All language subtitles for Justice.on.Trial.S01E08.1080p.WEB.h264-EDITH

So, Charles Darwin, when
he visited the Galapagos Islands,

noticed in that
isolated environment

that the same species he
had observed elsewhere,

had in fact, evolved
with different traits.

Like a turtle with a longer neck

was able to reach the
higher Galapagos leaves,

as opposed to the short necks
the same species had elsewhere.

Yes?

Is this that theory of evolution thing
they were talking about in the news?

Yes, that's right. And
it goes even further.

The theory hypothesizes
that a whole species could,

in fact, evolve
into other species.

Like for instance, man could
have even evolved from the ape.

Yes, Michael?

Okay. The Bible says that God
created all the earth, right?

And man arose from
the earth itself.

Well, this is Biology
class, Michael.

I'm here to show you that science
comes up with new ideas all the time.

John Scopes?

What's the meaning of this?

I'm sorry, John. You're under arrest
for violation of the Butler Act.

The Butler Act?

We've been over this, John.

It's illegal to deny the teachings
of Genesis in a public classroom.

I'm not denying anything.

I'm just trying to
open their minds.

I'm Judy Sheindlin.

Before I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New
York City for 15 years,

and a lawyer for 17
years before that.

While serving on both
sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't
always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one decision
by a police officer, a lawyer,

or even a judge, can change
the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate
this by taking landmark cases

from actual crimes
committed by real people,

and we'll recreate them
with our trial lawyers

and yours truly as
the trial judge.

While we're not going to
recreate the trials verbatim,

all the court's ultimate
decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide
whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real cases, actual
lawyers, surprising verdicts.

Justice on Trial.

This episode of Justice
on Trial is going to retry

one of the most famous cases
in the history of America,

The State of Tennessee
v. John Scopes,

better known as the
Scopes Monkey Trial.

You might ask why are we
looking at a trial from 1925

about a teacher's attempt to teach
Darwin's theory of evolution of man

in a small Tennessee town.

You'll see that the issues presented
are still a hot button today.

Can or should states
define what can and cannot

be taught in our public schools?

The Scopes trial was one of the
first to explore that concept.

Yet, the law is
still unresolved.

Members of the jury, the
Defendant in this case,

John Scopes, is charged with
violation of this State's Butler Act,

which makes it a crime to teach
any theory that denies the story

of the divine creation as
it's taught in the Bible,

and to teach instead that man was
descended from a lower order of animal.

The prosecutor must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt

that the Defendant violated that act
and therefore is guilty of a crime.

Counsel, note your
appearance, please.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.
For the State of Tennessee,

along with my esteemed co-counsel,
Mr. William Jennings Bryan,

I'm Dan Mentzer.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Larry
Bakman on behalf of John Scopes,

the Defendant in this case,
who is present in court.

Thank you. Counsel, you wish
to make an opening statement?

I do, Your Honor. This Defendant
right here, Mr. John Scopes,

was hired by the Rhea High
School School District.

This man just graduated from
college from some school up north.

Came down here to teach chemistry,
and I believe also to teach football.

But as soon as our biology
teacher called in sick,

this man jumped at the chance
to come into our school

and teach our children a
theory of the origin of man

that conflicted with the Bible.

Well, thank God, in this state,
as the judge has already told you,

that is a crime.

Because in this state,
the state of Tennessee,

the only thing that may be
taught as to the origin of man

has to come from the Bible.

In this very courtroom, what's gonna be on
trial is more than just Mr. John Scopes.

Our values are
gonna be on trial.

Our beliefs are
gonna be on trial.

Our very way of life is on
trial in this courtroom.

And you are called
upon to save it.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.
Mr. Bakman?

Thank you, Your Honor. I
agree with almost everything

Mr. Mentzer had to say.

This case is larger
than John Scopes.

This case is larger
than the Butler Act.

This case is a case that will decide
whether or not the people in this state

are going to confine the
minds of their children

to thinking only in terms of
one literal interpretation

of the Book of Genesis,

as opposed to any other
theory as to evolution.

Do you want
government to dictate

what you kids can
learn in the classroom?

Be it race, be it
gender, be it history.

Because if you subscribe
to what Mentzer is selling,

that's exactly what
you're going to do.

You're going to keep your
children small-minded.

Thank you, Counsel. Ready
to proceed, Mr. Mentzer?

