|
|
|
|
CUSTER FOUND GUILTY IN MOCK TRIAL BY PANEL AT IU;
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE GINSBURG PRESIDED
EDITORS: For more information, see http://www.law.indiana.edu or http://www.hoosiertimes.com
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- In a mock court-martial Friday at Indiana University presided over by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer was found guilty of two violations of military law. The verdict was unanimous.
The mock trial of one of America's most controversial historical figures resulted from Custer's military actions in the summer of 1876, when he and the 263 men under his command were killed by Lakota Sioux in the famous Battle of the Little Big Horn.
In passing sentence, IU Professor David C. Williams, who joined Ginsburg and Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. in the unanimous decision, said that the panel was not passing judgment on Custer's character or the morality of the Indian wars. The mock trial was conducted to judge Custer on charges of disobeying orders, negligent conduct "resulting in destruction of military stores," and "neglect of duty to the prejudice of good order and discipline."
Acquitted of the charge of disobeying orders, Armstrong was found guilty of the other charges, which would have meant removal of command and dismissal from the Army.
The two-hour trial was rich in legal and historical detail, with IU law student Damon Leichty of Argos, Ind., using orders from Custer's superiors to advance the claims against him. In Custer's defense, IU law student Azin Lofti, formerly of Indianapolis, said that "at all times, Lt. Col. Custer valiantly strove to complete his mission." The students were joined in their positions by IU Law School alumni Kathleen Buck of Washington, D.C., and Robert A. Long of Los Angeles.
Buck argued that Custer was negligent on several counts, including allowing his men to light cooking fires that would give away their position, exhausting his troops, splitting his command and refusing additional calvary and arms support. But Long said because the Battle of the Little Big Horn was a disaster for the military, the Army needed a scapegoat. "The hostile Indians (simply) proved to be a superior fighting force," he said.
In rejecting the charge of disobedience, the court ruled that "poor judgment is not the basis for violation of orders. Custer did take actions that . . . would serve (the) dominant strategy of preventing the Indians from dispersing." However, they said that his splitting of his command amounted to "flagrant and outrageous" neglect of military duty.
(Ellen K. Mathia, Office of Communications and Marketing, 812-855-0085 or 812-855-3911, emathia@indiana.edu)
Return to the Office of Communications Home Page