AAR 1864 Trial Event

[LindaTrent]

All I can say is a huge THANK YOU to everyone who attended. It was a wonderful event even if poor Mr. Downard and Mr. McKenzie were sentenced to 40 years in the State Penitentiary. :cry_smile

I'm pleased that everyone took their jobs seriously. I'm not going to say anymore at this time, other than a rough idea of some of the complexities of the event can be seen by going to http://cw186165.homestead.com/eventindex.html As I've said on my list and such, I will be adding more to this site over the next few weeks as time allows.

Thanks again to everyone who attended!

Linda.

[LindaTrent]

Well, I still haven't gotten to my AAR of the trial event, but my AAR of the pre-event and the events leading up to the trial following the pre-trial event. (http://cw186165.homestead.com/AARPre-TrialAndBackstage.html)

Linda.

[pambryda]

I'm curious...

Hank was representing both defendants? I think that now it's a conflict of interest for defense counsel to represent multiple defendants in the same matter; was it otherwise in 186x Kentucky, or was that due to the constraints of the event?

Pam Kingsley-Bryda

[Hank Trent]

The defendants were charged with the same crime (murder and conspiracy to commit murder), and were indicted and tried together, with me representing them during the trial. The defense was mistaken identity. They were either both together involved in the murder, or both elsewhere, so there was no real defense advantage to moving to sever.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Csayankee]

All I want to know is. Was I supposed to own a gun?

[Hank Trent]

All I want to know is. Was I supposed to own a gun?

There was no right or wrong answer. I was going to go with whatever the person who portrayed that witness said, as I would have in real life.

My defense was based on the fact that it was possible someone else had a motive to murder Cooper (the man who robbed you). As Downard and McKenzie's attorney, I was hoping to get as much doubt in the jury's mind as I could, by showing it was possible someone else had killed him. I knew you didn't actually do it, since Downard & McKenzie had already confessed to me in confidence, but I hoped to imply to the jury that you might have.

The eyewitness testimony about the murderers was that they were wearing brown coats, one had a tall black hat, and the murder weapon was a .54 caliber rifle. Coincidentally, you happened to wear a brown coat, which was to my advantage, so that's why I asked you to state the color of your coat.

When I found out you owned no gun, I debated between not bring it up at all, or bringing it up in the hopes the jury might think you were lying. I decided to go with the latter.

Reconstructing part of my closing argument from my notes, I said something like this about you:

You've heard Mrs. Finnegan testify that Mr. Cooper was an abrasive man, who insulted people and made enemies. But three days before he died he did more than that. He held a knife to a man's throat (I demonstrated with the knife), threatened to kill him, and robbed him of his money. You heard Mr. MacInnis, the last witness, who was robbed by Mr. Cooper, testify that he couldn't recover his money or get justice through the law. Mr. MacInnis was a man who could deny he owned a rifle, but he couldn't deny wearing a brown coat, the same color as one of the murderers.

When Mr. MacInnis didn't fall for Mr. Cooper's threats, and reported the robbery at the Franklin House on Wednesday, March 23, the Coopers fled in fear, leaving their luggage behind. [That was from the testimony of the desk clerk, Mr. Whittaker, portrayed by Noah Briggs.] The same day, they arrived at the home of Mr. Downard and Mr. MacKenzie. Two days later, Mr. Cooper was killed, in a place where the sheriff testified it was easy for bushwhackers to come and hide and escape without being seen.