I am, Your Honor.

Would you call
your first witness?

The State calls Michael Morgan.

-Swear the witness.
-Raise your right hand, please.

You swear to tell the
truth in these matters?

-I do.
-Thank you. Have a seat.

You may inquire.

Thank you, Your
Honor. Good morning, Michael.

-Could you tell the jury how old you are?
-I'm 15 years old.

Michael, do you live in Dayton?

I do. I was born
and raised here.

Where do you go to school
currently, Michael?

I attend Rhea High School.

Now, did you take biology in high
school this past school year, son?

Yes. Every kid in
my grade has to.

Now, son, did you know Mr. Scopes
before this school year?

-No, sir.
-Was he new to the school district?

Yes. I had never seen
him before this year.

Now, Michael, are
you a church goer?

Yes, sir. Every Sunday.

Have you been taught
to respect the word of the Bible?

-Yes, sir.
-Does the Bible say anything

about man evolving from monkeys?

No, it says that
God created man.

That is the origin of man that you've
been taught your whole life, is it not?

-Yes.
-Now, when Mr. Scopes here,

as a substitute teacher,
came into your class

and told you that man
evolved from monkeys,

did he tell you that was just one
theory as to the origin of man,

or did he say it was a fact?

He said it was a fact.

Thank you for
coming in today, Michael.

-You may inquire, Mr. Bakman.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

So, Michael, when Mr. Scopes was
teaching you about evolution,

he was teaching you from
a state-approved textbook.

And that state-approved
textbook did not suggest to you

that the only theory
of the origin of man

came from the Bible, did it?

-Objection.
-Overruled.

He taught from the biology book,

but he also read to us from The
Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

In teaching
you about evolution,

do you believe that Mr. Scopes
hurt you in any way?

No, I do not.

Do you believe he opened
your mind and made you think?

Yes.

No further questions.

Michael, do you remember
exactly what Mr. Scopes told you

about how our beings
today came about?

He told us that there
were single-cell organisms

that grew into animals that looked
like monkeys and became us humans.

And years and years later,
is that what he told you?

We are what we are today
because we were originally what?

Monkeys.

Anything else?

-No, Your Honor.
-No, Your Honor.

Witness is excused.
Thank you, Michael.

Next witness, Mr. Mentzer.

The State rests.

At this time, Your Honor, I would
move to dismiss the State's case.

Denied.

Well, I would call John Scopes.

Raise your
right hand, please.

You swear to tell the truth
in these matters today?

-I do.
-Thank you. Have a seat.

You may inquire, sir.

Mr. Scopes,
you are a teacher

for the Dayton, Tennessee
school district, are you?

Yes, that's correct. I was hired to
teach math, chemistry and physics,

and I coach a little football.

And where did you get
your teaching degree from?

I graduated from the
University of Kentucky

with a degree in law and
a minor in geology, sir.

And at the time you
were teaching biology,

did you teach from Charles Darwin's
book, The Origin of the Species?

Yes, I did.

And what does Charles
Darwin's book state

with respect to the
creation of man?

He states that us, as men,
descended from a lower life form,

even monkeys.

And would you say, sir, that
that's consistent or inconsistent

with the teaching of the Bible
as to the creation of man?

Well, it's very
much inconsistent.

The Bible tells us that God,
and God alone, created man.

And you were aware at the time that
you were teaching these students

at the high school about
the creation of man,

specifically from Darwin's book, that
was a violation of the Butler Act.

Is that right?

Yes, I was aware that teaching the
theory of evolution was illegal,

but I thought it
was hypocritical

that the State of Tennessee
also requires us teachers...

Objection to what
his feelings are.

Overruled. I'd like to hear it.

Well, Your Honor, it's hypocritical
that the State of Tennessee

requires us teachers to teach from
George Hunter's A Civic Biology,

which endorses biology.

And I thought it was odd that in a
country where we have freedom of speech

that I could only teach biblical
interpretations as to the order of man.

But Mr. Scopes, tell me, if you knew
it was going to violate the law,

and you knew you were possibly
going to be criminally prosecuted

for teaching Darwin's
theory, why did you do it?

Because my job as a teacher is to
open the minds of these students

and allow them to think
freely and not pigeonhole them

into one ideation of the
idea of man's creation.

Let me ask you this. Do
you believe in the Bible?

Absolutely not. It's a great
story, but it's pure fiction.

