Documents and Decisions
in the Case for Dr. Mudd

Testimony Concerning Samuel A. Mudd (310kb) from Proceedings of the Conspiracy Trial, May to June 1865

Findings and Sentences (17kb) from Proceedings of the Conspiracy Trial, June 1865

Opinion on the Constitutional Power of the Military to Try and Execute the Assassins of the President (48kb) by Attorney General James Speed, July 1865

Dutton Affidavit Concerning Certain Statements of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd Enroute to Fort Jefferson (4kb) August 1865
Decision in Dr. Mudd’s Suit Against the Army (46kb) by Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman, October 1998

Offers informative chronologies of Dr. Samuel Mudd’s and Dr. Richard Mudd’s cases. Discusses Ex Parte Milligan and examines the circumstances under which a military tribunal, such as tried Dr. Mudd, is appropriate. Discusses Ex Parte Garland which states that a full pardon “blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.” If that were so, Dr. Mudd’s case would be moot, but subsequent cases are cited which contradict Ex Parte Garland. The judge denies two counts of three and sends the case back to the Army for further consideration of the third count which concerns the effect that Dr. Mudd’s citizenship has on the case.

The Army Denies Dr. Mudd’s Appeal (9kb) by Patrick T. Henry, Assistant Secretary of the Army, March 2000
The issue considered was whether a military tribunal had jurisdiction over Dr. Mudd in spite of the fact that he was a citizen of a non-secessionist state and not a member of either army, and that the civilian courts were open. Citing Ex Parte Quirin, the Assistant Secretary determines that Dr. Mudd’s trial by military commission was correct. The ABCMR’s recommendation was based on Ex Parte Milligan which deals with martial law jursidiction. Ex Parte Quirin speaks to law of war jurisdiction; “a military commission may try unlawful belligerents for law of war violations committed during a time of war even though they are citizens of the United States.”

Points in Support of Dr. Mudd’s Position (101kb) by Attorneys Steel and Gagner for Dr. Richard D. Mudd
Objects to the finding that Dr. Mudd was an unlawful military belligerent. Maintains that Quirin does not set aside Milligan and, as defined by subsequent cases, does not apply in Dr. Mudd’s case.

Points in Opposition to Dr. Mudd’s Position (52kb) by United States Attorneys for the U.S. Army, August 2000
Final Verdict in Dr. Mudd’s Case Against the Army (36kb) by Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman, March 2001
The judgment includes a succinct description of the legal arguments made by both plaintiff and defendant. It finds that the Army has addressed the issue of Dr. Mudd’s citizenship, as required. However, it bristles at the notion that it should defer to the Army’s interpretation of the Supreme Court decisions in Milligan and Quirin; the Court should make its own judgment. The Court concluded that Dr. Samuel Mudd was charged with a law of war violation and that it was permissible for him to be tried before a military commission even though he was a United States and a Maryland citizen and the civilian courts were open at the time of his trial. The court dismissed Dr. Mudd's case.

Verdict in Appeal of Judge Friedman’s Decision by Circuit Judge Edwards, November 2002
U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denies the Mudd family’s appeal of Judge Friedman’s decision for “want of standing.” Because Dr. Samuel A. Mudd was not a member of the military, neither he nor his descendants may petition to alter the military record.

Documents and Decisionsin the Case for Dr. Mudd