AAR 1864 Trial Event

[Csayankee]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

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]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

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

[LindaTrent]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial 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).

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]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

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]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

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]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

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]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

Any word on event photos from Nicholas the Great?

[LindaTrent]

Re: AAR 1864 Trial Event

Any word on event photos from Nicholas the Great?

Should be coming soon.

Linda.