Do you believe you should
be criminally prosecuted

because your teachings differ
from what's stated in the Bible

as to how mankind was created?

-Objection.
-Sustained.

I don't care what he
thinks, the law is the law.

Do you believe that the legislature should
control how teachers teach students?

Objection.

Same objection, same ruling.

When the witness becomes a
legislator, he can change the law.

Well, I think this is a very
slippery slope, Your Honor,

and I would ask that the
court indulge these questions.

Judge, I would ask that the Defense
Attorney save these arguments

for the jury on summation
where they're more appropriate.

I agree with you, Mr. Mentzer.

-I have nothing further then.
-Mr. Mentzer, you may inquire.

Thank you, Your Honor.
Now, Mr. Scopes,

you're not from around
these parts, are you?

No, I am new to the
district of Dayton.

I believe you said you came
from the University of Kentucky?

Yes, correct.
I grew up in Kentucky,

went to the University of Illinois,
then transferred to Kentucky.

-And this is your first year in our town?
-Yes, it is.

Mr. Scopes, I'd ask you to look out
amongst this crowd right here you see.

-Mm-hmm.
-These are God-fearing people

-in this town, aren't they?
-I understand that here, in Dayton,

-God is very important.
-Christians in this county, right?

To the best of my
knowledge, sir.

On Sunday mornings, you don't see your
students walking around the town, do you?

No, I do not. They're
usually in church, sir.

You yourself, used to
go to church, right?

-Yes, that's correct.
-When did you stop?

I suppose, the 12th grade.

And why did you stop?

I stopped believing in organized religion
and set my sights on the truth of science.

So, you're an atheist.

I don't see how my religious
beliefs are valid here, sir.

Well, you brought them
as an issue in this case

when you started teaching our children
that the Bible was a pack of lies, sir.

-Didn't you?
-I'm a teacher, sir.

There's no evidence that he taught
them that the Bible was a pack of lies.

You just told us you started
working this year as a teacher

of chemistry and football
in our school. Correct?

Yes.

And it was your plan to only spend here
one year, then blow on out of town, right?

-Yes, to continue my studies.
-And then, you found out

about this Butler Act, which prohibited
the teaching of evolution as you knew it

-in our school, right?
-Yes.

Can you indulge me for
a moment, Counselor?

You were aware, according to
Mr. Mentzer's question and your response,

that you were aware that the
State passed the Butler Act.

-Yes.
-Would you tell me

what your understanding
of the Butler Act is?

Well, my understanding,
absurd as it is,

is that it is illegal to
teach the theory of evolution

outside of George Hunter's A Civic
Biology in the Tennessee school systems.

And then, you found out there was
a need for a substitute teacher

in the biology class because Mr. Jones
didn't come to school one day.

-Is that right?
-I volunteered to be there.

You raised your hand knowing
that you were gonna go in

and teach them something that
violated the Butler Act, right?

I suppose so.

Sir, it was your
intention to break the law

when you raised your hand and
agreed to come in and teach biology.

My intention was to open
the minds of my students...

Sir, it was your intention
to break the law, was it not?

Objection, argumentative. I
ask that counsel step back.

Step back. Yeah, step
back, Mr. Mentzer.

Rephrase that question, please,
in an appropriate tone, sir.

Judge, I think the question was
phrased in the appropriate tone.

It was your intention to break
the law, wasn't it, Mr. Scopes?

Yes, it was my intention
to break this absurd law.

Now, this theory of evolution was
that man was not created in His image,

but rather, that he
evolved from monkeys.

-Do I have that right?
-Yes.

Now, did you explain to the children
when you taught them this theory

that it was just one theory
as to the origin of mankind,

or did you tell them
that it was the fact?

It is scientifically
accepted as a fact, sir.

So, in your mind, the theory of evolution
is really the fact of evolution, right?

You could say that.

Now, in
the Book of Genesis,

which explains how
God says man got here,

created in his own image is,
as you say, pure fiction?

Yes. It's a fantastic story,
but it's pure fiction.

Now, before you came into
class and told these children

that the Bible was pure fiction,
did you speak with their parents

to let them know exactly
what you were going to do?

I wasn't aware it was
my job to run my lessons

by the parents of the
students of this school, sir.

Were you at all concerned that by saying
that the Bible lied about how we got here,

that you were
calling into question

the entire framework
of their moral beings?

