how did clarence darrow win the scopes trial against william jennings bryan?
148013
As flamedragon correctly points out, he didn't win, he lost. Darrow and his clients, Scopes and the ACLU, always knew they would lose the case and that was their intent. They wanted to lose the case and they did lose it.\n\nThe whole intention was for Darrow and Scopes to lose the case so it could be appealed to the Supreme Court and the law it was tried under proved unconstiutional.
192614
He ruled in favor of Marbury.  This is a landmark case because it was the beginning of the practice known as judicial review-  \nthe supreme court takes on the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of goverment actions.
387109
The trial is held in the senate and is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  After the articles of impeachment are passed by the House (which only require a majority vote), the Trial begins in the Senate, which becomes pretty much a legal trial, but with the Senators as jurors.  In order to convict, a super majority of 2/3s of the Senators (67 at this point) is needed.  \n\nNo president has ever been successfully convicted by a Senate Trial.  Both Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton received less than 2/3s conviction votes.  Nixon resigned because he didn't have the necessary 34 votes in the senate to defeat conviction.
812511
lived from 1885-1941.\n\nNovember 9: Story 1  After listening to brief arguments yesterday afternoon Justice Childs in Special Term dismissed the habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Anthony C. Woeckener against Frank C. Bostock to get possession of his wife, Chiquita, the doll lady. William J. Creamer represented Bostock and Eugene M. Bartlett appeared for Chiquita's boy husband.\n\nAs soon as the writ was dismissed, and before Mr. Bostock could leave the court house, papers were served on him in a suit for $20,000 damages brought by Woeckener for Bostock's action in separating him from his wife. At the same time an order of arrest for Mr. Bostock, as an incident to this civil action, was prepared for the purpose of insuring his presence at the trial. This order of arrest was served by Deputy Sheriff Bates and later Mr. Bostock furnished bail in the sum of $1000 and was released. \n\nAll I could find about him lol.
564522
general for the conferacy during the civil war. he was in many battles.
182618
Oregon Supreme Court - extended the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to allow Randy Lee Guzek to present evidence of "residual doubt" to a jury after he had already been convicted. The Oregon court upheld Guzek's conviction for the June 1987 murders of Rod and Lois Houser, the uncle and aunt of his former high school girlfriend. But changes in Oregon law and mistakes by the trial judge led the Oregon high court to overturn his death sentence three times.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
583686
Aras did. It was between Danielle and Aras. Danielle won the competition and took Aras. On the very last day Aras broke a glass bottle, slipped on it, and cut his hand and his back. The medical people came in and had to give him stitches. Oh and Cirie won a car.
963081
• James Arness was nominated three times for an Emmy but never won, losing to Robert Young twice (1956, 1957) and Raymond Burr once (1958-59).\n\nThis was retrieved from a Gunsmoke trivia site.
707697
Americans' sense of civic virtue was shocked by the scandals associated with the Reconstruction era, including corrupt state governments, massive fraud in cities controlled by machines, political payoffs to secure government contracts (especially the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal regarding the financing of the transcontinental railroad), and widespread evidence of government corruption during the Ulysses S. Grant administration (see Whiskey Ring). Led by the Bourbon Democrats, especially Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland, there was a call for reform, such as Civil Service Reform. More generally there was a sense that government intervention in the economy resulted in favoritism, bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste and corruption. The Bourbon Democrats led the call for a free market, low tariffs, low taxes, less spending and, in general, a Laissez-Faire (hands-off) government. They also denounced imperialism and overseas expansion. Many business and professional people supported this approach, although most Republicans continued to argue for a high protective tariff to encourage rapid growth of industry and protect America's high wages against the low wage system in Europe. Labor activists and agrarians expressed the same spirit but focused their attacks on monopolies and railroads as unfair to the little man.\n\nIn politics the two parties engaged in very elaborate get-out-the vote campaigns that succeeded in pushing turnout to 80%, 90% and even higher. It was financed by the "spoils system" whereby the winning party distributed most local, state and national government jobs, and many government contracts, to its loyal supporters. Large cities were dominated by political machines, in which constituents supported a candidate in exchange for anticipated patronage—favors back from the government, once that candidate was elected—and candidates were selected based on their willingness to play along. Presidential elections between the two major parties (the Republicans and Democrats), were closely contested, and Congress was marked by political stalemate. Mudslinging became an increasingly popular way of gaining advantage at the polls, and Republicans employed an election tactic known as "waving the bloody shirt". Candidates, especially when combating corruption charges, would remind voters that the Republican Party had saved the nation in the Civil War. During the 1870s voters were repeatedly reminded that the Democrats had been responsible for the bloody upheaval, an appeal that attracted many Union veterans to the Republican camp. The Republicans consistently carried the North in presidential elections. The South, on the other hand, became the Solid South, nearly always voting Democratic. The political humiliations of Reconstruction were still fresh in many minds. Conversely, the Democrats invoked images of the "lost cause" and the glorious "stars and bars" in much the same way Republicans "waved the bloody shirt". Overall, Republican and Democratic political platforms remained remarkably constant during the years before 1900. The negativity and ambiguity of politics began a shift in the press to yellow journalism, in which sensationalism and sentimental stories took as prominent a role as factual news.\n\nGreat question.  Thanks...I learned something too.
