Friday, January 24, 2014

THE RECOLLECTIONS OF THE ALMANAC TRIAL DEFENSE TEAM


Years ago a kidnapping/hostage situation arose when a bank robbery went wrong. An armed confrontation outside the bank led to a high speed chase, which ended when an officer used his patrol vehicle to knock the kidnapper’s car off the road. When the kidnap vehicle came to rest, officers scrambled to the wrecked car and subdued the kidnapper before he could harm his hostage. It was an event which would cause the adrenalin to flow. I happened to be in the radio control room at the time the kidnapping occurred and got to listen to the police radio transmissions from the beginning of the chase until the arrest. I must confess that my heart was pounding by the time the chase was over.

Despite video surveillance footage from the bank and the testimony of the victim and a dozen or more officers, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and went to trial. Being a young, inexperienced rookie, I did not try the case, but I did get to sit in on it. As the prosecutor prepared for the trial, he spoke to four or five officers, each of whom steadfastly maintained that, alone and unaided, he took the kidnapper into custody. This presented a problem for the presentation of the evidence because most jurors realize that five officers could not each single-handedly arrest one man. As I recall, the prosecutor solved his problem by getting the officers together, explaining the problem to them, and telling them he was going to leave the room and let them figure which one of them actually made the arrest. At the end of their private conference none of them were happy but they had all agreed on one officer as the person who made the arrest. Problem solved.

This is a common problem with memory. We are each the hero of our own life story, and we tend to remember ourselves as being more important to a particular event than we actually were. I ran into this problem researching the Almanac Trial. Lincoln is usually remembered as trying the case alone and unaided. That is how the earliest published version of the trial told the story, and that is how most histories remember the trial. Actually, he was not alone in the trial of the case. Armstrong had three lawyers defending him. Other than allowing his campaign biographies to say that he was sole counsel, Lincoln never really talked or wrote about the trial. His co-counsel did. William Walker carried on an extensive correspondence with various people about the trial. In his recollection, he acted as lead counsel and Lincoln simply assisted him. According to Walker, Lincoln merely took notes, made suggestions, and made the final argument. Most of the others who attended the trial remember Lincoln doing much more than Walker seemed willing to admit. At least Walker was willing to admit that Lincoln was involved in the defense of the case. He never mentioned Armstrong’s third lawyer, Caleb Dilworth. Dilworth wrote less about the trial than Walker, and he was willing to give Lincoln more credit. If, however, his correspondence were our only evidence of the trial, the only thing that we would know about Walker’s involvement would come from a remark at the end of Dilworth’s letter that “I believe also William Walker of Havana was in the defense.”

When I was researching the original sources for the trial, the first papers I read were William Walker’s letters. I came away from my reading of those letters thinking that Lincoln did almost nothing in defense of Armstrong. Further reading of the letters and reminiscences of others at the trial changed my mind, and I now believe that he was the de facto leader of the defense team.

The problem I just described is but one of the man problems that researchers and investigators confront when dealing with the reminiscences of participants in an event. It is something that we must be careful to guard against.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

A SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE ALMANAC TRIAL

A lot of the old books used in my research of the Almanac Trial can be found online. If you'd like to do some fact checking, you'll have to go to the library for the modern books, but here are some you can find online. Pay no mind to the multi-colored hyperlinks. My keyboard has a mind of its own tonight:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold, Isaac N. The History of Abraham Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery, Chicago: Clarke & Co., Publishers, 1866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks, Noah, Abraham Lincoln: The Nation’s Leader in the Great Struggle through which was Maintained the Existence of the United States. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln, Abraham. The Autobiography of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolay, John G., and John Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 11. New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, January 13, 2014

A RETIRED PROSECUTOR'S RANDOM THOUGHTS: A SILLY IDEA

A RETIRED PROSECUTOR'S RANDOM THOUGHTS: A SILLY IDEA: Have you ever had what you thought was a good idea but remained silent because you were afraid people would laugh at you? Have you ever regr...

Sunday, January 12, 2014

DUFF ARMSTRONG'S BAIL HEARING


In writing the book on the Almanac Trial I tried to present my conclusions and to show the line of reasoning I took to arrive at them. I recognized that other people could look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions, and that suited me fine. I wanted readers to be able to decide for themselves what happened, a task which is made harder when they’re reading the facts filtered through someone else’s conclusions. I therefore included two appendices which set forth the statements of the major witnesses to the trial and the court record. Considerations of space prevented me from including everything I wanted in the appendices, but I’m satisfied that what I omitted was of lesser importance. Space considerations also prevented me from dealing with all the details of other works which I believed to be mistaken.

