The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[L Verge]

(01-14-2019 05:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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?

I went online and posed the question as to whether two or more defendants could be tried at the same time and got this response from a site named nolo.com:

"A joint trial of codefendants (also known as “joinder”) occurs when a judge merges the cases of two or more defendants. Joint trials happen when the issues in the defendants’ cases overlap enough to make a single trial both fair and more efficient.

When Joint Trials are Appropriate:

Defendants don’t have to face the exact same crimes for a judge to join their trials. Rather, all that’s necessary is that the charges relate to substantially the same facts. Joint trials are commonly ordered in complex prosecutions for conspiracy, fraud, or terrorism, where multiple defendants are accused of committing a variety of crimes stemming from one set of facts. Some famous examples of joint trials include the Enron fraud case, the organized crime prosecution of John Gotti and his mob family, and the conspiracy and espionage trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

In contrast, judges may not join the trials of defendants who simply happen to be charged with the same crime. For example, a judge can’t join the trials of all armed robbery cases on the docket unless those cases involved the same set of facts.

There is no constitutional rule governing joint trials. Judges have broad discretion to decide whether to join trials, and will weigh a variety of factors when making this decision."

Maybe the Booth conspirators could have been tried in a civil court at the same time, but it seems really stupid - like asking for a three-ring circus (worse than what did occur). I wonder if there was precedence in an earlier case? Of the same extreme importance?