My job is to teach
the truth, sir.

So, that is a yes, you did
know that you were questioning

their entire moral
framework, did you not,

when you taught them
the theory of evolution?

-My job is to teach the truth.
-Is that a yes?

Answer the question, Mr. Scopes.

Did you know that you were challenging
their entire moral framework

when you taught them
the theory of evolution?

Yes.

Were you at all
concerned, Mr. Scopes,

that by teaching the children of this
town that the Bible was a pack of lies,

that you were questioning
their way of life?

I think these students
can think for themselves,

and I think opening their
minds to the truth of science

-is what my responsibility...
-Were you at all concerned, Mr. Scopes...

Step back, sir.

No, I was not concerned.

Thank you.

-Any redirect?
-Yes.

Let me see if I understand
this correctly, Mr. Scopes.

You've just been attacked
by the prosecution...

Can we get to a
question, please, sir?

Yes. Is it somewhat
hypocritical to be accused

of teaching the evolution of
man different from the Bible

when the State's required
textbook entitled A Civic Biology,

written by William Hunter, and that
book includes the theory of evolution?

-Yes.
-Separate and apart

-from what the Bible says.
-Yes.

So, every teacher who
teaches from that book

violates Tennessee
law, the Butler Act.

-Objection, argumentative.
-Right?

Sustained. Don't answer the
question. He understands the law.

He understands that by
teaching evolution from a book

that's authorized by the State,
that he's breaking the law.

As is every other teacher in
the state of Tennessee, yes?

Who teaches from
the required book.

-Correct, Your Honor.
-Yes.

-Okay. Anything else?
-No, nothing further.

Very good. Witness is excused.
Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Before we get
back to the trial,

I want to tell you
something a little unusual.

You may be wondering who's the man
sitting with the prosecutor's lawyer.

He's actually a key historic
figure from this trial

whose name was William
Jennings Bryan,

a former Congressman
and Secretary of State.

He ran for president three times.
And he was on the prosecution's team

as an expert on
teachings of the Bible.

In fact, William Jennings
Bryan delivered a famous speech

in a church after the trial,

which we will show you in
pieces throughout the episode.

You'll see how his
position on evolution

relates to the larger issues brought up
in the trial. Here's the first piece.

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to begin in this
blessed house with the word of God,

who said in Genesis 1,
verse 26, and I quote,

"Let us make man in Our
image, in Our likeness

so that he may rule over
the fish in the sea,

over the birds in the sky,

over the livestock and
all the wild animals,

"and over the creatures
that move along the ground."

How do I know these
words are true,

passed down through generations

since the beginning of
recorded time itself?

Faith.

And that's what this trial of
Jonathan Scopes is all about.

Faith in the
absolute word of God,

or faith...

in the hypothesis of evolution?

Next witness, Mr. Bakman.

Your Honor, I call an expert in
zoology, Mr. Maynard Metcalf.

-You may inquire, Mr. Bakman.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Metcalf, you've been called
as an expert witness in this case?

That's correct.

And, sir, can you tell the
jury about your expertise?

I have a doctorate in zoology
from Johns Hopkins University.

And have you taught
zoology, sir?

I have for the past 30 years.

And in teaching zoology, did
you ever teach your students

from the work entitled Origin of
the Species by Charles Darwin?

I have indeed. I have
taught from that book.

Well, given this theory of evolution,
can you tell the jury, sir,

based upon your scientific knowledge
and your scientific teachings,

what is the origin of man?

Man has a tremendous probability of
being evolved from other species.

Fossil evidence shows that there
are various forms of primitive man.

And fossil evidence also shows that for
other species in their history as well.

And is evolution a generally
accepted scientific theory?

Yes, it is accepted by
the scientific community.

-I have no further questions.
-You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor. Doctor,
this theory of evolution

that you're discussing here in court,
it's relatively recent, is it not?

That's correct.

It was started by a book
called Origin of Species

that you mentioned on direct examination
by a man named Charles Darwin.

-Is that right?
-That's right.

And Mr. Darwin went to
the Galapagos Islands

and followed around some animal species
for a period of time. Is that right?

That is correct.

And his theory that he
developed calls into question

the Holy Bible, that's been
around for 2,000 years.

Yes, it does.

It doesn't just call into
question the Holy Bible,

it actually calls the Holy
Bible a fiction, does it not?

