass for the moment. He agreed to let the defense’s witnesses prepare their statements over the weekend and adjourned the court. Following the day’s proceedings and Raulston’s ruling that the defense’s expert witnesses would be excluded, many reporters, including the noted H.L. Mencken from the Baltimore Sun, left Dayton, thinking that the case was over.