Dan Sickles - Anything good?

[Library Lady]

And I hear he was a good shot with a pistol.

If he'd been a good shot with a pistol and if he'd been thinking straight, then he would have needed only one shot to the portion of Key's body that had actually committed the offense. It may or may not have killed him, but if he survived, then chances are good that he would no longer have been capable of committing the same offense again with Mrs. Sickles or with any other woman. I'm thinking that would have been an easier sell to a jury, at least to the men who wanted to protect their wives. As for the men who were also cheaters, maybe not so much. OK, so maybe that's why he went with the temporary insanity.

Anyway, if this is the part of Dan Sickles' life you're really interested in, then this is an excellent book. I think even the lawyers here might like it. As I recall, it dealt not only with the temporary insanity defense but also the "unwritten law of retribution" defense which apparently became much more widely used and accepted after this trial.

 

[JerryD]

If he'd been a good shot with a pistol and if he'd been thinking straight, then he would have needed only one shot to the portion of Key's body that had actually committed the offense. It may or may not have killed him, but if he survived, then chances are good that he would no longer have been capable of committing the same offense again with Mrs. Sickles or with any other woman. I'm thinking that would have been an easier sell to a jury, at least to the men who wanted to protect their wives. As for the men who were also cheaters, maybe not so much. OK, so maybe that's why he went with the temporary insanity.

Anyway, if this is the part of Dan Sickles' life you're really interested in, then this is an excellent book. I think even the lawyers here might like it. As I recall, it dealt not only with the temporary insanity defense but also the "unwritten law of retribution" defense which apparently became much more widely used and accepted after this trial.

View attachment 585645

We actually did learn about this case in Law School. It was the first successful use of the temporary insanity defense in the US, but the argument Stanton (yes, that Stanton) used in his defense would not fly under today's standard. In effect Stanton was arguing what we would today call "in the heat of passion", which can be used to downgrade a charge from premeditated, but does not absolve from responsibility. Today they apply a much stricter standard that typically requires a finding that the person did not realize what they were doing was wrong; i.e., a real finding of actual mental illness, that somehow miraculously no longer exists. In effect, Stanton was arguing that Sickles was so outraged he could not stop himself from killing Key. To be effective today he would have had to argue that Sickles thought shooting Key and putting a bullet in him was basically akin to saying hi or some other harmless action. But saying Sickles was mad, and thus killed Key in effect admits Sickles knew what he was doing was wrong, and thus not temporarily "insane".

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Today they apply a much stricter standard that typically requires a finding that the person did not realize what they were doing was wrong; i.e., a real finding of actual mental illness, that somehow miraculously no longer exists.

I was curious to see how many times temporary insanity has actually been used successfully since Sickles, but I'm coming up empty.

Apparently insanity pleas amount to only about 1% of cases that go to trial and their success rate is extremely low. Temporary insanity must be even rarer.

It's rare to have a psychotic break that is only temporary; usually when you go you never really come back. Murder while having a PTSD psychotic episode is probably grounds for permanent insanity, even though the individual still has lucid periods? Maybe a drug-induced hallucination would qualify as temporary insanity? A fever-induced hallucination should certainly qualify.

 

[gary]

Interestingly, Sickles never mentioned that Hazel Grove influenced his decision on July 2. But he did say that Jackson's flank attack was something that he thought of during that day (of course, he said it after the war with hindsight).

And he definitely would not have survived Grant. His corps would still be folded into the Second and he'd be left without a command.

Ryan

My first thought of Sickles when he was at Gettysburg. He saw the same disadvantage and advanced w/out orders.

Concur that if he pulled that stunt on Grant, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

 

[gjpratt]

We actually did learn about this case in Law School. It was the first successful use of the temporary insanity defense in the US, but the argument Stanton (yes, that Stanton) used in his defense would not fly under today's standard. In effect Stanton was arguing what we would today call "in the heat of passion", which can be used to downgrade a charge from premeditated, but does not absolve from responsibility. Today they apply a much stricter standard that typically requires a finding that the person did not realize what they were doing was wrong; i.e., a real finding of actual mental illness, that somehow miraculously no longer exists. In effect, Stanton was arguing that Sickles was so outraged he could not stop himself from killing Key. To be effective today he would have had to argue that Sickles thought shooting Key and putting a bullet in him was basically akin to saying hi or some other harmless action. But saying Sickles was mad, and thus killed Key in effect admits Sickles knew what he was doing was wrong, and thus not temporarily "insane".

