Capital trials for conspiracy were unusual but not unprecedented in the nineteenth century, and rules for the admissibility of evidence had not evolved to their present form. As in most trials, the witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense were sometimes confused and not always credible. Still, Lingg did manufacture bombs, several of the defendants had attended meetings to plan revolutionary violence and attacks on the police, and all of the defendants had mustered bloodthirsty rhetoric and armed themselves. Except for Lingg’s activities, however, none of this amounted to proof that
...more
