What would Atticus do? He would valiantly fight for Tom Robinson just for it all to be in vein. Even with indisputable hard evidence, heart tugging arguments, and even bringing the highest power, God, into the court room his attempts to keep Tom as free as a black man was in the 1930's fell short.
Atticus was a very cunning man. He brought to the attention of the jury that "There is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led, almost exclusively, with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken "The Oath" with the only good hand he possess, his right." After this pure example of logos the jury should have been able to see that Tom Robinson couldn't have committed the crime and he should have walked free. "Now what did she do?" Atticus didn't want the jury to answer back, he wanted them to think about this rhetorical question and hopefully they themselves could see the fault in their logic.
Despite all the effort to logically prove Toms innocents the jury wasn't listening. So he turned his argument to incorporate someone that the jury would listen too, God. He says "In the mane of God, do your duty. In the name of God believe Tom Robinson." Here Atticus is saying that even if the jury doesn't believe him, or if they simply don't want a black man to walk free, that they will listen to God and do what they know God would approve of.
As a last attempt to sway the jury Atticus used heartfelt arguments to try and shift the blame to Mayella and her father rather than Tom. "Tom Robinson, a human being was to her a daily reminder to what she had done." Here Atticus is saying That Tom, despite being a black man is still a human being and has the same right as everyone to be tried fairly. In the very next sentence Atticus states that "She tempted a negro." Now why did he turn from calling Tom a human being to a negro? Its slanted language, he called Tom a human being to show that he indeed...