The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[wpbinzel]

(01-13-2019 01:30 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:31 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  The opening sentence of your "article" reads "On June 30, 1865, an illegal military tribunal found Mrs. Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring with John Wilkes Booth...."

Um, Mike, please provide the legal citation of the court case that specifically found the conviction of Mrs. Surratt before a military tribunal to be "illegal." If you cannot provide such a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, then your statements are, and should be labeled as, your personal opinion and not as a fact. That seems to be a concept with which you have a very high degree of difficulty.

I would like to comment about the legitimacy of Mary Surratt's "trial" by a military court. I have a copy of the Supreme Court's opinion in the case of "Ex Parte Milligan". It's included in the University Of Chicago's collection, "The People Shall Judge", Vol I, page 772, and deals with the military "trial" of the civilian Milligan in 1864. The opinion was written in 1866.
The question, in the case before the Supreme Court, is stated: "had the military commission … jurisdiction, legally, to try and sentence him?". The answer is based on the Constitutional clause, "That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury", and the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. The answer is NO.
The parallels to Mrs. Surratt's case are striking. Milligan and Surratt were not residents of states that had succeeded. Neither had ever been members of the military. Both had been arrested in their home by the military. Both were tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military commission, although civilian courts were available at the time.
On line, please see the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan . Probably the text of the Supreme Court's opinion is online somewhere. It's very clear, and emphatic.
Another Mike

---

Hello, Another Mike. Welcome to the forum.

I know a little bit about the law and Ex Parte Milligan. See the March 2018 issue of the Columbia Law Review.

No court of competent jurisdiction has ever ruled that the trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators was "illegal," even in the aftermath of Milligan. Judge Thomas Jefferson Boynton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida considered that very issue in Ex Parte Mudd, 17 F. Cas. 954 (S.D. Fla. 1868) two years after Milligan. Judge Boynton specifically ruled that Milligan was not on point and was not applicable to the Lincoln assassination conspirators. That decision has never been overruled. In fact, a portion of the decision was cited as good law by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2016 in a ruling authored by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. See Al Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (2016).

The exercise to apply 21st Century legal theory to a 19th Century case is very problematic. At best, it is highly speculative and a matter of conjecture, and should be labeled as such, and not as fact. Reasonable people can and do have different opinions on the issue, including folks whom I hold in high regard. But just because it is your opinion, does not make it a fact.