By the way, you did your role perfectly! And as you can see, you were absolutely crucial for the defense in helping to introduce reasonable doubt. The more equally matched the evidence was for both sides, the more fun we hoped the jury would have in debating how to vote, so we are extremely grateful to you for offering at the last minute to do your part! Rumor has it that the first jury poll was 3-1 for "not guilty," and by the end of the deliberations, it had switched to 4-0 for "guilty," so apparently we gave them something think about.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Micah Trent]

[QUOTE=LindaTrent;69361] It was a wonderful event even if poor Mr. Downard and Mr. McKenzie were sentenced to 40 years in the State Penitentiary. :cry_smile Linda. /QUOTE]

Ah, they got off lucky! I still have my doubts about them and if the final decision could've been mine...I'd said HANG'EM!!! Especially Mr. Downard with his greasy hair and his impeccable mustache. :sarcastic

An excellent event indeed. Enjoyed the trial and the company. The food was more then great and Noah's coffee was perfect...miss it already.:wink_smil Was honored to be part of this event.

a.k.a.
Thomas Harlan

[Trish Hasenmueller]

Those of you who are getting these few messages so far and wondering why you haven't heard from more of us yet need to know that it was so BIG that we're all still trying to get our brains around it. The trial event came off without a hitch. It was very gratifying to hear from the real-life judge and real-life attorney who were with us that they had both had trepidations about whether this concept could be carried off but that they were most impressed with how well all the legal aspects for an 1864 trial were carried out. I think both our members from the legal profession are ready to plan another 'trial day'!

For those who want to know more, read Linda's web page and wait patiently for the AAR's to come in, please.

Trish Hasenmueller

[LindaTrent]

Especially Mr. Downard with his greasy hair and his impeccable mustache. :sarcastic

Ah, that mustache has been the talk of Peak's Mill. :wink_smil Anyone who spends that much time on his appearance would never get his hands bloodied. That was one fine mustache!

It was very gratifying to hear from the real-life judge and real-life attorney who were with us that they had both had trepidations about whether this concept could be carried off but that they were most impressed with how well all the legal aspects for an 1864 trial were carried out.

Yes, Tom Lowe (who portrayed our sheriff) and Rob Carter, who was our judge, are real life attorneys. Steve Ratterman has been in the Kentucky criminal justice system for 21 years, and I believe there was one or two other people also with some connection to the law.

Neither Hank nor Mark are lawyers, but have learned everything through studying for this event.

I think both our members from the legal profession are ready to plan another 'trial day'!

There you go! Someone can organize that event. :D For me? I spread myself too thin on this one. Needing to assist the staff, keep an eye on the trial, make certain there was enough water, and other organizer-type things kept me too spread out. I can't wait to just be a participant again.

I know there's been some interest in a civil trial, perhaps that can be worked out by a couple people. I can advise, but I will not organize or coordinate.

Linda.

[NoahBriggs]

Yes, a civil trial. Mr. Whittaker would like to file litigation against his old employer the Frankfort House Hotel for being fired by the hotel owner so his nephew (recently returned from the War) could have a job. Whittaker was forced to look for employment, and only by God's graces and previous bar and coffee-making experience was able to secure employment at the Peaks Mill Inn.

[Hank Trent]

I'd be glad to take part in a civil trial event, in any capacity. For what it's worth, Henry Trent Esq. discovered that Mr. Whittaker has a stronger case than one might think, because he had a written contract for one year's employment and actual damages due to reduced wages and time between jobs.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Csayankee]

I do want to thank Linda for thinking of me at the last minute. I just wish I could have been better prepared but only had a few days to get ready. I was hoping Hank would have asked me what typw of boarding house I run. It may have been a house for those wayward women from Nashville.

I am glad that my un-preferred impression did not hurt the weekend. The best reason for me to leave was visiting friends in Midway. So thanks again, I was needing a weekend away.

Just wish the baby could have came, but when I left the house they were still sleeping.

