UNIVERSITY OF CEBU- BANILAD

COLLEGE OF LAW

MIDTERM EXAMINATION
CASE STUDY ON THE CASE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. LEOPOLD and LOEB

Submitted by:
LORENZ MOISES ENRICK BINGHAY

Submitted to:
ATTY. JOE VINSON EMPACES

March 20, 2020

I. Synopsis
The case State of Illinois versus Nathan leopold and Richard Loeb was also
known in Chicago once as the “case of the century”. The murder of a young boy,
Bobby Franks became a sensation due to the nature of the motive behind the killing
— a demonstration of the defendant’s intellectual superiority over which they
thought, was a perfect execution of a crime and turned out to be flawless and turned
out that they were absolved from the said heinous act.
Both Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb came from a wealthy family. They
met in the summer of 1920’s. However, it was short a short metting as Loeb
proceeded to study in Michigan. In 1924, Leopold 19, and Loeb 18, renewed their
friendship as they met again in University of Chicago. Loeb took a graduate course
in history, while Leopold proceeded to law. Both were intimate as Loeb was an
extroverted lad and Leopold an aloof and introverted boy who follows Loeb and his
destructive whims of action like stealing, setting fires, and smashing windows.
Loeb’s thirst for thrill to play dangerous games, was his source of exhilaration.
This time, he sought higher stakes as he find his common vandalism as mundane
and duly unreported to the authorities. Leopold, who is captivated with Loeb’s
chaotic charm agreed with his plan on kidnapping a child—hence the incident.
After long hours spent on winter discussing their intricate plan on detailing the
crime, which a part of that plan was writing a ransom by directing the father of the
childto throw a packet of money from the train that travels south from Chicago along
the elevated tracks west of Lake Michigan. They actualized it on the afternoon of
May 21, 1924, looking for a probable victim. When Leopold drove north along Ellis
Avenue, Loeb who was sitting in the rear seat, saw his cousin, Bobby Franks a 14-
year old innocent boy whom he persuaded to hop in in the car they both rented.
Loeb reached out for a Chisel and hit Bobby in his forehead four times resulting to
his death.
Upon disposing the dead body of the boy in a culvert, Leopold’s pair of
eyeglasses fell from his jacket that lead the authorities to the defendants as the
prime suspect.
Robert Crowe 45, who was a state’s attorney of Cook County and a leading
figure of the Republican Party who had a realistic chance of winning election as
Chicago’s next Mayor, realized that this case would be a sensation. Other than the
case’s capability to be sensationalized, he realized that with all the facts and
prominent profile backing the defendants combined, this will in fact be an intriguing
case by sending Loeb and Leopold to death by capital punishment, seeking favour
on public’s morality, which he said no doubt would be appealing to them.
But while Crowe could rely on the public’s support through their outrage with
the case, he is facing an inevitable adversary, Clarence Darrow, who stood as the
defendants’ defence attorney. Darrow was known for being a champion for the weak
and defenceless, which Crowe can attest for Darrow’s skills as he happens to face
him once and was humiliated.
However, in terms of legal strategy, the burden fell heaviest on Darrow,
especially that the defendants’ narrated and confessed of the crime they committed.
 Darrow was passionate about giving the defendants a life sentence rather
than a death penalty and plead to the court to mitigate their punishment: their age,
their plea of guilt, and mental condition
This was a brilliant maneuver, by pleading guilty, Darrow avoided a trial by
Jury, which Caverly, the presiding judge, knew that it would have determined the
penalty of the defendants ranging from death penalty to 14 years of prison.
On a later date for the hearing, respective prominent psychiatrists from the
opposing parties had dissenting findings, but nonetheless, through a thorough
deliberation both defendants were found sane and has the ability to discern from
right or wrong.
Around 9:30 AM of September 10, 1924, Caverly Had prepared to sentence
the defendants and was broadcasted live throughout the city.
Caverly’s Decision was brief. In his determination for the punishment, he gave
no weight over the plea of guilt. Normally it would have mitigated punishment given
that it saved time and trouble to demonstrate culapibility, which was however not the
case in this occasion.
In the case of the psychiatric evidence it cannot be presented as a factor that
can affect in the present case.
However, had not been Leopold and Loeb 19 and 18 years old respectively,
the verdict could have been different. Caverly stated, “That it is within his province to
decline to impose the sentence of death on persons who are not of full age. This
determination appears to be in accordance with the progress of criminal law all over
the world and with the dictates of enlightened humanity.”
The verdict was a victory for the defence, a loss for the state. A 99 years of
imprisonment was better than a losing a streak of one’s own life.

II. Goals and Objective

In the case presented, the goal and objective of Clarence Darrow, the defence
attorney, was to change the favour of death penalty and mitigate it to life
imprisonment for the Defendants’ Leopold and Loeb

III. Analysis or Discussion

The way how Clarence Darrow orchestrated everything by utilizing his
knowledge on legal technique and logic is intricate and eloquent, in a manner that it
made Caverly’s decision point on one of its plea—the age of the defendants.
The cleverness of Clarence Darrow in this case was shown the moment when
he pleaded for guilt for his defendants to avoid trial through a jury, which could have
been a deadlock for him, as the penalty imposed could be unfavourable to him since
Crowe appealed to the public basing on morality.
Next was the choosing of prominent Psyhiatrists/Neurologist that would
counter the opposing amicus curae’s intellectual remarks over the defendants. Thus,
rendering both at a stalemate since, findings show that the defendants however are
sane. If by chance it was proven that the defendants were insane, it could have been
still a win for Darrow as he was buying for the life of his clients through rehabilitation
over death penalty.
Given that the preceding pleas were not as essential as it should in the
present case, it all lead down to what was left—the age of defendants. Judge
Caverly took cognizance over this as he was adapting a progressive approach of
criminal law and what can be considered as humane over the defendants. Thus,
giving the verdict in favour of the defendants.
This in turn, really highlighted how age could be a huge determinant over a
case, especially its application to our modern criminal law penal system.
All in all, Darrow’s schemes of utilization on his application of legal technique
and logic is a dauntless maneuver that changed and extended the purviews of
individuals’ right over their life instead of succumbing to a process that somehow end
their strings of fate.