-It does.
-All based on some man

walking around the islands,
following around some animals?

No, based on scientifically
accepted principles.

Now, according to this theory,
man evolved from a single cell.

-Is that right?
-That's correct.

And then, if I'm
understanding this correctly,

and please tell me if I'm wrong,

that the monkey evolved eventually
to the people we are today?

-Yes.
-Now, Dr. Metcalf, there are no witnesses

to this evolution that
you're discussing, are there?

Of course not. This happened
over thousands of years.

There are no pictures showing
this evolutionary process

-you're talking about, right?
-I believe that there are no pictures.

It is a theory based upon the
scientific community's belief

about this man Darwin
following around animals.

That is correct. It is based

on the scientific community's
acceptance of that theory.

And the only physical evidence, as
I understand it in your testimony,

are some fossils that were
found throughout the world.

I believe so.

And your theory is just that,
a theory, right? A hypothesis.

Yes, but one that is accepted
by the scientific community.

But like all theories, could be
right, could be wrong, right?

Yes.

Trust me, my friends,
evolution is a theory.

It is millions of
guesses strung together.

It had not been proven
in the time of Darwin,

and it has not been
proven up to today.

There is no more
reason to believe

that man has descended
from some inferior animal,

than there is to believe
that a stately mansion

had descended from
a small cottage.

Resemblances are not proof.

They are merely
curiosity to the eye.

Any other witnesses, sir?

At this point in time, Your
Honor, the Defense rests.

-Mr. Mentzer?
-Your Honor,

in light of Your Honor
accepting the testimony here

presenting to the jury
of the zoology expert,

the defense, on rebuttal, calls
Mr. William Jennings Bryan

as an expert on the Bible.

Mr. Bryan?

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.

-Good afternoon, Mr. Bryan.
-Good afternoon, sir.

In your long career
of serving our nation,

what causes have you
supported, Mr. Bryan?

Oh, I've long supported the
rights for the common man.

I've fought for the rights of
farmers and other laborers.

I've fought for and won the right
for women to vote in our elections.

Mr. Bryan, do you subscribe
to a particular religion?

Oh, yes. I am a longtime
devout Christian.

-Do you go to church regularly?
-I go to church just about every day.

Mr. Bryan, do you
read the Bible?

I've read the Bible
several times.

I read portions of the
Bible almost daily.

You might even say
that I study the Bible.

Your Honor, I offer
Mr. William Jennings Bryan

as an expert on the subject
of the King James Bible.

I have absolutely no
objection to that.

Witness is so qualified.

Now, Mr. Bryan, have you studied
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?

Yes, I most certainly have.

Do you accept Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution

as the true explanation
for the origin of man?

No, I do not. You see,
Darwin's theory preaches

that man can only seek
his highest potential

through the laws of hate. And
evolution is a merciless law

where only the strong will crowd
out the weak, and kill the weak.

Mr. Bryan, what does the Bible
say as to the origin of mankind?

The Book of Genesis clearly states that
man was created by God in His image.

And do you take the
Bible literally?

Of course, I do. The Bible is the
word of God, it is the gospel.

And I believe that everything in the
Bible should be accepted as given.

Mr. Bryan, you're
not from Tennessee, are you?

-No, sir, I'm not.
-Where are you from?

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Why did you come down here to
Tennessee to be at this trial?

Well, I came here to
defend the Butler Act.

I have been very active in
getting laws such as this passed.

Mr. Bryan, is it your hope

that the theory of evolution
never be taught in schools?

Oh, dear Lord, no.

I just feel that it should be taught
as a hypothesis and not a fact.

But you have outside agitators

that want to throw away the Bible
and preach evolution as fact.

Is the Butler Act the only
thing you're here to defend?

I am here to defend
the rights of parents

to have some say in what our
children are being taught in school.

-I am here to defend Christianity itself.
-And why is that?

There are many atheist teachers
coming into our schools

and teaching that the Bible... That
the Bible is an act of fiction.

And I am here to stop them.

Thank you, Mr. Bryan. I
have no further questions.

You may inquire, sir.

So, Mr. Bryan, you're a man who's
well-versed in the Bible. Is that correct?

Most definitely.

And you believe that the Bible
should be interpreted literally.

Absolutely.

And so, Jonah was swallowed
by a great big whale

in the Bible. Is that right?

It was a big fish, not a
whale. That's my recollection.

