Jul 19, 2023
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:
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.