Edman (Ned) Spangler: Anyone Still Think He Was Guilty?

[JMadonna]

(11-20-2018 01:56 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Jerry & John - Years ago, Mr. Hall gave a training session to those of us who were about to become volunteer guides at Surratt House. I asked him then if the military court operated on the same principles as civil courts back then, and he said no, that they (meaning any military tribunal) had the ability to "adjust" their rules and regulations to basically suit individual situations. I asked if the defendant was assumed innocent until proven guilty, and he said that it came closer to the defendant having to prove his innocence.

The objection has been urged that the trial of these parties should have been before a civil court and not a military court. Legally, there was no difficulty in making the crime a military one. Its purpose was military, and the victim was the head of the army of the United States. The murder, moreover, was committed within the military lines of the United States forces at Washington.

The evidence upon which these sentences are based was, it is generally admitted, most conclusive Practically, perhaps, the chances of an impartial trial were, under all the circumstances, just as good with the military as they would have been with a civil court. - Toronto Leader June 1865

IMO The main question the tribunal had to answer was - were the defendants accomplices of Booth or not? Spangler was determined to have been one but with a lesser role - so he got the most lenient sentence.