-My mistake.
-A big fish.

-My mistake.
-And I believe it.

And I believe in a God
that can make a whale,

that can make a man, that
can make both as he pleases.

-Let's talk about Adam and Eve.
-Mm.

Eve was created, according to
the Bible, from Adam's rib.

-Granted.
-Where did Cain's wife come from?

I cannot say because
I wasn't there.

Well, neither was I, but we're turning to
you as the expert on the Bible, Mr. Bryan.

And the Bible is also an expert.

Documented by many people.

I see. And so, let me focus
on one of the questions

your co-counsel asked you
about parents being involved

in what teachers
teach their students.

You think parents
should have a say

in every single area
that a teacher teaches?

When it comes to raising
their minor children,

I do believe that the parents

should have a strong say so in what's
being taught to their children.

Now, whatever may be said about
teaching evolution to adults,

it is surely not proper to
teach it to our children,

who are not yet able to
think and to distinguish

from fact and what is
that of mere speculation.

And so,
is it your position

that we should only teach
students what the Bible says

and nothing else?

I feel that the Bible is one of the
most proven documents in history.

It compares heavily with
several people backing it up

and writing in the scriptures as
compared to one man's whimsical theories.

And so, if a
teaching by a teacher

contradicts the Bible, it's your
opinion that should not be taught?

If it contradicts
the Bible, yes.

If a theory
contradicts the Bible,

we should censor that theory
because the Bible is contradicted.

If it contradicts
the Bible, then yes.

And you're not
concerned about limiting

the ability of students
to think for themselves?

If it would contradict
the Bible, then yes.

No further questions.

If I may briefly on redirect?

I would just like you
to clarify your position

as to the teaching of the theory
of evolution, if you could, sir.

I have no problem with the
teaching students of the theory.

No objection at all.

What I have a problem with is the
teachers teaching a theory as a fact,

when it's actually a theory.

A teacher can think
as he pleases.

This law places no obligations
or restraints on him.

It deals with the Defendant,
not as an individual,

but as an employee, an official. A
public servant paid by the State.

And therefore, under the
instructions from the State.

And the great state of
Tennessee has not created a law

to establish a religion
or to teach it.

It is merely trying
to protect itself

from the efforts of
an insolent minority

that seeks to teach our
children ill religion

under the guise of
teaching science.

Would you like to
make a closing argument?

I do,
indeed, Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen
of this jury,

my good friend William Jennings
Bryan, he is dangerous.

His conclusions in this case

are an affront to free speech,

free thought, and is tantamount
to government censorship.

Here's the problem. It
is a slippery slope.

And where do we draw the line?

When we start needing
parental consent

for our teachers to teach
alternative theories

to open the minds of kids of today,
to get them thinking for themselves.

And the danger is, once we
start having the government

dictate what our
teachers can teach,

that's when we lose
out on a free society.

And that's the danger
that this prosecution

has brought into this courtroom.

I urge you to reject
the prosecution's case

and acquit this young
teacher, John Scopes.

-Thank you.
-Mr. Mentzer.

Thank you, Your Honor.
Ladies and gentlemen,

it sounds as though Mr. Bakman
here has a problem with the law.

Well, let me just
make this clear

that we, the good people
of the state of Tennessee,

did not want to enact
laws restricting teachers

and telling them what
they can and can't teach.

But we kind of had to do that
because you had outside agitators

coming into our state
to teach our kids

that everything they've been
learning in church was a lie.

John Scopes jammed
that theory of his

down the throats of our children,
as though it were an absolute fact.

And that's the problem we have.
And that's why we enact these laws,

to prevent people like this to let
their own agenda invade our children.

And that's why we stood
up and created this law.

And that man right
there is guilty of it.

Thank you.

Members of the jury, you have now
heard all of the evidence in this case.

It is your duty to render a
verdict based upon that evidence.

Did the Defendant
violate the Butler Act

by teaching the theory of
evolution, or did he not?

You may not consider
whether you do

or do not believe in the
science of evolution.

In that regard, this state's
legislature has spoken.

Unless and until
that law is changed,

it remains the law in
the state of Tennessee.

You may now retire
and deliberate.

Court's
now in session.

I will now read
the jury's verdict.

Would the Defendant
rise, please?

Mr. Scopes, the jury,
after deliberation,

has found you guilty of
violating the Butler Act,

and imposes a fine of $100.

