In class this
week our first case we heard was State vs. Mann. This case is about a
slaveholder "assaulting" a slave by shooting him in the back because
he was running away and not following conduct. The state pleads that Mann must
pay fines for assaulting the slave by shooting him but also they request jail
time for Mann's actions. Mann pleads it was in his constitutional right to take
the necessary measures to ensure his slave stayed on his land, he also states
even though he shot his slave in the back no permanent injury occurred and he
fully recovered after a few days. The state used religion and new laws as a
basis for finding Mann guilty but, Mann's council proved Hon. Smith beyond a
probable doubt that there was no wrongdoing was made on Mann's Part.
The slaves legal
council tried to make the argument that Mann should be charged with attempted
murder but had no basis to prove the motive for Mann shooting the slave. There
was a lack of evidence proving Mann to have wanted to kill his slave, so the
grounds of attempted murder were dismissed. The state then pleaded for him to
be charged with property damage because of him shooting the slave but then that
contradicted their basis for attempted murder by saying he wasn’t property but
a human being. So I feel that the state didn’t form a strong enough basis to
find Mann guilty if he was but also they lacked to be efficient in their legal
work and collection of evidence.