Some errors were caused by the authors not having all the relevant information. When an author like Sandberg, Beveridge, or Tarbell is writing a multivolume work about the entire life of Lincoln, the author isn’t going to be conversant with the minute details of every aspect of Lincoln’s life. Other errors resulted because the authors, not being criminal trial lawyers, were not familiar with the ins and outs of prosecuting and defending criminal cases and hence misunderstood the significance of some evidence. Others came about because when the authors looked at the evidence, they looked at it from the vantage point of preconception. Often you fail to see what is there because your preconceptions have conditioned you to see what you expect. As Sherlock Holmes once complained to Dr. Watson, they saw but they did not observe.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. The idea has become current that when Lincoln moved to have Duff Armstrong released on bail, the motion was really a motion to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The Illinois constitution at the time denied bail as a matter of right to those accused of murder where the proof of guilt was evident or the presumption great. Nonlawyers looking at the situation used this chain of reasoning: (1) Murder defendants could not be to bail. (2) Duff Armstrong was charged with murder. (3) Duff Armstrong could not be released on bail. (4) Lincoln asked that Armstrong be released on bail. (5) Armstrong could only be released on bail if he were charged with manslaughter. (6) Therefore, Lincoln was asking that the charge be reduced to manslaughter. A good, tight line of reasoning leading to an inescapable conclusion if premise (1) were correct. Unfortunately for the soundness of the argument, it is not correct. It was possible for murder defendants to get out on bail regardless of whether they were legally entitled to bail.

Bail as a matter of right was denied to murder defendants  only if the proof of guilt was not evident nor the presumption great. This meant that if the evidence against the defendant was strong, he had no right to bail, but if the defendant could show that the evidence against him wasn’t strong he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. Lincoln may have been arguing that the evidence was weak enough to allow for the defendant to be entitled to bail as a matter of right.  I don’t think that was the case for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that apparently the court did not hear testimony on the motion for bail. At least there is no record of witnesses having testified. I think it is more likely that Lincoln made another argument to the judge. A capital defendant had no right to bail, but that doesn’t mean that the judge can’t grant bail as a matter of judicial discretion.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

THE DRAMATIS PERSONAE OF THE ALMANAC TRIAL

Readers of my forthcoming book, Abraham Lincoln's Most Famous Case: The Almanac Trial, might like a who's who of the major figures in the Almanac Trial. Here it is:

Allen, Charles—Eyewitness who testified that he saw Duff Armstrong strike Preston Metzker with a slungshot.

Apolitical Observer, The—The anonymous informant whose version of the trial saw print in the newspaper article “A Sensation Story Spoilt.”

Arenz, Probate Judge—Provided the second almanac which was compared to Lincoln’s almanac during the trial.

Armstrong, Hannah—Widowed mother of Duff Armstrong who recruited Lincoln for the defense.

Armstrong, William Duff—Accused murderer of Preston Metzker.

Bergen, Abram—Attended the trial to study Lincoln's performance as a trial lawyer.

Brady, John T.—Member of the jury.

Byers, Abraham—Photographer who made an ambrotype of Lincoln on the afternoon of the Almanac Trial.
Cartwright, Peter--Keynote speaker at the camp meeting where Metzker was killed.

Dick, Sheriff James—Bailiff at Armstrong trial. 

Dilworth, Caleb—Attorney hired by Hannah Armstrong to defend her son.

Douglas, William A.—First witness called in the Almanac Trial. Pulled Metzker off of Allen.

Dowell, George—Witness to the fight. Helped William Douglas pulled Metzker off of Allen.

Edwards, Thomas S.—A Clary’s Grove Boy who pleaded with Lincoln to take Duff Armstrong’s case.

Fullerton, Hugh—Elected state’s attorney who prosecuted Norris and Armstrong.

Harriott, Judge James—Presided over the trials of both Duff Armstrong and James H. Norris.

Havinghorst, John H.—Foreman of the grand jury which indicted Armstrong and Norris.

Husted, John—Deputy Sheriff who arrested Charles Allen for failure to answer his subpoena.

Lacey, Lyman—Law partner of William Walker who assisted in the defense of Norris and Armstrong.

Logan, Milton—Foreman of the Almanac Trial jury.

Metzker, James Preston—Victim of the killing which was charged in the Almanac Trial indictment.

Norris, James H.—Co-defendant of William Duff Armstrong who was convicted of manslaughter and later pardoned.