As I read the transcripts, Stanton blatantly argued for jury nullification and the creative legal theory of temporary insanity was his thin legal cover.

 

[Belfoured]

We actually did learn about this case in Law School. It was the first successful use of the temporary insanity defense in the US, but the argument Stanton (yes, that Stanton) used in his defense would not fly under today's standard. In effect Stanton was arguing what we would today call "in the heat of passion", which can be used to downgrade a charge from premeditated, but does not absolve from responsibility. Today they apply a much stricter standard that typically requires a finding that the person did not realize what they were doing was wrong; i.e., a real finding of actual mental illness, that somehow miraculously no longer exists. In effect, Stanton was arguing that Sickles was so outraged he could not stop himself from killing Key. To be effective today he would have had to argue that Sickles thought shooting Key and putting a bullet in him was basically akin to saying hi or some other harmless action. But saying Sickles was mad, and thus killed Key in effect admits Sickles knew what he was doing was wrong, and thus not temporarily "insane".

Agree completely. This was used in law school as the "first" significant use of the defense in general terms but it's clear that it became outdated long ago. Kudos to Stanton and the rest of the defense team for thinking outside the mid-19th century legal "box". Another defense team came up with a successful "outside the box" approach three decades ago ...

 

[Belfoured]

As I read the transcripts, Stanton blatantly argued for jury nullification and the creative legal theory of temporary insanity was his thin legal cover.

I think you're correct - it was thinly-veiled at best.

 

[Belfoured]

My first thought of Sickles when he was at Gettysburg. He saw the same disadvantage and advanced w/out orders.

Concur that if he pulled that stunt on Grant, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

To follow up on Ryan's point that you replied to, Dishonest Dan indulged in some "revision" in his AAR on Chancellorsville. His message sent to Howard on May 2 clearly indicated that Jackson was "retreating" [OR Vol. XXV Part 2 at 370]. In his May 20 report, there was a change. The movement "indicated" "a retreat ... or an attack upon our right flank" [OR Vol. XXV Part 1 at 386], and included a new definition of "retreat". Imagine if Howard had been told that in the May 2 message ...

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Agree completely. This was used in law school as the "first" significant use of the defense in general terms but it's clear that it became outdated long ago. Kudos to Stanton and the rest of the defense team for thinking outside the mid-19th century legal "box". Another defense team came up with a successful "outside the box" approach three decades ago ...

I must admit that the results in that case did serious damage to my opinion of the American legal system. And the media as well, for that matter.

 

[Library Lady]

I must admit that the results in that case did serious damage to my opinion of the American legal system. And the media as well, for that matter.

Sickles' trial was pretty much a media circus, too. There was concern about how "racy" some of the newspaper accounts were because adultery wasn't normally talked about in public in polite mixed company, and it was generally thought that women didn't need to read all the hairy details. Temporary insanity as a defense didn't really take off, but the "unwritten rule" that men had the right to exact some type of retribution against another man who dishonored his wife apparently did.

 

[Belfoured]

Sickles' trial was pretty much a media circus, too. There was concern about how "racy" some of the newspaper accounts were because adultery wasn't normally talked about in public in polite mixed company, and it was generally thought that women didn't need to read all the hairy details. Temporary insanity as a defense didn't really take off, but the "unwritten rule" that men had the right to exact some type of retribution against another man who dishonored his wife apparently did.

It also had that in common with the case from three decades ago that I referenced in Post #66 ...

 

[neyankee61]

Didn't Dan raise the Excelsior Brigade out of NYC with his own money and against orders and then get the Fed. Gov't to accept the Brigade and repay Dan?

 

[Intrafinesse]

Powell's article on Sickles ought to be required reading for anyone participating in these discussions.

I found the link

Advance to Disaster

I was going to ask for it, but found it

 

[Scott1967]

My first thought of Sickles when he was at Gettysburg. He saw the same disadvantage and advanced w/out orders.

Concur that if he pulled that stunt on Grant, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

And yet Barlow got away with it doing the exact same thing as Sickles and contributing immensely to the destruction of the XI Corps.