Thank you very much. This concludes
the business of the court.

So, John Scopes was found guilty of
violating the Butler Act in Tennessee.

The $100 fine was
obviously not a big deal.

The issue was challenging the
State's rights to have a law

that prohibited the teaching of a
proven theory in public schools.

The trial was such a nationwide spectacle
that it achieved what Scopes wanted.

State legislatures
began passing laws

protecting the teaching
of evolution in schools.

Even the State of Tennessee
struck down the Butler Act.

But it took 40 years.

That was in 1967.

A year later, in 1968, the
United States Supreme Court

finally got to rule on the same
issue presented in the Scopes trial.

But that was in another
case, Epperson v. Arkansas,

which asked, was it
constitutional for a state

to have a law prohibiting
the teaching of evolution.

We are using that
case of Epperson

to illustrate how the Supreme
Court might have ruled in Scopes.

Your Honor, this is case
108, State v. Scopes.

Thank you, officer.

Counsel, please,
note your appearance.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Larry Bakman
on behalf of the appellant, John Scopes.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Dan Mentzer
on behalf of the State of Tennessee.

Thank you, Counsel.
May a state legislature

consistent with the First Amendment,
limit the teaching of certain subjects?

Education, in many instances, is a matter
left to the discretion of the States.

But what if the State
prevents a school or a teacher

from instructing students
as to certain matters?

In this case, the prohibited
subject was evolution,

the notion that we humans
descended from lesser organisms.

The State of Tennessee banned the
teaching of evolution in its schools,

and Petitioner Scopes
violated that ban.

The question before this
court is whether the law

violates the Tennessee State,

and the United States
Federal Constitutions.

We are not here asked to rule
on the merits of science.

We are asked to
rule on the merits

of whether or not a state can
prohibit certain teachings.

Ours is a very special relationship
between states and the federal government,

and this case tests the
limits of that relationship.

We'll now hear from counsel.

Mr. Bakman, do you have an
opening statement for the court?

-I do, thank you, Your Honor.
-Please.

This is a case that goes
directly to the heart

of teaching our young people.

And what this case exemplified
was that John Scopes, my client,

taught his high school students
about the theory of evolution.

It differed from
community's dictate

and from Tennessee's dictate,

that only religion can be taught
with respect to the origin of man.

Anything that differed from
that teaching was criminalized.

That's unconstitutional.

That's what makes this
case so egregious.

When we give the State of
Tennessee, or any State,

the power to dictate, to command
what a teacher will teach,

and make that teaching mandated,
subject to criminal penalty.

That violates the First Amendment.
That violates freedom of speech.

And what it does is it hinders
the free thinking of our young.

I urge this court to
overturn this conviction.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
Mr. Mentzer?

Thank you, Your Honor. It is not
science that's on trial here today,

and it's not religion
that's on trial.

What is on trial here today
is a parent's right to know

what their children are
being taught at school.

Do we, as parents, have to sit by as
our children are taught mere theories

by their teachers as though
they were the gospel?

Do we even have a say when our
children are taught these theories

which are in violation with our
own basic values and beliefs?

Now, the Butler Act was designed
to stop teachers like that

from doing what they were
doing. Because when parents feel

that they've lost the ability
to raise their own children,

when activist teachers are jamming
their own political opinions

down the minds of our children,

that's when the need for laws
like the Butler Act came.

And that's why we ask the court to
uphold the verdict in this case.

-Thank you.
-Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.

We will now retire
to deliberate.

We have reached
a unanimous verdict.

Inherent in any education system
is providing an environment

that fosters free and independent
thinking and conclusions.

The alternative is
indoctrination, not education.

The First Amendment
prohibits the government

from favoring or endorsing
one religion over another,

or one religion
over non-religion.

The Free Exercise Clause
protects citizens' rights

to practice their religion as they
please, provided that their practice

does not compromise a
compelling government interest.

The Butler Act violates
the First Amendment

by crediting one
religion over another,

and unconstitutionally chills
the expression and practice

of other faiths with differing
beliefs. For this reason,

the conviction against
Mr. Scopes is reversed,

and the charges
against him dismissed.

The Scopes Monkey Trial
was really never about

whether Scopes was guilty
of breaking a Tennessee law.

It was about the extent
of the government's role

in the education of our children.
That debate rages today.

One thing we know for
sure about justice,

it always evolves.