Leopold & Loeb: The Perfect Crime? The Emergence of Expert Testimony
Compiled by Victoria Martin, Olivia Hope Foster, Lauren Marie McBrearty, and Veronica E. Cinibulk
Factual Background
Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were two University of Chicago students convicted of murdering fourteen-year old Bobby Franks in Chicago in May 1924. Deemed the “crime of the century,” the boys thought their superior intelligence would allow them to kidnap and murder Franks and evade police detection. Leopold and Loeb—both from affluent Chicago families—knew each other casually as children but grew closer while they were students at the University of Chicago together. Prior to the Franks murder, the pair committed a few minor crimes ranging from vandalism to arson, in an effort to draw attention to their status as “supermen” too sophisticated for ordinary laws.
Leopold and Loeb, ages 19 and 18, respectively, decided kidnapping and murdering a young boy would be the “perfect crime.” The duo spent seven months meticulously planning every detail of the crime. On May 21, 1924 the boys put their plan in action and kidnapped Bobby Franks, their neighbor, after offering Franks a ride as he walked home from school. Once inside the car, Loeb struck him in the back of the head with a chisel, although some dispute remains over whether Leopold and Loeb actually struck the child. They drove the body to Indiana, dumped it, and placed a series of ransom calls to Franks’ parents in an effort to throw off the police investigation. Police ultimately connected Leopold and Loeb to the crime after a pair of eyeglasses left at the scene was traced to Leopold. Once in custody, both boys confessed to the kidnap and murder, each describing the other as the mastermind of the plot.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/leopold-and-loebs-criminal-minds-996498/
The Expert
Dr. William Alanson White was one of the most prominent psychologists of the early twentieth century. Born in Brooklyn, New York, he attended Cornell University and then continued his medical studies at Long Island College Hospital. Dr. White worked at Binghamton State Hospital in New York for eleven years after graduating medical school before President Theodore Roosevelt appointed him superintendent of the Government Hospital for the Insane. White held a number of prominent leadership roles within the psychiatric community, including president of the American Psychopathological Society in 1922, the American Psychiatric Association from 1924–25, and the American Psychoanalytical Society in 1928. He also was a professor at George Washington and Georgetown’s medical schools and co-authored the most-used psychiatric textbook of the time. Dr. White played a fundamental role in introducing and developing psychoanalysis in the United States. Prior to the Leopold and Loeb case, Dr. White testified in a number of other trials, including the infamous Thaw case of 1906.
https://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/99-01-01/hx.html
Public Opinion
The Leopold and Loeb trial generated a significant amount of media and public attention. Both the prosecution and defense presented numerous experts to testify to the mental health of the boys. At the time, psychiatry and psychoanalysis was just beginning to gather strength in the United States. Experts from both sides appeared to contradict each other with their testimony on Leopold and Loeb’s mental status. But, as observers pointed out, each expert testified to his respective specialty—some on the influence of sexual abuse, some on the influence of parental neglect, among others—and each could be considered accurate within his own sphere of psychology. Numerous editorials, including one by the New York Times, however, questioned how a group of scientists claiming to study the same field could come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. White’s neutrality and the experts’ neutrality in general was called into question because of these contradictory opinions; some suggested that the experts were being paid to come up with the “right” diagnosis for their respective side. The media further suggested that the experts were “[i]nstead of seeking truth for its own sake and with no preference as to what it turns out to be, they [were] supporting, and [were] expected to support, a predetermined purpose[.]
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/leopold-and-loebs-criminal-minds-996498/
The Social Science Research
The method employed here was that of the intrinsic case study, or a structured interview with an observation of both Leopold and Loeb. This method allowed the researcher to investigate the backgrounds of the two young men in great detail, and to conduct a narrowly focussed, descriptive study. The intrinsic case study was greatly popular and generally accepted by the 1920s; Sigmund Freud’s 1909 study of Little Hans, a boy with phobias, is a well-known example. Case study research also became popular through ethnographic studies of individuals and cultures in the early 20th century.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2655/4079
The outcome of Dr. White’s observations of Leopold and Loeb’s was an account of their hallucinations, superstitious compulsions, paranoid thoughts, fantasies, childhood experiences, and emotional immaturity.
