If you had occasion to quote the entire statute you would reveal for the readers here that while, as you say, an Inquest was REQUIRED whenever there was reasonable suspicion that a death occurred at the hands of another under circumstances that would be defined as criminal under law, Coroners then and now have the option to convene Inquests to determine means, circumstances and justifiability of killings. Because Coroners then and even today in many places are elected political positions, and events such as the street fight are a political hot potato, Coroners who DID NOT convene Inquest juries to pass judgment on those type of events were either stupid, or they weren't planning on running for reelection.
...It seems more than interesting that there has always been an assumption that a Coroner's Inquest was just a regular matter of course whenever there was a loss of life by violence.
Apparently ... more
Re: It seems rather interesting... — Wayne Sanderson,Fri Jun 03 23:06
...and political advantage dominates in every time period, it seems. However, the Coroner's option does not change the fact that it is on the books and justifies suspicion under the circumstances and ... more
They held an inquest for Frank Leslie's shooting of William Floyd Claiborne as well, and everyone from God on down knew it was a good shoot. Inquests were procedural. They were not criminal trials but... more
...really know how Matthews, the Coroner, may have felt politically, though it appears he was a Republican. Perhaps he felt pressured by one side or the other, but the statute was on the books and he ... more
...of statutes and laws and if I am reading them correctly.
Am I misunderstanding that the Coroner's obligation, based on the statute, was to not only establish the cause of death but also whether ... more
The Coroner's Jury would be charged with fixing official responsibility for a death when it was caused by another person. If in their opinion it was justified, they would say so, if it was criminal th... more
To add to the above, while the Inquest verdict was legal and binding with regard to determining the cause of death and identifying whether it was caused by another person, their opinion on criminality... more
...does that mean the Inquest was not determined in either direction? Why would no decision be made one way or the other? Why a Hearing appointed but not a Grand Jury trial? Was the Coroner unwilling ... more
...I am catching on. Before you lose complete patience with me, understand that though I lean toward being analytical, my fourth grade education prevents me from understanding some terminology, especi... more
...that were more aimed toward determining the means and manner of death more than any criminal responsibility. The need for them as a civil process was much greater before modern technical means. Man... more
I am pretty sure you didn't believe me when I said I only have a fourth grade education as I do not understand quite a bit of what you posted for me though I appreciate the information and will file i... more
...was reviewed by a Coroner's jury. It is, quite frankly a goldmine for my research, not for the details but for how it was documented. I had already figured out that Cochise County in 1882 was emplo... more