The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[AussieMick]

Obviously I cant speak for the US system ... in fact I cannot really speak for the Aus. judicial system ... anyway, that doesnt stop me having any opinion ...

These type of events have come up before (I think so ? ... havent they?). But this is a little unusual in that O'Laughlen, Spangler and Arnold could be said to be directly involved in the actual assassination . Whilst Mudd and Surratt were more indirectly involved, Mudd certainly was indirect. So separate trails would have some justification.

I think there's always a reluctance to have separate trials. The 'second' jury members would almost certainly be aware of the evidence and results of the first trial. Then there's the evidence given by witnesses during the trials. It would be quite embarrassing/judicially confusing if at the 2nd trial a witness was asked the same or a slightly different question, for example, and gave an answer which seemed at conflict with evidence during a previous trial.