Chapter 29: The Summations and The Verdict

Pic: Hiss Defense Attorney Lloyd Paul Stryker

At last we hear the two great trial lawyers, Lloyd Paul Stryker for The Hiss Defense and Thomas Murphy for The Prosecution, sum up the evidence and loose their rhetorical flourishes. Stryker, remember, was going for a hung jury, just trying to get one or two jurors to hold out for a Not Guilty verdict no matter what the others thought. Murphy had to convince all twelve. Stryker's speech was a masterpiece of rhetoric, which Murphy in his speech dismissed as 'cornball stuff' and 'old, old.' Murphy stuck to what he called the undisputed facts. Ask yourself who won the final war of words before the jury got the Case. Then . . . . hear the jury's conclusion! ** CHECK OUT John W. Berresford's conversation on the case with Brian Lamb of CSPAN, in this week's podcast episode of "Booknotes" here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/booknotes/id1560876048 FURTHER RESEARCH: Stryker and Murphy had a three day weekend (over July 4, 1949) to prepare their closing speeches to the jury. Stryker's speech began late one morning and ended one hour into the next morning. He shouted until his voice was hoarse and his eyes were red. He gestured grandly and, for the first time, moved around a lot, sometimes withdrawing from the jury and sometimes leaning on the front of the jury box. (Cooke at 245-55; Smith at 396-97.). When at last he finished, exhausted and old, "[w]ithout any swagger or semblance of poise, [he] pattered back to his chair.(Cooke at 255.) Murphy moved his 230-pound frame around the well of the courtroom, too, but he mostly stayed calm and leisurely. (Prosecutors generally do not like to appear emotional, which could play into defense claims of a witchcraft trial.). His voice showed only "a rumbling contempt" for Hiss "and his face was never redder than his fine protective tan. (Cooke at 259.). Again and again he emphasized the facts, pointed at The Spy Documents in Hiss's handwriting and typed on The Hiss Home Typewriter, and told the jury "Those are the facts." (Cooke at 257-59.). As you will hear in the Podcast, he raised his voice at the end, talking briefly about the dates of the typed documents. It was a great flourish. He closed by reminding the jury's members that they need not follow any opinion the foreman might express. Murphy had heard second hand that the foreman (the General Motors manager) was pro-Hiss. (Cooke at 261-65.) Questions: Did either speech change your mind? Did one strengthen your pre-existing convictions? What were the strong points of each one? Did either advocate fail to address a weakness in his case that you felt needed addressing? Did the jury's conclusion surprise you? In 1949, long, passionate, flowery speeches were still common. They were one form of popular entertainment, and Lloyd Paul Stryker was Michelangelo. The allegedly 'cool' medium of television was just starting. Given our calm modern attitudes, would there be a place for Lloyd Paul Stryker in today's courtrooms? I think there would. He was that good, in my opinion.