[Mark Hintzen]

I am posting on Mark's sign in:

This event was top rate. I told Linda at the beginning that if they did not have enough people for a jury that I would love to be on the jury. As I said at the end of the event, I never read any of the posts concerning the trial after the original posting in the news of the murder. Much to Mark's chagrin, he did not have anyone to bounce his ideas off of. Going into deliberations, I was a tad apprehensive, not knowing how the men would take to the idea of having a woman in the deliberations. I was not sure they would take into account anything that I would say but everything went very well. We took a preliminary vote and it was 3-0 not guilty. However when I stated my vote I did say that my feelings were that the 2 men were guilty but I was not sure that the case was presented forcefully enough to eliminate doubt. When the 4th juror, Mr. Thomas gave his opinion, eveything that he said to substantiate his vote of guilty, was exactly as I felt and so I changed my vote. Next Mr. Anderson went through the evidence and he changed his vote. At the end, Mr. Cooper read over the rules that the judge gave to us going into the deliberations and he changed his vote. I thought that all of us took our
jury duty seriously and I was very proud to be part of it. I thought that Mr. Trent presented a more powerful case than Mr. Hobart but the behavior of the defendents after the crime, the evidence in the case, etc. led us to believe that in fact the 2 defendents were the perpetrators of the crime.
Faith Hintzen

[LindaTrent]

I wasn't present for all of the trial, but here's what I know (or have been told). Once again a huge thank you to everyone for their impressions. Here's the rundown of the trial.

The accused, Mr. Downard and Mr. McKenzie, were brought in for trial on Thursday ("Saturday") morning...

The proceedings began Thursday morning with the judge ruling on a motion in limine that the defense had made earlier. The judge heard an oral argument from the Commonwealth and then ruled in favor of the motion. This prevented the jury from hearing the Sheriff testify to what Mrs. Cooper had told him during the investigation. The bailiff called the court to session and brought in the prospective jurors. During the voir dire the judge and both attorneys had a chance to address the jurors, none were rejected and the trial began.

The Commonwealth's attorney gave his opening statement followed by the defense.

The Commonwealth's attorney called three witnesses who were cross examined by the defense, and the Commonwealth also introduced several exhibits identified by the sheriff including two guns that had been owned by the defendants, the luggage found with the defendants when they were arrested, the knife found on Mr. Cooper's belt after he was killed, and the bullet removed from Mr. Cooper's head by the coroner. The witnesses were Sheriff Frank Sawyer, Thomas Harlan (who had visited the defendants earlier), and Mrs. Finnegan (who had witnessed the crime). The defense then called two witnesses Thomas Whittaker (a clerk at the Frankfort House Hotel where Mr. Cooper was staying shortly before he died) and Daniel MacInnis (who had been robbed by Mr. Cooper), to show that others may have had a motive for killing Mr. Cooper.

The court recessed for lunch and when it reconvened the defense attorney gave his closing statement, followed by the closing statement of the Commonwealth's attorney. The judge instructed the jury and then the jury went to deliberate. After a while they came back and the verdict was announced.

The convicts were now removed back to the jail until morning when they would return for the sentencing.

Then the following morning the convicts were brought in with their hands bound. They were given the opportunity to eat, but refused. Though Sheriff Sawyer did sit down and have some breakfast. After breakfast the room was put back in order for the court and the convicted were brough in for the sentencing. Judge Carter gave the boys 40 to life doing hard labor in the state penitentiary.

The boys were led away and that concluded the event. We had a great de-briefing and in the end the jury felt justified when they heard that the boys really did commit the murder. :cool:

Linda.

[theknapsack]

Micah Trent,

Brian Hicks and I thought there should be a case about your desertion from the army. I thought you were a criminal and discredited your testimony (which really didn't help us reach a verdict). What was your testimony about anyways? Just that they were suspicious characters?

I had a great time at my first all-civilian event. I just hope that everyone else did and that my presence wasn't too much of a nuisance (at least on the Inn Staff's part).

[Csayankee]

If you are talking about me, I was brought in to testify that someone else had reason to kill Mr. Cooper. If asked the right questions I would have explained why I was not in the army, and then no body asked which army I was in.

[theknapsack]

No I'm talking about Thomas Harlan's testimony. Sorry!

[LindaTrent]

I just hope that everyone else did and that my presence wasn't too much of a nuisance (at least on the Inn Staff's part).

Riley,

I don't know what we would have done without you. You were a huge help both with the jury and with the staff. As I said the event wouldn't have gone off so smoothly with one less person. You were certainly not a nuisance in any regard. :)

Linda.