 

[JerryD]

And yet Barlow got away with it doing the exact same thing as Sickles and contributing immensely to the destruction of the XI Corps.

When you say "got away with it", what do you mean? He was severely wounded and his action is generally seen as a pretty big error. That being said, I also don't think that if he had stayed where he was supposed to be, that the 11th Corps would have held its position. Early was coming in at exactly the right place to fall on the flank and rout the AOP. So while what he did was not smart, I do question if it materially changed what was going to happen. But that is just my opinion and we'll never know. But I don't think he got away with anything. Other than avoiding prosecution (just like Sickles, so I guess he got away with it as well?) I dont see he got away with anything.

 

[Belfoured]

When you say "got away with it", what do you mean? He was severely wounded and his action is generally seen as a pretty big error. That being said, I also don't think that if he had stayed where he was supposed to be, that the 11th Corps would have held its position. Early was coming in at exactly the right place to fall on the flank and rout the AOP. So while what he did was not smart, I do question if it materially changed what was going to happen. But that is just my opinion and we'll never know. But I don't think he got away with anything. Other than avoiding prosecution (just like Sickles, so I guess he got away with it as well?) I dont see he got away with anything.

As you indicate, Barlow's tactics have never been immune from criticism. But they never became the subject of a major controversy because Barlow didn't launch a post-battle public relations campaign littered with falsehoods to explain how he really "saved" the Army of the Potomac on July 1. Sickles would have embarked on an essay-writing venture pointing out that the attackers became disorganized by chasing the routed IX Corps into the town, leading to a material delay while reinforcements arrived at Cemetery Hill and caused Ewell to refrain from an attack.

I really don't understand the compulsion to defend the likes of Sickles.

 

[JerryD]

As you indicate, Barlow's tactics have never been immune from criticism. But they never became the subject of a major controversy because Barlow didn't launch a post-battle public relations campaign littered with falsehoods to explain how he really "saved" the Army of the Potomac on July 1. Sickles would have embarked on an essay-writing venture pointing out that the attackers became disorganized by chasing the routed IX Corps into the town, leading to a material delay while reinforcements arrived at Cemetery Hill and caused Ewell to refrain from an attack.

I really don't understand the compulsion to defend the likes of Sickles.

Reading Welles Diary and he recounts Sickles came to see Lincoln while he was recuperating. Lincoln said he understood that Hancock deserves great credit for selecting the battlefield, and Sickles said no, it was Howard and him who selected the battlefield, but really him. Also, that Meade was eager to retreat that first night and it was Sickles who stood up to him and convinced him to stay and fight. Ol' Dan never allowed the truth get in the way of aggrandizing himself.

 

[Belfoured]

Reading Welles Diary and he recounts Sickles came to see Lincoln while he was recuperating. Lincoln said he understood that Hancock deserves great credit for selecting the battlefield, and Sickles said no, it was Howard and him who selected the battlefield, but really him. Also, that Meade was eager to retreat that first night and it was Sickles who stood up to him and convinced him to stay and fight. Ol' Dan never allowed the truth get in the way of aggrandizing himself.

Sickles and the Truth were always strangers who never met.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Also, that Meade was eager to retreat that first night and it was Sickles who stood up to him and convinced him to stay and fight. Ol'

I would like to know what Dan Butterfield had to say about this. Everyone forgets that he insisted that there would be a vote, and he recorded it, at the Council of War, so no one could welch out on what they said.

Did Sickles really say that? It should be recorded.

 

[Library Lady]

I was curious to see how many times temporary insanity has actually been used successfully since Sickles, but I'm coming up empty.

Apparently insanity pleas amount to only about 1% of cases that go to trial and their success rate is extremely low. Temporary insanity must be even rarer.

It's rare to have a psychotic break that is only temporary; usually when you go you never really come back. Murder while having a PTSD psychotic episode is probably grounds for permanent insanity, even though the individual still has lucid periods? Maybe a drug-induced hallucination would qualify as temporary insanity? A fever-induced hallucination should certainly qualify.

Some of those sound like "guilty but of diminished capacity" (I think the term is). Like @JerryD said, there's no doubt you did it, but at the time you did it you didn't have the mental capacity to meet the criteria for the top charge (premeditation, for example). It doesn't mean that you are clinically insane because that's a whole other set of criteria that has to be met.