Defense Psychiatrist Interview
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1741-home
Although a traditional insanity defense was not sought, Dr. White nevertheless characterized his findings in a way that was clearly meant to highlight how disturbed both Leopold and Loeb were, and how their life experiences affected their mental state at the time of the crime. This approach paralleled the approach to insanity defenses at the time: the M’Naughten standard. The standard originated in Britain in 1847, and says that an insanity defense is appropriate when, “at the time of the act, the person had a mental disease or defect that interfered with his ability to understand the nature and quality of the act he was performing or if he knew so, he did not know it was wrong.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993532/
Dr. White’s descriptions of Leopold and Loeb suggest that they would fit into this category.
He said that Leopold's “‘pathology began in early childhood,’ and that he was ‘estranged from his peers, a lonely, unhappy child’. . . who retreated into an inner world where emotion counted for nothing and intellect was all.”
Of Loeb, William White said that his “main outstanding feature” was “infantilism.” He said that Loeb was “still a little child emotionally, still talking to his teddy bear.”
Loeb as a child.
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1741-home
It is important to note that the use of psychology and social science in the courtroom, as well as psychiatric diagnoses, were still in the very early stages of their development in the early 20th century. The first uniform nomenclature of mental diseases was put together by statisticians Horatio M. Pollack and Benjamin Malzberg in 1918. The Census Bureau began collecting statistics on patients in mental hospitals in 1923. There was a persistent inability to draw a clear line between the diseases themselves, and their symptoms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250636/
There are a number of drawbacks tied to the intrinsic case study method which were apparent even at the height of their popularity in the time of Sigmund Freud. Because the intrinsic case study represents nothing but itself, it does nothing to further the researchers’ general understanding of a phenomenon. The conclusions that result from a case study cannot be generalized, and the procedure cannot be replicated because it is so individual. Furthermore, there are issues with memory distortions and lying, which often call the conclusions of any case study into question.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Case%20Study%20Method.pdf
In the case of Leopold and Loeb, Dr. White’s conclusions were called into question by the opposing side’s experts, for the very reason that they depended on the truthfulness and accuracy of Leopold and Loeb’s own statements to Dr. White.
It is not difficult to see that, while the case studies employed in the evaluations of Leopold and Loeb may have passed the Frye test at the time they were conducted, they would not have passed the Daubert test, and certainly would not do so in the 21st century. The amorphous case study was popular and generally accepted in the 1920s, but Dr. White’s conclusions could not be tested by other scientists, his methods could not be specifically replicated, the error rate was unknown, and there were no specific standards controlling the executions of the case study. Dr. White’s loosely recounted observations of Leopold and Loeb’s hallucinations, superstitious compulsions, paranoid thoughts, fantasies, childhood experiences, and emotional immaturity are not evaluated against any sort of scale or structured diagnostic system.
Therefore, although Dr. White’s work gives a descriptive, interesting glimpse into the lives of Leopold and Loeb, the methodology employed makes it impossible to draw definite conclusions.
Relevance to the Legal Issues in the Case
The defense offered expert evidence to show that Leopold and Loeb were insane, which would bear on their degree of mental responsibility for the crime. But rather than suggesting a traditional insanity defense, the defense pleaded guilty and then presented this evidence as mitigation, with the hope that the judge would not sentence the defendants to death. See a contemporaneous newspaper article on the subject:
https://homicide.northwestern.edu/docs_fk/homicide/5866/19240722trib01.jp
Dr. White outlined how Leopold and Loeb’s antisocial personalities were shaped by their circumstances. White explained that Loeb’s pattern of lying was created by pressure from Loeb’s governess. White asserted that Loeb was very intelligent but was emotionally infantile, which is not characteristic of “a well-rounded, well-integrated, well-knit personality.” White said that Leopold had been teased as a child, which triggered Loeb’s retreat “into an inner world where emotion counted for nothing and intellect was all.” According to White, Leopold developed a sense of superiority and was unable to adequately appreciate his relations to others.
See White’s testimony:
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1752-psychiatrictestimony
In his famous closing argument, Clarence Darrow, attorney for the defense, addressed the relevance of White’s testimony. Darrow echoed White’s view, asserting that the boys killed “because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped.” Darrow compared the boys to most humans, asserting that only someone with a diseased brain could have committed this crime. He underlined the importance of Leopold and Loeb’s lack of emotion, to which White testified: “emotions…are the instinctive things…. [w]hatever our action is, it comes from the emotions, and nobody is balanced without them.”