[Hank Trent]

No I'm talking about Thomas Harlan's testimony. Sorry!

Yes, Thomas Harlan was brought in by the Commonwealth as a negative character witness for Downard and McKenzie.

Based on what D&M had told me about their encounter with him, I wasn't sure how damaging his testimony would be. So my notes on cross-examining him said to bring out that D&M hadn't threatened him, they'd welcomed him, and that the neighborhood was dangerous, to hint that someone else might have killed Cooper. Of course, the neighborhood was dangerous because D&M lived there and were stealing and bushwacking.

I tried to object when the Commonwealth used Harlan to prove specific facts unrelated to the case, but some of that got through. Nothing terribly damaging, but nothing great, either. D&M told me they suspected he was an army deserter, so when his testimony didn't seem too positive, I decided to bring that out, and luckily he didn't lie about it.

Since he'd already rejoined his regiment voluntarily and later been discharged, he no longer faced punishment for being absent without leave, so he couldn't take the Fifth Amendment on that. In case he tried to, I had in my notes, "According to Rutherford v. Commonwealth, as reported in the Digest of General Laws of Kentucky, a witness is not bound to answer interrogatories which, if affirmatively answered, would subject him to a penal or criminal prosecution, but he is bound to answer those which only tend to distrace him, whereby his credibility with the jury would be diminished." He was bound to answer that he was absent without leave due to the latter circumstance.

If the Commonwealth objected to me trying to prove facts about a character witness, I had in my notes, "In case of objections:"

Halstead's Evidence. "On cross-examination, inquiries as to the means of knowledge of the character of the witness, origins of reports against, how generally such reports have prevailed and from whom and when they hjeard are admissible. The State v. Howard 9 N.H. 485.

and

"It is not collateral but relevant to the main issue to inquire into the motives which influence a witness in giving his testimony and a party examining a witness in regard to them, is not bound by his answers but may contradict him." The people v. Austin, Parker's Cr. 154.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Augusta Carr]

Riley:

You were a great help and I for one would be happy to work with you anytime.

I had a great time at the event and Jake said this was the best event he ever attended and that the folks who worked to make this event happen did an above excellant job.

BTW Mr Whitaker the next time I work on staff I promise to bring my working shoes, I grabbed my dressy shoes in error and with a bad foot they just didn't work for me.

[Micah Trent]

Micah Trent,

Brian Hicks and I thought there should be a case about your desertion from the army. I thought you were a criminal and discredited your testimony (which really didn't help us reach a verdict). What was your testimony about anyways? Just that they were suspicious characters?

To be honest, I was surprised that the part about me deserting went no further. I was expecting a bit more on that:(, but in a way, I am glad it didn't. I feel that it may had taken away what the main purpose of the trial was for.
The main beef on Thomas Harlan was that when he was passing through, on the way to see his father, when he ran into Downard and MacKenzie. He looked suspicious to them and vice versa. Harlan was invited by them and was treated with a dinner, etc., but the time together was one of talk on war, life, etc. Actually all of them were cautious on how they interacted. Harlan not wanting to give away that he was deserting and our two villans who did not want to give up their identity.
Harlan felt very uncomfortable in their presence and heard things that made him leave. He was never harmed nor threatened. When he felt uncomfortable, he found an opporunity to leave and did so.
Looking back at it, Harlan's character was nothing more to the trial but making Doward and Mackenzie look good, even though Harlan could care less about them.
Harlan's character was one who was very cautious in how he interacted with others and quiet. That was one reason for not saying a whole lot, especially in conversations.

One side note. While the trial was not in session, we learned that Mr. Harlan also had a talent when it came to sewing. Reading the books and discussing some of the projects were great. Thank you ladies!:wink_smil

[NoahBriggs]

Any word on event photos from Nicholas the Great?

[LindaTrent]

Any word on event photos from Nicholas the Great?

Should be coming soon.

Linda.