In Inherit the Wind and Judgment at Nuremberg, how are Drummond's and Rolfe's trial strategies similar?

The similarities between the trial strategies of Henry Drummond and Oskar Rolfe relate to how each one redirects attention away from their clients and onto general society. As the question notes, Matthew Harrison Brady guesses Henry Drummond’s plan of attack in act 1. Talking with his wife and Rachel, Brady says, “Now what will Drummond do? He’ll try to make us forget the lawbreaker and put the law on trial.” According to Brady, Drummond won’t build his case on the individual character of Bert Cates but around the laws that should protect Cates and his ability to teach evolution. As it turns out, Brady is right. In court, Drummond brings up the Constitution and fundamental rights, like the right to think and question.

In Judgment at Nuremberg, Rolfe tries to push the spotlight away from Ernst Janning and onto the world at large. Rolfe attempts to show that his client's actions aligned with the behavior of others at the time. As Rolfe says about the man he must defend, “If he is to be found guilty, there are others who also went along who must also be found guilty.” Rolfe then names some of the people and countries that could be implicated in Nazi Germany’s crimes, including the Soviet Union, the Vatican, and Winston Churchill.

Although Rolfe and Drummond are lawyering in rather different environments, each of their arguments centers on the conventions and norms that governed the men, not the men themselves.

What similarities exist between Drummond's assumed strategy in Inherit the Wind and Rolfe's strategy in Judgment at Nuremberg?

In Inherit the Wind, Matthew Brady thinks that he knows exactly what strategy Henry Drummond will take as the latter defends Bertram Cates, who is accused of teaching the theory of evolution to his students. Brady thinks that Drummond will “try to make us forget the lawbreaker and put the law on trial.” He means the Drummond will reach beyond Cates' alleged offense and look at whether or not the law making the act an offense is right and just.

In Judgment at Nuremberg, Hans Rolfe does not pursue quite the same strategy although what he does also takes the focus off of the accused lawbreakers and puts it elsewhere. Rolfe is defending four German judges and lawyers accused of committing atrocities during the war, especially knowingly condemning innocent people simply because they refused to go along with the Nazis. Rolfe argues that these four were certainly not the only Germans to do such things during the war. Other people performed acts just as bad if not even worse. He also notes the U.S. committed horrible acts, too, including dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. Notice how he is directing the court's attention away from the defendants, just like Brady says Drummond will do. Rolfe has a slightly different way of doing this, though.

In the end, neither Drummond's nor Rolfe's strategy works entirely. Cates is convicted but only lightly sentenced, and Drummond has actually made an excellent case and gotten many people thinking. The defendants relying on Rolfe, however, are all convicted and sentenced to life in prison.