Welcome to
Famous Trials, the Web’s largest and most visited collection of
original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images,
and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world
history.
“Famous Trials”
first appeared on the Web in 1995, making this site older than
about 99.96% of all websites.
In 2016, the site seems to be showing its age. So Famous Trials 2.0
(thanks to my great support team) will debut in 2017 with a
cleaner look, additional video and audio clips, and new features
that should improve navigation around the site.
What is a
Famous Trial?
You will not
find every trial deserving of being called “famous” on this
site. If the famous trial you were hoping to find is not
included, click on the “Other Famous Trials” link for
information about additional famous trials. Decisions as to which
trials to include on Famous Trials were entirely mine and
inevitably reflect my interests and biases.
What criteria
guided my choices? Many
trials might be called famous.
Each century, at least several dozen trials are heralded
by someone as “the trial of the century.” Quite a few trials
create a huge buzz in the months following verdict, but then
slip quickly—and, in many cases, justifiably—from the public’s
mind.
I’d point to
two benchmarks that most guided my decision to include a
particular trial. First,
the trial must have grabbed the public’s attention. In other words, every
one of the trials I’ve chosen was famous in its own time and
place. But being a
famous trial is not enough. To land a spot on Famous Trials, the
trial must also have shaped history in some significant way or,
alternatively, be an especially good window for observing and
understanding a particular time.
And trials can
provide a wonderful way to study history. Trial transcripts are
rich source material, full of vivid detail that comes from a
variety of perspectives. The
words in a transcript of a great trial sometimes seem to leap at
you off their pages—and these are words not filtered through the
biases of any reporter or historian.
Visitors to
Famous Trials will note that the vast majority of trials on the
site are criminal trials. A
few, technically, are not criminal trials but are part of the
criminal process (e.g., the sentencing hearing in the Leopold
and Loeb case or the coroner’s inquest in the Wyatt Earp case). Not all of the trials
took place in civilian courts.
The site includes trials by an international tribunal
(Nuremberg), a military court-martial (Calley), and two sets of
trials by military commissions (Lincoln conspirators, Dakota
trials).
There are a few
civil trials on the cite including the Falwell v Flynt tort
trial and the civil rights trial of Brown v Board of Education
of Topeka. The
two impeachment trials (Andrew Johnson, William Clinton) are
also civil in nature. Visitors
who come to the site looking for famous Supreme Court decisions
such as Marbury v
Madison or Roe v
Wade will be disappointed.
This is a famous trials site, not
a famous appellate
decision site. (Information
about many Supreme Court decisions, landmarks or otherwise, can
however be found on my companion website, “Exploring
Constitutional Law.”)
A few critics
have suggested that my trial selection ought to be "more
focused." One
critic noted that my trials ranged from ancient times (Socrates)
to very modern times (Simpson), and included trials from both
sides of the Atlantic and Pacific and from various types of
courts. Other
critics have complained that their favorite trial has been
inexcusably omitted while some other frivolous and
inconsequential trial (say, the Chicago Black Sox trial) has
been included. To
such critics I can only say, "I'm not getting paid a penny for
this--I put up the trials that I, with all of my idiosyncrasies,
find interesting or compelling in some way."
Finally, some
critics complain about coverage of some trial or another as not
being balanced. I'm
equally likely to be charged with placing a conservative slant
on a trial as a liberal slant.
I try to “call 'em as I see 'em,” but to minimize my
editorializing. If
I think (as I do) the facts compellingly suggest that Julius
Rosenberg or Alger Hiss provided information to the Soviets that
compromised our national security, I'll say so--knowing that a
few true believers will condemn me. And when I think (as I
do), the California Parole Board has failed to provide fair
process to the convicted female followers of Charles Manson,
I'll say that as well--knowing that any showing of sympathy for
persons who long ago committed such heinous acts is not going to
go without criticism. It's
generally good to be balanced, but it's also generally good to
speak out against evil and hypocrisy.
History and Goals
For the
curious, a few words about the history and goals of this site.
My original purpose in creating the Famous Trials site was a
modest one. I
wanted to post a variety of background materials for students
enrolled in my Famous Trials Seminar. There is no single
text that works for such a seminar, and requiring my students to
purchase, say, fourteen books about fourteen trials seemed out
of the question. Soon,
however, I discovered through e-mails that there was a wider
audience for such materials.
My purpose
shifted over time. Now,
I see my primary audience as high school, college, and law
school instructors and students.
Sure, I also hope the site will serve as a useful
starting point for the serious scholar working on a major book
or paper. But the site does not pretend to be archival in the
traditional sense. Most
of the trial transcripts for the 75-plus trials on the site run
into the thousands of pages.
Without grants and without significant university
resources, there is simply no way that I can scan such
voluminous materials and post them in complete form on the site. In fact, such a
massive posting of materials would run counter to my basic goal
of providing a clear, concise, and balanced understanding of the
trials. Transcripts
can be overwhelming. I've tried to present some of the most
important and compelling testimony, and leave out materials that
are less significant--and often mind-numbingly repetitive. Editing transcripts is
time-consuming work--but work that I have found important enough
to justify several trips to the National Archives and other
archival libraries where such transcripts are found.
My goal is to
lay out the materials in an obvious and understandable way,
using my trial commentary as the anchor to understanding. To be
useful and engaging for sixth-graders as well as graduate
students, the materials posted must vary considerably in their
structure and sophistication.
I fully understand that few twelve-year-olds will get
much out of some of the full appellate opinions posted on the
site, for example. By
the same token, some of the materials on the site (comics,
jeopardy games, and various "fun facts") may seem insufficiently
serious to some especially serious people.
One of my
regrets about the Famous Trials undertaking is that I cannot
respond adequately to the individuals who send e-mails. Nearly half of the
e-mails I receive contain questions (some include many, many questions)
about specific aspects or implications of famous trials. Some of those
questions I could answer, but often not without pulling a book
of the shelf and spending a number of minutes leafing around
until I find the critical passage.
For the most part, I don’t do it. There isn’t time; I’m
sorry.
There is one
type of e-mail that is especially fun to discover in my inbox:
e-mails from persons connected in one way or another with the
trials covered on the site.
I’ve received messages from a man who took Nathan
Leopold’s Sociology course at the University of Puerto Rico, and
from attorneys who worked on the Chicago 8 trial, the
Mississippi Burning trial, and the Simpson trial. I’ve been contacted by
the son of heroic Scottsboro judge James Horton, and by from the
grandson of the legislator who wrote Tennessee’s anti-evolution
statute--and who discovered in his attic a shoebox full of his
grandfather’s speeches on the subject. I’ve heard from people
who either were defendants in famous trials themselves (Ray
Buckey) or were the sons of famous defendants such as Sam
Sheppard or Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg. I received an email from
an octogenarian who, as an eight-year-old child, attended all
but one of the eight court sessions of the Scopes trial. I’ve
learned much from these people. Also, as you might expect, I’ve
communicated with dozens of people writing books or plays (and
even songs) about famous trials, as well as some people
with—what shall I say?—very interesting, if highly implausible,
theories about some of the trials I cover.
I know you
visit this site for many different reasons. I hope that you find
the Famous Trials site of value.
If the materials on the site stimulate people to think
more seriously about both our legal system and the nature of
justice, then I can call my work a success.
New York Times Review of Famous Trials (1999)
Building the Famous Trials Website (Essay published in Jurist in 2000)