985627
Civil cases are more lenient on presenting evidence than the criminal courts. That is why he was convicted in the civil trials; but note, he filed bankruptcy and never paid.\n\nI don't see the problem lying within the court system. I see the problem lying within the public. When you get a group of morons who are easily led by propaganda and soundbytes, (if it doesn't fit then you must acquit in reference to the glove), then you will win everytime.\n\nThe jury had such a low intellect that they really believed a person couldn't crook up their hand and make it look like a glove could barely go on. They ignored blood of the victims in the Bronco floorboard, etc...\n\nClearly, the problem was with the jury system. Maybe we should consider doing away with the jury system and rely only on judges.\n\nI mean seriously... look who the public has elected into TWO terms... we are idiots.
989031
The first link gives you the actual U.S. v. Hitchcock case.\n\nAnother link you may want in the future, if you want Supreme Court cases, is below the first.
27257
The previous answers are wrong.  It's just historical accident.  I doubt the "college professor" cited above knows more than the US Supreme Court. \n\nThe Court in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, the U.S. Supreme Court said:\n\n"We had occasion in Duncan v. Louisiana to review briefly the oft-told history of the development of trial by jury in criminal cases.  That history  revealed a long tradition attaching great importance to the concept of relying on a body of one's peers to determine guilt or innocence as a safeguard against arbitrary law enforcement. That same history, however, affords little insight into the considerations that gradually led the size of that body to be generally fixed at 12.  Some have suggested that the number 12 was fixed upon simply because that was the number of the presentment jury from the hundred, from which the petit jury developed.  Other, less circular but more fanciful reasons for the number 12 have been given, "but they were all brought forward after the number was fixed," and rest on little more than mystical or superstitious insights into the significance of "12." Lord Coke's explanation that the "number of twelve is much respected in holy writ, as 12 apostles, 12 stones, 12 tribes, etc.,"  is typical.  In short, while sometime in the 14th century the size of the  jury at common law came to be fixed generally at 12, that particular feature of the jury system appears to have been a historical accident, unrelated to the great  purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.  The question before us is whether this accidental feature of the jury has been immutably codified into our Constitution.\nSee Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 151-154 (1968).\n\nIn tracing the development of the jury from the time when the jury performed a different, "inquisitory" function, James B. Thayer notes the following:\n\n"In early times the inquisition had no fixed number. In the Frankish empire we are told of 66, 41, 20, 17, 13, 11, 8, 7, 53, 15, and a great variety of other numbers. So also among the Normans it varied much, and 'twelve has not even the place of the prevailing grundzahl;' the documents show all sorts of numbers -- 4, 5, 6, 12, 13-18, 21, 27, 30, and so on. It seems to have been the recognitions under Henry II. that established twelve as the usual number; even then the number was not uniform." The Jury and Its Development, 5 Harv. L. Rev. 295 (1892) (citations omitted).\n \nSee J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 85 (1898).\n\nSimilarly, Professor Scott writes:\n\n"At the beginning of the thirteenth century twelve was indeed the usual but not the invariable number. But by the middle of the fourteenth century the requirement of twelve had probably become definitely fixed. Indeed this number finally came to be regarded with something like superstitious reverence." A. Scott, Fundamentals of Procedure in Actions at Law 75-76 (1922) (footnotes omitted).\n \n1 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 325 (1927); Wells, The Origin of the Petty Jury, 27 L. Q. Rev. 347, 357 (1911). The latter author traces the development of the 12-man petit jury through the following four stages. The first stage saw the development of the presentment jury, made up generally of 12 persons from the hundred, whose function was simply to charge the accused with a crime; the test of his guilt or innocence was by some other means, such as trial by ordeal, battle, or wager of law. In the second stage, the presentment jury began to be asked for its verdict on the guilt or innocence of the person it had accused, and hence began to function as both a petit and a grand jury. In the third stage, "combination juries" were formed to render the verdict in order to broaden the base of representation beyond the local hundred, or borough, to include the county. These juries were formed by adding
1100348
Just google search Jimmy Braddock or see Cinderella Man on video.  A big underdog against Max Baer in their 1934 heavyweight championship, Jimmy won a 15 round decision.
154392
He was the winning Civil War general and a popular hero, and those were his only qualifications for being president.  He didn't have any great vision for presidential accomplishments, so he essentially kept federal troops in the south and allowed radical reconstruction policies to continue as dictated by congress.
919717
Yes, it was just made official. Mr. Webb won the Senate race in Virginia--which gives the Democrats control of Senate and the House. I understand that in Montana, Mr. Tester, the Democrat, remains in the lead.\n\nWe live in interesting times!
930886
Sensenbrenner, Hastert and Tancredo all won handily.\n\nI haven't done a head count, but if you asked who the three biggees were, that would be them.