THE SALEM WITCHCRAFT TRIALS: A LEGAL HISTORY

This excellent little book by University of Georgia History Professor Peter Charles Hoffer was first published in 1997.  Professor Hoffer was the author of an earlier book on the Salem Witch Hysteria which was much broader in scope.  As the title indicates, this book is a legal history which concentrates on the trials themselves.

Due to a number of factors, hysteria not only gripped Salem Village in 1692 but also the entire Massachusetts Bay Colony.  Ministers and Judges in Massachusetts had headed off earlier witchcraft accusations which, as in Salem Village, were made by teenage girls who claimed to be oppressed by the spirits of various members of the community.

The witchcraft accusations were, in part, fueled by animosity between the Putnams and the Porters, leading families in Salem Village, who were competing for land, wealth and control of village politics.  Judges in the early Salem Witch Trials ignored the rudimentary rules of evidence which were current in English law which prohibited the introduction of "spectral evidence," that is testimony regarding visions, dreams and ghosts.  When allegations were believed that the oppressed victim was being tormented by the spirit of a Defendant, the Defendants were powerless to refute it.

In the earliest trials, the Defendants were unpopular and outcast members of the community.  The accusations soon spread to respected older women, like Rebecca Nurse, a stalwart church member who was well respected in the village.  In fact, despite the introduction of spectral evidence and the rabid denunciations of the alleged victims, the jury initially returned a verdict of not guilty.  The judges, led by Massachusetts Bay Lt. Governor and Chief Judge William Stoughton, were enraged and sent the jurymen back to reconsider their verdict.  The jury then complied and brought in a guilty verdict and sent the respected Goodwife Nurse to the gallows.

At this time in English law, a criminal defendant was not allowed to be represented by counsel but was required to conduct their own defense.  A criminal defendant was not considered to be a competent witness and could not testify under oath, although they were allowed to make an unsworn statement to the jury.

The prominent Boston minister Cotton Mather was an enthusiastic proponent of the trials.  Mather somewhat backed off of this position after his distinguished father, Increase Mather, and a group of Massachusetts ministers urged the governor to end the trials and denounced the admission of spectral evidence.  Governor William Phips eventually ended the trials and pardoned those remaining in jail.  Chief Judge Stoughton, who eventually replaced Phips as Governor, was outraged and reportedly stormed off the bench saying "that he was just about to 'clear the land' of witches when Phips interfered."

This book is part of the series called "Landmark Law Cases and American Society" published by the University of Kansas Press.  This is excellent reading and is highly recommended.  Five out of five gavels.

JIM GARRISON'S BOURBON STREET BRAWL

This little book (150 pages including bibliography, notes and index) chronicles the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964).

Jim Garrison was the controversial District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana who became famous (or infamous) when he indicted a New Orleans businessman, Clay Shaw, and claimed that he was a C.I.A. operative who had been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.

The events of this book happened in the early 1960s well before the prosecution of Clay Shaw.  Garrison became involved in a fight with local criminal court judges over the use of funds gathered from criminal bond forfeitures which Louisiana law allowed the District Attorney to spend with the permission of the judges.  When Garrison began his own sting operation on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, going around the New Orleans Police Department, the judges began refusing his request for funds from the forfeiture fund.

Garrison's sting operation primarily involved stopping a scam in Bourbon Street bars where a patron would be approached by one or more girls who implied that they would provide sex to the man "if he would buy her a drink."  The customer would then be asked to buy one or more bottles of over priced champaign.  After the customer was drunk, the bottles might only be filled with ginger ale.  When he was really drunk, he would typically be asked to leave and thrown out by a bouncer and sometimes by the New Orleans Police.   Garrison sent his investigators into the bars undercover and many Bourbon Street establishments were forced to close.

When the judges began to deny Garrison funding, he publicly accused the judges of being "racketeers," and implied that the judges were being bribed by the Bourbon Street Bar owners.  Garrison also accused the judges of being at fault for jail overcrowding for taking too many vacations and refusing to hold court.   In response, the Attorney General of Louisiana charged Garrison with Criminal Defamation.  Garrison was tried and convicted after a bench trial.

Orleans Parish District Attorney Jim Garrison

After Garrison's conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court, Garrison appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court had recently held in New York Times v. Sullivan that a public figure cannot recover damages for liable unless the statements were "malicious,"  The Court defined malice as "a reckless disregard for the truth."

Savage's thorough research using Justice William O. Douglas' conference notes brings us inside the Justices' conference and reveals the deal making which goes on behind the scenes among justices.  Ultimately, after the case was argued twice, the Court ruled that the Louisiana criminal defamation statute as written was unconstitutional and applied the New York Times v. Sullivan standard to criminal defamation cases.  

