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 it for future reference.
I understand some of it but it leaves me wondering why, if the approach to a coroner's report, in that time period, was so slipshod, why would the statute or whatever be listed in the first place? It sounds, from the wording, that it should be taken seriously by the coroner and his appointed jurors.
Is this only applied in Arizona or is it likely to be the same in most territories at the time? It appears that Matthews could apply the statute but you seem to suggest he has wiggle room.
Chapter IV, sections 9-12 (1877) indicate a finding of criminal means actually obligated the coroner to issue an immediate warrant for the arrest of the one or more responsible.
So how do we establish whether or not the finding was justified; dependant on the jury? Did they not establish that criminal means was employed; then why would the Grand Jury turn down their decision?
I really am not trying to be a smart-aleck; I am wondering how the Grand Jury got away with this...at least, in my eyes!
...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
The statute's wording requiring action under certain circumstances was intended to prevent the Coroner from using discretion to NOT hold an inquest, a check against showing favoritism by letting some ... more
...If I were not so intrigued, I would have disappeared a few posts ago, but old folks like me don't always learn and I think you are having some fun with me.
I have some homework to do, but tho... more
I do have to go along with you on your opinion of the prosecutors- For seemingly smart guys, they were imbeciles. They trotted out their whole case, witness testimony, strategy and everything at a Pre... more
...Wayne, I think our discussion has been really worthwhile from my side and I've learned some stuff I had considered but from a slightly different angle. I am not a historian; I tend to examine thing... more
Don't forget how the McLaury brother with the law degree showed up and insinuated himself into the ongoing hearing on the prosecution side and damn near hijacked the whole side's case. What I said abo... more
...in this situation. Obviously he did not understand what the procedure entailed, he was deeply emotionally involved, time was the enemy as well...and his ignorance of all of this caused him to repea... more
As I said before, this was a badly mishandled preliminary hearing on the government's part. They showed their entire hand and allowed things to be examined and refuted that should have never been hear... more
...My impression is that the Prosecutors were in over their heads (as I often am ) and did not really know how to conduct criminal cases as they mostly dealt with business interests, mining, ect.
My impression of the post-street fight charges were that at one level- Behan and the county Democratic Party- The charges were a political opportunity to hammer two of the strongest Republican contend... more
To follow up: Arizona Territory in 1881 was an interesting place, criminal law-wise. One interesting feature is that even a private citizen could bring a criminal charge as a presentment to the court ... more
...in my overstated opinion. It is hard to get past the carefully planted bias, but well worth the effort.
Regardless of the extended discussions on the subject, the fact remains the statute was... more