Talk:Edgar Ray Killen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Questions 2 Sentence length 3 "American Baptist" minister" question 4 Did Killen personally kill the men? 5 Was he found not guilty of murder? 6 Do we need this?

[edit] Questions

Strange that there is no discussion here yet. Maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I read the article and found it odd that someone would be acquitted because of an 11-1 hung jury. Don't they begin a new trial in the case of a hung jury? Also, I thought that there was a rule against trying someone twice for the same crime if they are acquitted the first time. Double jeopardy, right? Why are they allowed to try him again? You can tell that I'm not a law student... Hermitage 10:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. I believe the first trial was for federal civil rights violations, so the present trial is on a different charge (murder), and thus no double jeopardy. Someone who's read up on the trial might want to make that clear in the article. --Kevin Myers 03:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

This has been resolved, I hope? In any case US constitutional law says that double jeopardy does not apply when different judicial entities are involved. Thus the LA cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted on state charges, but convicted on federal civil rights charges. This is the entire basis for many federal civil rights prosecutions in the 1960s on, because many times the individuals had been fully acquitted on state charges by all-white juries. This belongs in the other articles, though, as it doesn't apply to Killen. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you say is true, but more to the point in this case is that the original (federal) trial resulted in a hung jury. Even aside from the more recent state involvement, federal prosecutors could have chosen to retry Killen without violating the double jeopardy clause. JamesMLane 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, although a hung jury results in a mistrial, which leaves open the possibility of a new trial on the same charge, prosecutors frequently forgo that option because of the expense of trial and due to calculations about the likelihood of a conviction at a second trial. SS451 19:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

He was not acquitted in the 60's... it was a hung jury... so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

If so, the article should be changed, because it says that he was acquitted. Hermitage 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence length

Odd that there's no mention of it on this page... Coolgamer 22:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The jury verdict only just came down. The normal procedure in a major criminal case would be that the judge schedules a sentencing hearing, to give both sides time to assemble and present their arguments about what sentence would be appropriate. The actual sentencing would come some time after that. I don't know how fast Mississippi moves on these things, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence weren't handed down for several months. JamesMLane 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. Coolgamer 16:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "American Baptist" minister" question

User 205.147.225.20 made a change in the link from Killen being an American (as in United States) Baptist minister to being an American (as in American Baptist Association) Baptist minister. Can anyone substantiate this? I believe it to be in error. I have checked their yearbooks, and cannot find mention of Killen - and it does not appear that they even have any churches in that area of Mississippi. If there is not evidence for this, I believe it should be changed. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 02:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could find no evidence that the Smyrna Baptist Church in Union, MS had any association with the American Baptists (of which I am one). As such I have reworded the reference to avoid such confusion in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did Killen personally kill the men?

The edit to state -- that Killen was the ringleader, that Roberts did the actual killing, and that Killen claimed to have been at a funeral wake at the time -- was reverted with a claim of vandalism. This claim is false. The sentence -- that says that Killen hunted down the victims -- is problematic. Rather he had others hunt them down. Please check the newspaper articles. Since being admonished ... leave it to someone else to make the correction.

[edit] Was he found not guilty of murder?

He was found guilty of manslaughter, yes, but was he also tried for murder? Was the jury free to decide between a guilty-of-murder verdict, a guilty-of-manslaughter verdict, and a not-guilty verdict?

Doesn't manslaughter imply accidental killing? How is that rationalized in this case?? --Hermitage 08:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe manslaughter means that the person is either accidentally or indirectly involved with the deaths. The evidence only led to the conclusion that Edgar Ray Killen planned the murders and instructed others, but did not kill them himself, therefore, he was "indirectly involved". Coolgamer 16:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, manslaughter means he was criminally responsible for the death, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill. There are slightly different definitions in each state, though, and I can't be sure what Mississippi law was in 1964. A couple of news stories suggest that MS law uses the felony manslaughter law to include conspiracy to murder. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need this?

"a jury comprised of nine whites and three blacks" seems...? --Joewithajay 08:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we don't "need" it but, from the other side of the world, I found it very interesting. Belated congratulations, Mississippi! Thincat 10:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the racial politics of the U.S. criminal justice system, alas, it's required information in the U.S. God forbid a mixed-race person should serve on a jury in a high profile case -- the press won't know how to report it. --Kevin Myers 13:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Technically, almost any American "black" is mixed race. Funny how the "one drop" rule is only "one way" though ...

But yes, particularly in a case involving racial politics, the racial composition of the jury is considered newsworthy. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just came to the talk page to comment on this...I suppose there's no way that a footnote could be added to explain why it's necessary, or maybe different wording used? It sticks out somewhat to my eyes. --KharBevNor 01:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I did was add context for the 1967 trial, and made a note (so as not to disrupt the flow) indicating the reason the jury was all white. Ideally this -- all by itself -- will clarify why the racial composition of the 2005 jury was pointed out. I considered different ways of putting a footnote on the 2005 jury, but they all seemed awkward in that they were pointing out a situation that no longer applied. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)