Lincoln helps a murderer get off. | Moonlight: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial

Wonderful Research -- Woeful Reasoning | Moonlight: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial | John Evangelist Walsh

books:


	• Moonlight: Abraham Lincoln and the Almanac Trial John Evangelist Walsh Palgrave Macmillan, 2000 - 192 pages average customer review:based on 8 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Lincoln's Legal Ethics

I think this book is an interesting evocation of the ethical scruples of Lincoln as lawyer. Contrary to the conclusion drawn by the author, the sources he relies upon demonstrate that Lincoln was ethical in the zealous representation of his client, an accused murderer. Even under today's legal standards, Lincoln would have been correct to instruct a witness that he was only interested in the witness's ability to testify on a single factual aspect of the trial and to instruct the witness to tell him nothing else except the truth about that single fact. During his preparation for trial, when the witness tried to stray from his instructions and inform Lincoln of other observations, Lincoln would have been within his right to interrupt and remind him that he mustn't offer additional observations beyond the fact requested.

Even today we instruct juries that they may believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony. Lawyers are held to no different standards in their use of witnesses at trial except lawyers may not offer a witness whose testimony the lawyer believes would commit a fraud upon the court. Lincoln never placed this witness on the stand to elicit any testimony other than what the witness stated to be the truth. Thus the claim that Lincoln "suborned perjury" is naive and insulting. For all that, I enjoyed the underlying research, and the author's exposition of it. It does strike me that consultation with an attorney would have vastly improved the history and dampened the sensationalism.

for more information click here

Lincoln helps a murderer get off.

Walsh certainly comes up with an interesting topic that has been bypassed by other historians. The case involves Duff Anderson and his use of a deadly weapon in killing a large man. Because of his friendship with the family, Abe Lincoln defended Duff in court and got him acquited of the charge of murder. In the trial itself, Abe may have used an incorrect almanac, and this was not challenged by the prosecution. Because of this, a guilty man may have went free. Walsh also questions other Lincoln cases in the book. This is all interesting reading, even though unproven.
I give the author credit in writing about a topic that has not been explored in great detail. He writes this as history, but there is not enough evidence here to convict Lincoln. Lincoln used the full extent of his powers to defend his client. At this stage, there is not enough documentation to prove he doctored the almanac. This is a quick short interesting read.

for more information click here

Wonderful Research -- Woeful Reasoning

Walsh does diligent spadework with the original sources and clears up many misconceptions about the famous "Almanac Trial." Unfortunately he engenders a few misconceptions himself. The greatest misconception he engenders is his portrayal of Lincoln as behaving in an ethically challenged fashion. Not so.

Walsh reports that Lincoln, in his investigation, told a witness not to tell him about inculpatory evidence against his client and then goes on to have the witness manufacture exculpatory evidence. Not so. Walsh serious misinterprets what was going on. One of Armstrong's friends stood ready to testify that the slunshot found at the crime scene was his, that he had set it aside and forgotten it at the scene, and that insofar as he knew, Armstrong never had it. The slungshot was allegedly used by Armstrong to beat the victim. The witness also would have testified that he saw Armstrong hit Metzger with a wagon hammer, not a slunshot, but Lincoln didn't inquire into this evidence and didn't present it at trial. Lincoln did nothing unethical. As the representative of the defendant, who has a Fifth Amendment Privilege, Lincoln was under no duty to disclose inculpatory evidence. He was quite possibly foolish in calling the witness because the prosecution might have wheedled the information out of the witness on cross, but that didn't happen.

Walsh then speculates that Lincoln told the witness to testify that he mislaid the slunshot and the witness obliged. This speculation is contrary to the probabilities. The witness was afraid he would be asked on cross if he saw Armstrong hit Metzger. If he had been asked, he would have admitted it. If he was such a liar as to make up a story about mislaying the slungshot, he would not have stuck at lying and saying he never saw Armstrong hit Metzger.

Walsh then claims that when the star witness for the prosecution disappeared, Lincoln personally had him hauled into court so he could cross examine the man. Not so. Lincoln would have been happy to have the witness, one Allen, not appear, because he was the heart and soul of the state's case. Without him, there was no testimony that Armstrong hit Metzger with anything more than his fist, which could not have produced the injury. Lincoln retrieved the wayward witness because he learned that Armstrong's family had hidden him to keep him from testifying. If Allen had failed to appear on his own, Lincoln would have been under no obligation to go get him. But that is not what happened, Lincoln's "allies" spirited the witness away and he could not be party to such a circumvention of justice. When he found out about the maneuver, he ordered them to bring Allen back.

Then Walsh claims Lincoln lied in final argument. Judging by the eyewitness reports, Lincoln said some things that would never be said in a modern courtroom, but the 1800's were a time of bombastic oratory. What Lincoln supposedly said was nothing more than that, bombast aimed at stirring up sympathy.

Walsh's book shows that Lincoln comported himself strictly within the bounds of legal ethics, but you have to ignore Walsh's off-the-mark analysis to see it. I'd give the book two stars if it weren't such a goldmine of information on the trial.

for more information click here

On August 29, 1857, in the light of a three-quarter moon, James Metzger was savagely beaten by two assailants in a grove not far from his home. Two days later he died and his assailants, James Norris and William Armstrong, were arrested and charged with his murder. Norris was tried and convicted first. As William "Duff" Armstrong waited for his trial, his own father died. James Armstrong's deathbed wish was that Duff's mother, Hannah, engage the best lawyer possible to defend Duff. The best person Hannah could think of was a friend, a young lawyer from Springfield by the name of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln took the case and with that begins one of the oddest journeys Lincoln took on his trek towards immortality. What really happened? How much did the moon reveal? What did Lincoln really know? Walsh makes a strong case for viewing Honest Abe in a different light in this tale of murder and moonlight.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2

hot or not? What's your opinion? Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

Great books on Abraham Lincoln