Thanks to the efforts of the media, Brian issued a statement on May 13, expressing his willingness to attend the trial for free. Because of his special status, especially as a spokesman for Christian fundamentalism, Brian's participation promoted the trial to the status of major league and broadened the theme. On the second day of Brian's statement, the first-class criminal lawyer in the United States, at the urging of the famous journalist H.L.Mencken, was also willing to defend scopes for free. Mencken warned him, "No one accused the noisy middle school teacher. All I have to do is mock Brian. " A few days later, the legal hero and his friend D.F. Malone sent Nell a telegram expressing their wishes. In the next eight weeks, serious legal operations and funny episodes were intertwined. In order to compete with Chattanooga, Dayton successfully recalled scopes, who was on vacation in Kentucky, accelerated legal procedures within two months, and forged two debates to keep the media's appetite alive. On July 2, the defendant formulated relevant strategies in new york, including expanding the scope of the debate to the struggle between science and fundamentalism, sacrificing scopes's chance of being acquitted, so as to appeal to a higher court or even the Federal Supreme Court, hoping that this "monkey decree" would be declared unconstitutional. The chief lawyer of the defendant is Dr. Nell, and the defense lawyers are legal heroes, Malone, Hayes (A.G. Hayes, the representative of the American Civil Liberties Union), W.O. Thompson and F.B. McElway, plus C.F. Porter, the authority of the Bible. The plaintiff is represented by Tennessee Attorney General A.T.Stewart, and the defense lawyers are Brian and his sons Brian Jr and Ben G. McKenzie J. Gordon Mackenzie, the Hacker brothers and Hugh Garde; The judge is John T. rolston, a devout Baptist. These main characters who participated in the experiment have extraordinary celebrity advertising effect; At the same time, in order to focus the world's attention on the theory of evolution, the scopes trial case reminds people that evolution is a theory that connects people with monkeys; Coupled with media hype and exaggeration, this case is as lively as a circus. It is worth noting that some planners of this case, such as the Hex brothers and Huggard, have become the parties to the trial. With the permission of Judge Lauston, scopes was indicted by the grand jury on May 25th. The trial started on July 10 and ended on July 2 1 0. The jury found scopes guilty and the judge fined him 100 USD. The actual trial lasted eight days. The whole process is complicated and lengthy, which mainly revolves around some key issues, such as the selection of jury, the skillful legal operation of the debate on whether the law is constitutional, and the debate on whether to accept the testimony of evolution and biblical experts.
In addition, the attitude and performance of the media are particularly worth mentioning. On the afternoon of July 20th, it was supposed to be the turning point and climax of the trial, but most reporters (except six) couldn't stand the hot and boring expert testimony and the bleak prospect that there seemed to be no news highlights, or went home or looked for shade and scenic spots, thus missing the turning point and climax of the trial-Brian agreed to testify in court and accepted questions from heroes in the legal field. When a reporter was asked by the host why he never attended the trial, he said, "Oh, I don't need to know what happened, I just know what my newspaper asked me to write." What's even more ridiculous is that because few journalists attended the meeting, scopes himself was recruited to write some latest news stories to fill the gaps left by those absent journalists. (,pp. 183- 184) How can the media ensure the objectivity and fairness of the report?
During the whole trial, the plaintiff, especially Brian, was the winner in all aspects of law, reason and emotion, which deserved sympathy and praise. In contrast, the defendants' defense and performance, especially the legal heroes, are inevitably criticized and even despised-from artificial trap presupposition, obvious utilitarian purpose, argumentative debate to gamblers' embarrassment and anger, plus the attitude of judges, all these facts are different from those reports and legends misled by strong prejudice.