Slavery case re-enacted

February 9, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Today's post is from IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger: 

Braving the cold and snow, a group of about 15 eighth graders from Indianapolis Public School’s Cold Spring School 315 participated in a re-enactment of the trial of Polly Strong, a 24-year-old woman who fought for – and won – her freedom in 1820 following a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The decision overturned a Knox Circuit Court decision that Col. Hyacinth Lasselle could own Strong, her mother, and brother as his slaves, even though the Indiana Constitution outlawed slavery in 1816.

About 200 more students in grades 4 through 12 were expected for two scheduled performances, but the other schools were unable to attend because of weather conditions. Only one performance took place around 12:30 p.m. at the Indiana Supreme Court, following the students’ tour of the Indiana Statehouse.

For those classes and anyone else who couldn’t make it today, there’s a webcast of the production on the court’s Web site. The site also includes links to documents that were used to put the presentation together, including court documents from Knox County and the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case of State vs. Lasselle.

Students portrayed the various roles in the production, including Indiana Supreme Court Justices Isaac Blackford, James Scott, and Jesse Holman; Strong’s mother, Jenny; brother, James; Lasselle; and lawyers for both sides.

Indianapolis native Veronique Briscoe-Beuoy, a 2L at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law, passionately played Strong. She said she was happy to travel three hours each way to perform the role. Readers might recognize her name because she was part of an Indiana Lawyer article about interns who worked for Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic last summer.

Usually, the courtroom is at capacity during performances like this one, said Elizabeth Osborn, who oversees the Courts in the Classroom program. She added it was unusual to have every student receive a part to play.

All members of the audience participated – a court staff member prompted them with signs that said “applause,” “yes,” and “no,” depending on who was speaking. At least one audience member – without prompting from a sign – booed Lasselle.

Briscoe-Beuoy and Osborn answered insightful questions from members of the audience at the end.

It was heartening to see that the students took such an interest in the trial and remained serious about their roles, even if it meant they were in costume – the lawyers and Lasselle wore bowler hats and the judges wore robes, of course – and even though most weren’t aware they’d have a role to play until they arrived.

Hopefully the weather won’t deter other classes from attending future Courts in the Classroom presentations, which are open to the public.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT