Mods: This could go in IMHO, but it’s mainly about legend, folklore, and famous people – but move it if you must.
I’m gonna split this off the Bill Cosby discussion in order to avoid (accusations of) hijacking. I also apologize if I’m using terms incorrectly; it’s been a long night – but this discussion is really active in my mind and won’t let me sleep until I write this stuff out. I’m also going to try to make this a poll – but I’ve never done that before so I don’t know how well this will turn out.
We have been discussing the latest turn in the Cosby case in which the higher court has vacated the Guilty verdict due to procedural issues[1]. Specifically, the District Attorney had conveyed, either privately to Mr. Cosby’s counsel or publicly, that it would not be pressing criminal charges and after self-incriminating testimony was supplied a subsequent District Attorney filed criminal charges and used that testimony as evidence. The higher court basically said the criminal charges, resulting trial, and the testimony used therein was not allowed.
It seems to me that the higher court was treating the Office of the District Attorney as an entity unto itself so that, regardless of who held that particular title, the promise made by the Office had to be honored by that Office in order to bolster and preserve the public’s trust in its governmental institutions. It also seems to me that any communication by the District Attorney’s office – from as little as an apprentice attorney’s whisper to a Post-It Note, to a formal letter, to a public statement on a radio talk-show – has to be treated as its official promise[2].
It seems to me that, in order to preserve trust in the legal system and in our systems of governance, smaller jurisdictions are obligated to implicitly or explicitly make good on the promises of the larger jurisdictions which encompass them[3]. Thus we have, by design, a legal system in which state legislation echoes, mirrors, or even simply assimilates federal law by reference.
And, thus, we come to my hypothetical for this thread’s discussion:
* * *
In the Spring of 1879 the Governor of the New Mexico territory promised protection and clemency – a pardon for several ‘misdeeds’ including the shooting of a local sheriff – in exchange for testimony in the investigation of the murder (and subsequent desecration of the corpse) of an attorney. The testimony was given, then county authorities turned around and tried and convicted the testifier for murdering that sheriff. Somehow the pardon that had been promised got lost.
If this case sounds familiar, it’s only because it’s legendary – or, at least, part of a bigger legend. The governor was former Union Army general Lew Wallace, the sheriff was William Brady, and the man who had been promised a pardon was Henry McCarty/William H. Antrim/William H. Bonney/Billy-the-Kid.
I’m not a big fan of cinematic Westerns or even all that interested in Old Western (USA) history and I’m certainly not a Billy-the-Kid buff. It’s just that every time every time I watch Young Guns II I hear Emilio Estivez rasping away explaining the logic (or lack thereof) it just grates on me:
[Wallace] didn’t exactly lie to me. He just didn’t have the power against the Irish politicians who were still running Lincoln County.
What? He’s the Territorial Governor. Why doesn’t [didn’t] his power supersede that of the county sheriff, prosecutor, et al? He set that bargain and history says Bonney cooperated. Since he was the representative for the territory (later to become a state) shouldn’t his deal have been honored by the government he represented? Shouldn’t the hierarchy of authority been followed by every governmental official below Territorial Governor?
Today happens to be the 140th anniversary of the night Pat Garret claimed to have shot Billy-the-Kid. An old CNN article says Garrett’s family argues Bonney decided to flee house arrest, making the pardon moot. I disagree. He fled house arrest because he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a case Governor Wallace had promised to pardon him for. The government, in the form of the State and its constituent County of Lincoln, reneged on his deal and the County subsequently tarnished the Territory’s (State’s) reputation and trustworthiness.
To be fair, the killing of two sheriff’s deputies during that escape obviates the pardon. Having been pardoned for the death of Sheriff Brady during the “Lincoln County Merchant Dispute” would not have excused him for the death of those deputies. Convictions for those deaths would have been enough to bring out bounty hunters like Garrett. Furthermore, there are at least four other deaths McCarty/Antrim/Bonney committed and hadn’t been pardoned for. History could see him no differently that it already does. I simply think that the State of New Mexico and the Counties within it should consider Bonney to have been pardoned for the death of Sheriff William Brady, as Wallace agreed.
It seemed to me that the Brushy Bill Roberts case was dismissed because the petitioner couldn’t prove he was actually Antrim/McCarty/Bonney. But my argument is about the government’s promise rather than a particular person’s identity. Besides, at this point we’re just not going to find some 160-year-old guy popping up to say, “Dag-nabbit, I want my pardon!”
Care to weigh in?
–G?
[1] Technicality (n): The losing side’s epithet for a point of law or courtroom procedure which has been brought to bear upon their case so that the results do not end up in their favor.
[2] Of course we have to be reasonable here. It’s clearly disingenuous of a tabloid to interview the night janitor at the DA’s office to ask what he thinks the District plans to do with Case XYZ. Those issuing the communication must have the proper authority to back up their promises.
[3] And, quite interestingly, it is the nested and hierarchical relationship which gives the larger jurisdiction the freedom not to uphold the promises of lower jurisdictions; gives the larger entity the obligation and freedom to oversee and even overrule the promises and procedures of its constituent ‘lower’ jurisdictions.
- A) No pardon. The guy calling himself William H. Bonney was scum and never deserved it.
- B) No pardon. It would tarnish Pat Garret’s good name and that of his entire bloodline.
- C) Give him the pardon. It won’t change the past or the legends.
- D) Give him his pardon. The government at the time gave its promise and honoring that promise un-tarnishes the image of authority.
- E) Hey, you’re missing something though. Consider…