Hatfields and McCoys

[Nars_Glinley]

The How did the Hatfield-McCoy feud end, anyway? staff report piqued my interest in the feud and unfortunately led me to wikipedia.

@wiki

In June 1880, Staton was killed by two McCoy brothers, Sam and Paris, who were later acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. But the court decided later on it was not self defense; it was murder in the first degree.

How is this possible? Isn’t being acquitted the same as being found not guilty? Why wouldn’t double jeopardy apply? Was a Hatfield over this trial as well?

BTW, the wiki article also notes that the original dispute was over the land that the pig was on and notsomuch the pig itself.

[Gfactor]

Doesn’t make a lot of sense, legally. And it doesn’t seem to be the case, factually:

But Staton was marked for death. Within months he found it at the hands of Paris and Sam McCoy. Though Sam was tried for the shooting in a Hatfield court, which writers believe Devil Anse had instructed to acquit for the sake of peace, the gesture was futile. The Mc-Coys were en-raged that Sam had stood trial at all. Instead of gratitude, they felt an even greater hatred for the Hatfield clan, and it would take little more for the seething frustrations to burst into all-out war.

Hatfields & McCoys - The Girl Who Loved Too Much - Blue Ridge Country

Legally, there are two steps:

1. The Bill of Rights wasn’t applied to the states until a bit later. The Double Jeopardy clause, in particular wasn’t applied to the states until Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=395&invol=784

2. But every state had a similar rule. *Id. * at note 14.

I suppose it’s possible that a later trial was held if nobody objected on Double Jeopardy grounds or if the court simply overruled any objections. But I haven’t found any evidence of a joint trial at all. Let alone a retrial. That causes me to doubt the credibility of the rest of the statement.

[John_W.Kennedy]

Strictly speaking, it does not say Sam and Paris were found guilty in a second trial for murder, only that the act was ruled to have been a murder in some subsequent trial.

[Gfactor]

@John W. Kennedy

Strictly speaking, it does not say Sam and Paris were found guilty in a second trial for murder, only that the act was ruled to have been a murder in some subsequent trial.

I could see a court in a civil case rejecting a claim of self-defense, but there’d be no reason for the court to find it was “murder in the first degree.” So that part doesn’t fit, especially when you take into account that both men weren’t tried for murder in the first place.

Is it possible? Sure. Did it happen? Probably not. Is there a more plausible hypothesis? My personal favorite is that the wiki got it wrong.