Darrow seemed to place significant faith in the expert evidence. He said, “[s]cience…[and] scholarship has been at work, and intelligent people now know that every human being is the product of the endless heredity back of him and the infinite environment around him.” He acknowledged the shortcomings of the legal community in regards to scientific evidence. Darrow said:
| "As a rule, lawyers are not scientists. They have learned the doctrine of hate and fear, and they think that there is only one way to make men good, and that is to put them in such terror that they do not dare to be bad. They act unmindful of history, and science, and all the experience of the past.” |
Still, Darrow recognized that courts had made some progress, that courts were starting to pay attention to evidence that had previously been ignored.
See Darrow's closing argument:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html
While Dr. White’s evidence was influential, other factors were at play. Most notably, Darrow’s anti-death penalty rhetoric colored the case. This rhetoric almost certainly influenced Judge Caverly’s sentencing decision, but that should not discount entirely the role that the expert’s evidence played. Interestingly, when Caverly announced his decision, that ninety-nine years in prison was a better punishment than death, he noted the possible benefits to criminology that might come from future study of Leopold and Loeb.
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1741-home
The Court’s Treatment of the Expert and the Expert Evidence
The court exhibited a favorable attitude of social science evidence in general. The court displayed a positive view of a judge’s ability to properly listen to and decipher the admissibility of expert testimony. Further, the court showed a general tendency to hear all expert testimony, especially when such evidence may mitigate or aggravate a claim against a defendant. Acknowledging the usefulness of this case’s expert testimony beyond the facts of this case, the court explained, “the careful analysis made of the life history of the defendants and of their present mental, emotional and ethical condition has been of extreme interest and is a valuable contribution to criminology.”
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1747-judgedecision
The court illustrated its desire to hear and admit Dr. White’s expert testimony during his direct examination. After the defense attorney inquired about Dr. White’s present and past experiences, likely to establish Dr. White’s credibility and expertise on the matter, the State objected that such information is irrelevant given that the boys pleaded guilty. When the State objected to any testimony on the boys’ mental condition, Judge Caverly quickly explained that the defense “has a right to” put an expert on the stand, regardless of whether the expert explores the boys’ mental condition. The court did not limit Dr. White’s testimony based on their prior guilty plea.
As the State questioned the court’s power to hear from Dr. White, Judge Caverly read from the Illinois criminal code, “It shall be the duty of the Court to examine witnesses as to aggravation or mitigation of the offense.” Judge Caverly continued, explaining that the Court allowed eighty witnesses to testify for the State, so the defense should now be able to put forth evidence regarding mitigation of the crime. Judge Caverly acknowledged that if he did not hear the defense’s testimony and imposed the death penalty, higher courts may question his unwillingness to consider that mitigating evidence. This statement illustrates the court’s willingness to include all testimony out of fear that the decision would otherwise be appealed. Judge Caverly concluded by explaining that he is prepared to hear all evidence and determine its weight, overruling the State’s objection to Dr. White’s testimony.
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1752-psychiatrictestimony
When tasked with making conclusions about the defendants from the parties’ conflicting data and testimony, the court briefly held that the testimony did not support a finding that the boys were insane according to the traditional definition of insanity. While acknowledging the extensive testimony provided by both parties, Judge Caverly explained in his decision, “The testimony introduced, both by the prosecution and the defense, has been as detailed and elaborate as though the case had been tried before a jury…. the testimony has satisfied the court that the case is not one in which it would have been possible to set up successfully the defense of insanity as insanity is defined and understood by the established law of this state for the purpose of the administration of criminal justice.”
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1747-judgedecision
Although Judge Caverly may have considered Dr. White’s expert testimony, the court largely considered other factors when sentencing Leopold and Loeb. Judge Caverly explained that the boys received a 99-year sentence instead of the death penalty because of the boys’ young age and the custom that young boys are to be imprisoned rather than sentenced to death. Minors were sentenced to death in only two previous Illinois cases. Thus, although Judge Caverly recognized the importance of Dr. White’s social science evidence and testimony, such evidence was instead merely a “footnote” for a sentencing decision made on other grounds.
https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1747-judgedecision
Outcome
The two boys were sentenced to life in prison for murder and 99-year sentences for kidnapping. Twelve years into his sentence, Loeb was killed by an inmate during a prison fight. Leopold was released after thirty-four years in prison. During his time in prison, Leopold served as a model prisoner, spending his time teaching, learning languages, reorganizing the library, and working in the prison hospital. He died thirteen years after his release.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/Accountoftrial.html