1. "Law in 1893"
Posted by augusta on Mar-29th-03 at 8:50 PM

This site is a Dictionary of Law 1893:

http://ecclesia.org/lawgiver/defs.asp

Thanks Augusta.

What I did look up tho, I could not find.
Par for me!

"N" for Nol Prosse, was no "N" listing yet.
"A" Appeal--to find out when the automatic right to appeal came into effect.  Appeal was not listed.  I had just read in Roughead, in Scotland, which I believe was first with Appeal, it wasn't in place until 1926?

Today I read thru Day 7 of the Trial where Robinson is victorious in keeping Lizzie's Inquest testimony out of the trial. 

Made me curious as to when the Miranda Rights were established (I'm not too knowledgeable re US law) & was very surprised to find Miranda vs Arizona did not occur until 1966, so this is a relatively new law.

Robinson fought hard to show that Lizzie's rights had been violated insofar as she had been basically placed under house arrest from the time the police arrived on the scene, & had been denied the right to have her lawyer (Jennings) present @ the Inquest, etc...had been treated as a suspect & grilled as such before being informed she was a suspect/going to be arrested for the crimes.  Therefore, she may not have been aware that, "anything (she) said, (could & would) be used against (her) in a court of law".  Robinson was well worth his fee, methinks.

It also struck me once again how totally lucky Lizzie was in so many aspects of this whole case.

I agree with most of this but what about the grilling of Lizzie without naming her rights?
Technically, she and Bridget and Morse and Emma and Dr. Bowen et.al, were all grilled and questioned, before the formal Inquest.  And Lizzie, out of all of them (we should probably include Emma with Lizzie), did have a lawyer, probably by Friday-- and that lawyer did have from Saturday night when Lizzie learned directly she was suspected,  until Tuesday morning, to advise her and her sister.

(Message last edited Mar-31st-03  7:13 AM.)

Yeah Kat -- that came into the prosecution's argument.  But Robinson won anyway.

I don't think I've read those arguments in years!
I guess I'm ready to prosecute, huh? 

If you were approached to retry this case would you prosecute or defend?

(Message last edited Mar-31st-03  7:42 AM.)

Good question.  Methinks I would like to prosecute, just to be able to get more info out into the open, or at least on the table.

1 thing re the Trial that frustrates me to no end is Knowlton often sez things like, "I don't care to hear about that,"

Inwardly, I scream, "Well, I do care to hear about it!  What's wrong with you?  You're supposed to be the prosecution!"

What I believe really worked in Liz's favor when they ruled on whether or not to include the Inquest testimony was how Robinson started out reminding the judges they had to be particularly careful in this case because Liz's life was @ stake pending the verdict.  I think that earned her a lot of leeway.

My reading tells me the Miranda Ruling was rooted in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to our Constitution.   The Fifth (the one people are fond of taking when subjected to grilling on the stand) is the one against self-incrimination, while the Sixth covers the right of the accused to legal counsel, among other things.  Those amendments, of course, were in being before 1892.  The prosecution tried to assert that the inquest wasn't an adversary proceeding, but since Lizzie was proven to have been under "house arrest" at the time it was conducted, that argument didn't hold.  I wonder what would have happened if Lizzie had been advised to "take the Fifth" and had followed that advice.  We Borden scholars would REALLY be up the creek without a paddle, wouldn't we?

So if Morse and Emma were also confined to the house and a warrant was eventually issued against one of them, the same would apply and therefore none of these 3 would have their Inquest testimony allowed at Trial and the result might then, again, for the other 2 be the same?
So the *stuck in the house* issue, concerning all 3, was the first major stmbling block of any prosecution case?

NO!! Miranda Decision is NOT a new law, it merely resurrected historic practice that was destroyed in the oppression that occurred during World War One (like a "dragnet", where men would be arrested w/o warrants or probable cause).
I think one of Pearson's stories also mentions dropping answers given w/o constitutional protection. You can look it up.

I understand that in 19th century England those accused of crimes were not allowed to speak at all. Obvious self-interest, etc.

Do you mean to say the trial was "fixed"? Does that happen today?

Well, if you're rich you stand a much better chance of being acquitted.  That isn't fair.  Those with more money can afford private investigators and the best defense counsel, and the best medical witnesses, etc.  There are no rich people on death row in the US.

Al Capone was the last one I remember reading about that really tried to fix a case.  He bribed his jury when he was tried for income tax evasion, the judge found out, and at the last minute the judge switched juries and he was sent to Alcatraz.  I always wondered at what point in the case the judge switched juries?  I would think it would have to be toward the beginning, or else start the trial over again (there was no mis-trial, so it wasn't started over again). 

Yes, Knowlton is maddening when he cuts people off when they start talking.  It's like reading a mystery and your toddler has ripped out the last five pages.

I would be on the prosecution side of the Borden trial.  But if I had my true wish, I would like to be a reporter working the trial. 

The prosecutor wants any witness to testify to make his points.
Defense attorneys always caution people to answer as simply as possible. Else something may be dragged in. Example: "I wasn't there because I was stoned in my house." Or, "I didn't rob the bank because I was killing somebody on the other side of town."
Ever watch "Law and Order"?

I used to work for lawyers and sure got an education, I
would be the Defense.  So many tricks they have, watching the
OJ trial was a good example.  Lizzie had it all on her side,
no evidence really, she was clean!  I would defend her!

I think bribing or threatening a jury member is old style, 19th century. Today you go to the politician who owns the judge, etc.
Ever see the original "Miracle on 42nd Street"? It gives an example of how this works. (I think it used to be banned for this reason.)