My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[L Verge]

(10-07-2018 06:32 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  To close the loop on the point that Reverdy Johnson remained actively involved with Mary Surratt's defense even though he rarely appeared in court after May 13:

On May 13, after Johnson had left for the day (and after he said he would not defend Mrs. Surratt if he believed she were guilty), Frederick Aiken, one of Johnson's subordinate lawyers, asked the court to delay John Lloyd's testimony until the following Monday, May 15, because Reverdy Johnson wanted to cross-examine him:

Quote:The Judge Advocate then called John M. Lloyd as a witness.

Mr. Aiken applied to the Commission to postpone the examination of John M. Lloyd until Monday next, when Mr. Johnson, the senior counsel for Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, one of the accused, would be present, he having left the court-room to-day; as the testimony of the witness now called would be of the gravest importance as affecting Mary E. Surratt. (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, Ben Poore transcript, vol. 1, p. 114)

Nearly three weeks later, when Aiken was trying to get a document admitted into evidence, he noted that Reverdy Johnson had reviewed the document and had approved it for submission:

Quote:Mr. Aiken. Yes: we wish it to go on the record. I will state further to the Court, that the paper was not presented to the Court without first being submitted to the senior counsel for the defense, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and that he approved it, and thought it just, right, and proper. (vol. 2, p. 375)

And then there's the fact that Reverdy Johnson helped to write the team's closing argument, and that Johnson directed Aiken to try to get a writ of habeas corpus after the verdict was given.

So it is simply inaccurate to say that Johnson stopped defending Mary Surratt after he said he would not defend her if he believed she were guilty.

This is not to mention the fact that what Johnson was clearly saying was that he would not have agreed to take on her case if he believed she was guilty. The very fact that he took her case shows that he did not believe she was guilty.

I believe that the word PERCEPTION applies here. Reverdy Johnson (and subsequently Frederick Aiken) stated that they took Mrs. Surratt's case because they thought that all citizens should have the right to lawful justice-- and Johnson had been against military tribunals in the first place and, I believe, had expressed his thoughts to his friend, A. Lincoln, who had given many sanctions for such courts during the war. Mrs. Surratt was also a Marylander as was Johnson - who had practiced law about ten miles from Surrattsville.

When Johnson failed to return to the courtroom, the PERCEPTION from the public was that he had deserted her and, thus, must have considered her guilty. They did not know of his behind-the-scenes advice (sparse though it be) to Aiken and Clampitt.

While Aiken may have asked for a delay in order for Johnson to return to question John Lloyd, I see no reference to such a thing occurring, at least according to the Pitman version of the trial. The prosecution had their chance with Lloyd, but I see no reference to either Lloyd or Johnson in the defense of Mrs. Surratt. Have I missed something?

Now, please return to the previous thread about identification of Booth's body...