Criminal Court Case Analysis

Does notoriety affect the outcome of a criminal court proceeding? A trial’s outcome should not be based on the notoriety of it, yet it is. Due to media coverage, the length of the trial, and the notoriety of the people who committed the crime, the outcome of the trial is affected. The Manson trials and the trial of Leopold and Loeb are two prime example of how notoriety can affect a criminal court proceeding. An analysis of two criminal court proceedings, the Manson trial and the trial of Leopold and Loeb, reveals that notoriety does affect criminal court proceedings. Even though criminal court proceedings should be based on unbiased information and evidence, overall, the notoriety of the case impacts it.
A terrifying bloody scene painted the
house of Roman Polanski, a film director. 5 bodies of innocent people adorn the floor, this includes Sharon Tate, Polanski’s pregnant wife, Jay Sebring, a hair stylist, Abigail Folger, daughter of the chairman of the board of the A.J. Folger Company, Voytek Frykowski, Folger’s Polish boyfriend, and Steven Parent, a young man who stopped by to sell clocks (galegroup.com).
All of these victims had something in common, they were stabbed a dozen times, and beaten brutally. Police were baffled by the scene, and had no idea who was responsible. After a gun that Manson used hat was thrown into a bush was found and turned in as evidence, they were finally able to connect Manson to all the murders. Manson is a hardcore murderer who is responsible for a lot of deaths. After this gruesome murder, Charles Manson didn’t stop yet, he continued his prospects with the murder of the LaBianca couple who were found in their home beaten and stabbed repeatedly. Manson’s main motive for these murders was to start a race war. Manson believed that there would be a race war between the whites and the blacks in which the blacks would triumph over the whites. Then, after the black proved that they could not rule over themselves, they would turn to Manson and his followers to rule over them. After being arrested for the murder of these people, Charles Manson’s trial lasted 9 and a half months, one of the longest trials up to that time period. The
prosecution relied mostly on Manson's followers who were willing to provide testimony in exchange for leniency and a small collection of evidence. Manson’s lawyer was Irving Kanarek. Kanarek was a lawyer famous for dragging out even the most boring cases. Kanarek's reason for defending Manson’s case is, “I get a kick out of practicing law. In the atmosphere of a courtroom, there is an adversary process. And where you have the adversary process, blood flows.” (qtd. latimes.com, Kanarek, Irving). One of Kanarek’s close friends describes him as a devoted lawyer, “He is a lawyer devoted to the cause of his clients, and brutally honest. He sometimes loses the forest for the trees, and he will take a point to extremes. That’s what terrorizes judges. He’s on the cutting edge in many cases” (qtd. latimes.com, Denny, George). Kanarek was a very loud lawyer and objected things that the witnesses said on the stand. He’s known for having the most objections during a trial. Over various times Manson threatened to fire Kanarek for his hotheadedness. Before the trial, Manson wasn’t well-known or famous, but after committing those crimes, Manson’s notoriety grew amongst the people. His motives and the amount of people he killed led to his fame. Manson’s notoriety ultimately led to an effect on his trial because of all the news about it and the high status of the people he killed.
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were two teenage children of wealthy Jewish families in Chicago. They had an intense relationship that was described as ‘weird and almost impossible’ by their lawyer.They started their crime off by luring a 14 years old boy, Robert Franks, into their car, then bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, and then later disposing his body into a culvert. The two teenagers planned out this crime in order for it to be perfect, but when Leopold left his glasses at the scene, the crime was traced back to them immediately. After being caught, they hired Clarence Darrow, a well-known attorney. Darrow knew they were guilty and so did the public, knowing this he decided to take on the job and defend them by using a plea of insanity. Leopold and Loeb confessed to the murder and pleaded guilty, so there was no jury, it was a sentencing trial. Darrow believed that it would be harder for the judge to live with the guilt of sentencing Leopold and Loeb to death, than for a group of twelve men. Darrow wanted to portray that they were guilty but insane, in order to secure them life sentences in prison instead of the death sentence (about.com).
“Your Honor, that no human being could have done what these boys did, excepting through the operation of a diseased brain. I do not propose to go through each step of the terrible deed, it would take too long. But I do want to call the attention of this court to some of the other acts of these two boys, in this distressing and weird homicide; acts which show conclusively that there could be no reason for their conduct” (qtd. umkc.edu, Darrow, Clarence).

The judge believed Darrow’s defense, and sentenced them to life in prison at hard labor. Leopold and Loeb were fairly well known prior to the incident due to the status of their families. After the crime was committed, their case was very famous, and their notoriety grew. The case was covered by many major daily newspapers from the start. The public was outraged at the crime the boys committed and followed the case closely.
As has been noted, Manson and Leopold and Loeb were notorious killers whose notoriety affected their case.
Although they were similar in some ways, Manson and Leopold and Loeb were very different. First, their lawyers had different personalities and used different tactics to defend their clients. Kanarek was a hotheaded lawyer that objected the testimonies of the witnesses, while Darrow defended his clients while keeping in mind what was the best advantage for his clients. Kanarek and Darrow were also similar. Both lawyers took on a case that they knew would be difficult and accepted the challenge of defending hardcore criminals that they knew were guilty. Next, they were both well-known lawyers. In addition, Manson and Leopold and Loeb’s cases were very popular. Manson’s case was popular due to the people he killed, his motive, and the amount of people he killed. This led to the notoriety of the Manson trials. Moreover, Leopold and Loeb’s cases were famous because of their wealthy status’, the type of crime they committed, and the prominence of the murdered boy. Leopold and Loeb’s trial had the public reading newspapers and following every detail of the case out of repulsion. However, their motives and the crimes committed were complete opposites. Manson wanted to start a race war and be able to rule over the blacks, so he killed well known people in order to start it. Meanwhile, Loeb was fascinated with crime and was very intelligent. He studied cases and crime
committed, and spent a lot of time planning crimes, he wanted to prove that the perfect crime could be committed. Leopold was Loeb’s lover and his primary reason for participation in the crime was his attraction to Loeb. Leopold and Loeb were later sentenced to life in prison at hard work where Loeb was killed in a fight with another inmate, and Leopold managed to get off on parole (umkc.edu). Mason was also sentenced to life in prison. At the time the state of California removed the death penalty, and when the death penalty was reinstated, Manson had already been tried and convicted, so his punishment did not change. All of Manson and Leopold and Loeb’s similarities and differences contributed to the notoriety of their trials, and overall it affected the outcome of their cases.
Ultimately, notoriety does affect the outcome of criminal proceedings. Manson was not famous, but after he committed those heinous crimes his popularity grew. Leopold and Loeb had a lot of media coverage on their case, and their social status added to the notoriety of their case. In all the due to length, media coverage, and the fame of the criminal or the person who was killed, the outcome of the case was affected. Finally, the notoriety of the Manson and Leopold and Loeb trials led to many different view of the public which led to an outcome that may or may not have been biased, thus supporting that notoriety does affect criminal court proceedings.