(09-08-2012, 04:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Tom, possibly I did not understand everything in your post, but on June 21, 1865, William E. Doster read a statement from George Atzerodt to the court. On the face of it, I would think this would be termed a defendant's declaration; yet it appears from your post that this statement of Atzerodt's should not have been allowed to be introduced. Any idea why an apparent exception was made for Atzerodt at the trial? Or am I misunderstanding something? Thanks.
Offhand I do not recall defendants' declarations from Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, Samuel Mudd, Ned Spangler, Sam Arnold or Michael O'Laughlen being read to the court. Only Atzerodt was allowed to do this (through Doster).
What was the reasoning behind not being allowed to testify on one's own behalf?
"What If John Wilkes Booth Went To Trial?"
