Evening star., 1924-08-03
DARROW, IN BOOK,
HIT AT AL|EN|STS
.rs
. leopoId-Loeb Counsel Once
Attacked Psychiatrists'
Testimony as Unreliable.
SWAYED BY EMPLOYMENT
Findings Would Be Governed by
What They Want to
Believe"
SWAYED BY EMPLOYMENT
!. Special Dispatch to The Star and the New

y Special Dispatch to The Star and the New
:; York World.
/. CHICAGO, August 2.-After forty
syears in the criminal courts, Clarence
S. Darrow, who is defending Nathan
Leopold. jr, and Richard Loeb, for
the murder of Robert Franks, wrote
"a book. In it he attacked the testi-
slnony of expert psychiatrists as not
worthy of belief. They take the side
sof the persons who employ them, said
Darrow.
: Now in his forty-second year of
criminal practice, Darrow is in
nharge of the effort to keep his two
youthful clients. sons of multimillion-
human murder. from the gallows In
View of his present case, Darrow' $
book on 'Crime and Its treatment
published by T. Y. Crowen, publisher
of New York, is of exceptional inter-
est. He prefaceS it with the state
ment that: This book comes from
forty years spent in court
Insanity Hard to Judge.
Darrow discusses insanity at length.
1T is now accepted as a functional
defect of the human structure in its
!
And he continues: Insanity is often
very insidiouS. Many cases are easily
classified. but there is always the
borderline case. the twilight zone,
tions and in all questions of human
conduct. And this is hard tossettle.
1t is generally determined BY the
feelings Of a jury; moved or not by
ing on whether the community has
been lashed or persuaded to take a
hand in the conduct of the case.
Lawyers and judges are not psy-
biologists or phychiatrists. neither
are juries. Therefore the doctor
must be called in. AS a rule, the law
Yer has little respect for expert
opinion. He has so often seen and
heard all sorts of experts testify for
the side that employs them ard give
very excellent reasons for their posi-
tive and contradictory opinions that
he is bound to regard them with
doubt. In fact, while lawyers respect
and admire many men who are eN-
men are men of worth, still they
know that the expert is like the
lawyer-he takes the case of the side
that employs him and does the best
he can.
THE expert is an everyday fire.
living by testifying for contesting
ltigants. OF course, scientific men
do not need to be told that the re-
ceipt of or expectation of a fee is
not conducive to arriving 1t scien-
tific results. Every psychologist
what they wish to believe and that
the hope of reward is an excellent
reason for wanting to believe.
Lawyers assist Them.-
ct is not my intention 20 belittle
scientific knowledge or to criticize
experts beyond such general state
ments as will apply to all men. !
have often received the services of
medical experts when valuable time
was given without any financial re-
ward, purely from a sense of justice.
But all men are bound to be inter-
ested in arriving at the conclusion
they wish to reach. Furthermore, the
contending lawyers are willing to as
sist them in arriving at the conclu-
sionS that the lawyer wants.
1T is almost inevitable that both
sides will employ experts when they
have the means. The poor defendant
Is hopelessly handicapped. He is, as
rule, unable to get a skillfui lawyer
or ski1lful experts. A doctors opin-
ion on insanity is none TOO good,
ed only for casual examination and
has not had the chance for long
study The doctor for the prosecu-
tion may find that the subject can
play cards and talk connecteGly on
most things, and, as he is casually
visiting him for purpose, he can
see no difference between him and
other men.
; This may we'll be the case and
still have little to do with insanity.
Experts called for the defense cannot
always be sure that the patient
truthfully answers the questions. A
doctor must make up his mind from
examining the patient except so far
as hypothetical questions may be
used.
Doubt of Truth.
"In the larger cities certain doctors
are regularly employed by the prose-
cution. While it would be too much
to say that they always find the
patient sane, it is safe to say that
they nearly always do so. Especially
is this true in times of public clamor,
which affects all human conduct.
"A court trial with an insanity de-
fenSe often comes down largely to
the relative impression of the testi-
mony of the experts who fatty con-
tradict each other, leaving with in
telligent men a doubt as to whether
either one really meant to tell the
truth. The jury knows that they are
paid for their opinions and regards
them more or less as it regards the
lawyers in the case. 1t listens to
them, but does not rely upon their
opinions.
Expert testimony is always un-
satisfactory in a contested case. I'm
der present methods it can never be
any different"