Parker, Dr. Charles—Defense witness at the Almanac Trial.
Randle, George—Circuit riding preacher who organized the camp meeting at which Metzker was killed.

Shaw, J. Henry—Assisted Hugh Fullerton in the prosecution of Armstrong.

Stephenson, Dr. Benjamin F.—Testified for the prosecution in the Almanac Trial.

Walker, William—Attorney for John H. Norris who also assisted the defense in the trial of Duff Armstrong.

Watkins, Nelson—Witness for the defense who admitted making the slungshot alleged to have killed Metzker.

Western Republican, The—Anonymous informant whose account of the trial was first told in the newspaper article “Thrilling Episode from the Life of Lincoln.”

Yates, Governor Richard—Pardoned James H. Norris for the murder of Metzker.

Friday, January 10, 2014

"AUNT HANNAH" ARMSTRONG AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN

 
 
The popular version of the story of Lincoln’s Almanac Trial has him answering the call of an aged widow who had treated him as a son when he was a young, penniless boy just beginning to make his way in the world. This picture is enhanced by referring to the widow as “Aunt Hannah” and by a photograph of her taken in her old age. In the picture you see a wizened old woman wearing a bonnet, her features attesting that she is near the end of a life of toil and privation.  The bare essentials of the story of Hannah’s recruiting Lincoln to defend her son are true enough. She was a widow, she and her husband had shown kindness to Lincoln in his youth, and Lincoln did feel a debt of gratitude to her. But as we will see in my forthcoming book, Abraham Lincoln's Most Famous Case, the relationship between “Aunt Hannah” and Lincoln was not the relationship of a mother-figure to her adoptive son. Firstly, she was actually three years younger than Lincoln. Secondly, additional facts which I uncovered in my research (and which I discuss in the book) suggest that they had a much more complex relationship than that. Although some of their contemporaries apparently thought otherwise, I am satisfied that their relationship was platonic.

Monday, January 6, 2014

BOOK ON ALMANAC TRIAL AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER


Cover of Book on Almanac Trial
 
 
Abraham Lincoln's Most Famous Case is now ready for pre-order. I am very happy about the price. It's almost $8.00 a copy less expensive than The Last Murder, my book on the prosecution of Ted Bundy. You can order it from the publisher here: ABC-Clio Product Information, or here: Amazon.com Book Page. You can also order it here: Barnes and Noble online.


Saturday, January 4, 2014

NEARING THE FINISH LINE

I have had a very busy Christmas break. An over large class last semester, coupled with an overly ambitious final project assignment contributed to me spending most of my free time grading papers. I had expected around 20 students in my class, and I got 49. The final project was too long for even a class of 20. I finally got all the papers graded, though, and I'm going to turn the grades in on Monday. It's odd, I think, that when I was an ASA I could easily stand up in court and urge a judge to send someone to prison for the rest of his natural life, but now as an instructor I have difficulty giving a student the low grade that the student unquestionably earned. 

Right in the middle of all grading all those finals I got the final page proofs for The Almanac Trial. I have to proofread and  index the pages and get it all back to the publisher by February 3. I could hardly wait to finish grading papers so that I could jump on proofreading. With previous books, proofreading has always been a gigantic chore, but it seems I never get tired of re-reading The Almanac Trial. Every time I read through something I have written, I feel an almost overpowering urge to tinker with the text in an effort to improve it. Apparently lots of authors have this problem, because whenever the publisher sends out the final page proofs, they are always accompanied by a dire warning to leave the text alone and simply look for typographical errors. As I started reading through the proofs,  I found many things I wanted to rewrite, but so far I have resisted the temptation. I'm about half through with the process of proofing, and I'm sure that I can make it through the rest of the book without succumbing to the temptation of trying to do a major rewrite of some part of the book.
 
Nobody else may be pleased with the final product, but I am. I weigh the evidence and make what I feel are reasonable findings. Some of the finding may not be popular, and some readers are bound to disagree, but as Ricky Nelson said, you can't please everyone. One thing that I really like about the book is the fact I put in the Appendices. In Appendices A and B, I set out the statements of the major witnesses and the more important documents from the court file. This gives readers the chance to look at the evidence for themselves without any editorial comment and draw their own conclusions about the trial. Appendix C traces the Armstrong family's largely overlooked oral tradition of the trial, much of which bears very little resemblance to the written history. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in most of these stories, but I think there may be some wheat in the chaff of the family's legends.
 
 
Title Page
 

I think the book is well designed, and any problems with the layout are not attributable to the publisher, but are the result of the author's amateurish work with the graphics which he provided.