The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[RJNorton]

(01-13-2019 11:43 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Stanton knew that it was unlikely that any civilian court would convict Mudd, Surratt, O'Laughlen, Spangler, and Arnold based on the pathetic "evidence" he had against them.

I agree with this, although I would not use the word "pathetic." I think Stanton certainly knew Washington was a divided city based on the sentiments of the residents, and this would make obtaining a totally neutral jury difficult to obtain in a civilian trial. Regarding the defendants Mike mentioned, I think many of them would have ended up with either a hung jury or even a verdict of innocent (especially Spangler) had there been a civilian trial with Washington-area residents sitting on the jury.

Author Andy Jampoler (The Last Lincoln Conspirator: John Surratt's Flight from the Gallows) discusses the make-up of John Surratt's jury on p. 216. He writes, "Reportedly the four for conviction were all Yankees, and seven of the eight who voted to acquit came from the District of Columbia, Virginia, or Maryland." Later he writes, "The jury did not vote on entirely sectional lines, but it very nearly did so." The final vote was 4 for conviction and 8 to acquit. So there was a hung jury in John Surratt's case.

In my opinion, Stanton feared some of the defendants might walk if there had been a civilian trial. I think this fear was one reason he pushed hard for a military tribunal.

I have a "what if" question. If it had been decided this case would be tried in a civilian court, would all 8 have been tried at once, or would there have been 8 separate trials?