Bill Hickok s trial

[Krylandalian]

Bill  Hickok s  trial

Got this from a paper called- Chronicle of the Old West

             HAYCOCK
           NOT GUILTY

August 10, 1865,  The Patriot,  Springfield Missouri - The trial of Wm. Haycock for the killing of Davis Tutt, in the street in this city week before last, was concluded on Saturday last, by a verdict of not guilty, rendered by the jury in about ten minutes after they retired to the jury room.

Instruction to the jury were as follows:

1 st-  If they believe from the evidence that the defendant intentionally shot at the deceased, Davis Tutt, and the death of said Tutt, was caused thereby, they will find defendant guilty, unless they are satisfied from the evidence that he acted in self-defence.

 - - - - -   There are a total of 16 instructions.  Number 4 is the most interesting to me:

4 th-  To be entitled to aquittal on the ground of self-defence, he must have been anxious to avoid a conflict, and must have used all reasonable means to avoid it.

- - - - - -   Seems the way the court file reads, it is impossible to find him innocent.  They were walking towards one another aggressively and duked it out. 

The court instructions seem to be not so different from what they are today!!!  Which makes all the self defence     f a i r   f i g h t   gun, fist, knife , ,  fights ,  whatever, to be illegal assault/death, whatever.

I ll  add more of it later.

[Hawg]

Despite Hickok's claim of self-defense being technically invalid under the state law pertaining to "mutual combat" (since he had come to the square armed and expecting to fight), the jury decided that he was justified in shooting Tutt. As Tutt was the initiator of the fight (by taking Hickok's watch) and the first to display overt aggression, and since two witnesses indicated that Tutt was the first to reach for his pistol, the unwritten law dictated that Hickok was justified and subsequently they absolved him of guilt. In fact, Hickok was seen as being honorable for giving Tutt several chances to avoid the conflict instead of shooting him the moment he felt he was shown disrespect.

Judge Boyd gave the jury two apparently contradictory instructions. He first instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law. However, he then instructed them that they could apply the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit, an action known as jury nullification which allows a jury to make a finding contrary to the law. The trial ended in acquittal on August 6, 1865, after the jury deliberated for "an hour or two" before reaching a verdict of not guilty.

[Krylandalian]

Good job!

I ll  post more of the jury instructions soon.

Funny hmm?  Seems the general idea is that in 1865 anyone could just settle their disputes with guns ,  when insulted or whatever.  H o w e v e r!,  Law was quite similar to what we have today.

[Hawg]

Good job!

I ll  post more of the jury instructions soon.

Funny hmm?  Seems the general idea is that in 1865 anyone could just settle their disputes with guns ,  when insulted or whatever.  H o w e v e r!,  Law was quite similar to what we have today.

You will find very few verifiable instances where disputes were settled in a face off. Most were at night with a shotgun from an alley.

[Krylandalian]

Yeah.  Kinda like today.

No more court instructions posting.  Can t  get into it.