The colorful Attorney General of Louisiana, Jack P.F. Gremillion, apparently was never able to comprehend that at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, what they were talking about was the constitutionality of the statute and not the guilt or innocence of Garrison.  Gremillion, who was a member of the Earl K. Long faction in Louisiana politics, had previously been held in contempt of court by a Federal Judge in New Orleans in a school desegregation case, telling the judge that the U.S. District Court was "a kangaroo court," and "a den of iniquity," and allegedly spitting at the black plaintiffs.  Gremillion's performance before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Savage, resembled a stump speech more than it did a legal argument before the nation's highest court.

The book, Jim Garrison's Bourbon Street Brawl: The Making of a First Amendment Milestone, was apparently Savage's Master Degree Thesis.  I found it to be an enjoyable and informative read.  Five out of five gavels.

Abe Lincoln and the Chief Justice

From C-Span

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/27/badass-parody-michigan-lawyer-and-adjunct-professor-sues-student-and-loses-then-sues-students-lawyer/

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/27/badass-parody-michigan-lawyer-and-adjunct-professor-sues-student-and-loses-then-sues-students-lawyer/

SANCTE PATER: N.Y. Judge Grants Legal Rights To 2 Research Chimp...

SANCTE PATER: N.Y. Judge Grants Legal Rights To 2 Research Chimp...: By Krishnadev Calamur ( NPR ) A New York judge has granted two research chimps the writ of habeas corpus — a move that allows them to chal...

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/15/tsa-screeners-fired-after-allegedly-picking-out-handsome-male-passengers-to-grope-for-sexual-pleasure/

http://jonathanturley.org/2015/04/15/tsa-screeners-fired-after-allegedly-picking-out-handsome-male-passengers-to-grope-for-sexual-pleasure/

DANIEL WEBSTER: THE MAN AND HIS TIME

I am totally sick of Daniel Webster.  He was the greatest lawyer of his age, the greatest orator of his age, and one of the most influential and powerful Senators and Statesmen in all of American history.  And I’m sick of him.

The late Professor Robert Remini’s massive biography of Webster comes in at a whopping 796 pages.  I can’t do any better in summarizing this massive tome than Kirkus Review did in its’ review of Remini’s  Daniel Webster: The Man and His Age (1997):

“This massive biography leaves no stone unturned in portraying a familiar but little studied antebellum figure, considered the young country’s best orator.  Veteran historian Remini maintains a delicate balance between Webster’s two personas: “the Godlike Daniel,” so called for his brilliant public addresses and eulogies of heroes of the American Revolution, and “Black Dan,” a tag referring not only to his dark appearance but to his ruthless politicking and ferocious temper.  Much of the study of Webster’s public life is organized around the famous speeches that defined and shaped his career, including his dual eulogy of presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and his congressional address appealing for early recognition of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire, which positioned the congressman and senator for later appointments as secretary of state.  Black Dan is more evident in Remini’s description of the statesman’s private life.  Besides being alcoholic, Webster had the terrible misfortune of outliving four of his five children, launching three abortive and embarrassing attempts to gain the presidency, and suffering endless financial problems.  Remini quite deftly shows why he was known as “the Great Expounder and Defender of the Constitution,” depicting Webster as one of the earliest strict constuctionists, a man who felt that the Constitution was the defining American document and that the preservation of the Union took precedence over all other policy considerations.  Unfortunately, it is here that Webster’s political clout was eventually devalued, as he refused to combat the Fugitive Slave Act and chose to accept House Speaker Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise, which perpetuated slavery and did nothing but guarantee the outbreak of war. . . . Though Remini’s obvious admiration for Webster may sometimes cloud his view, a more complete and engrossing biography could not be produced.”

Professor Robert V. Remini (1921-2013)

Professor Remini (1921-2013) is best known for his endless series of books about Andrew Jackson.  Remini tries to spice this up with all of “Black Dan’s” dalliances with women and reckless spending.  Webster liked women, and not just the two he was married to.   A female portrait painter, Sarah Goodridge, who was probably Webster’s mistress, painted a miniature of her bare breasts and gave it to Webster.  If Miss Goodridge was expecting a marriage proposal, she was disappointed, Webster instead married the daughter of a prominent New York family for her money.

 

Sarah Goodridge

"Beauty Revealed" self-portrait given to Daniel Webster by Sarah Goodridge

Although Webster made a literal fortune in legal fees during his career as a lawyer, he blew practically all of it.  Just about every major constitutional law case you can think of in the early nineteenth century, Webster was involved in it as a lawyer.  It was not unusual for Webster to make a speech on the floor of the Senate then descend to the basement of the capital building to address the Supreme Court.

Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

However much Professor Remini tried, however, a book consisting of one debate and speech after another can only be so interesting.  Now that I’ve finished, Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time, I’m thinking of using it a doorstop.  I recommend the book to anyone interesting in early American history and politics or the antebellum legal profession, however, unless you’re really interested in Webster I’d take it in small doses.