Play recalls big case

By Abigail Johnson
E-mail: ajohnson@ibj.com

Several Indianapolis judges and lawyers tried their hand as actors in the dramatic portrayal of an 1866 United States Supreme Court decision, Ex parte Milligan. The play was part of the United States Courthouse Centennial Celebration on Oct. 18, and was performed in one of the courtrooms of the courthouse.

"We picked Ex parte Milligan because it's one of the most influential cases that has arisen in the Southern District of Indiana, and it is still applicable today," said Suzanne Buchko, who directed the play.

The case deals with Lambdin P. Milligan, a civilian in Indiana whose conviction for treason and death sentence imposed by a military tribunal was held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional because military tribunals could not try civilians. Buchko said the case has been mentioned recently in connection with talk since Sept. 11of the possibility of the use of military tribunals.

United States District Judge Sarah Evans Barker plays Indianapolis federal Judge David McDonald, and U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton plays United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis, who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in Milligan. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. plays Maj. Gen. Alvin P. Hovey, the military commander of Indiana.

Lawyers in leading parts include Elizabeth G. Russell as the narrator; Hugh E. Reynolds Jr. as Milligan's lawyer, Joseph E. McDonald; Marsha C. Massey as the prosecutor before the military tribunal; and Thomas A. John as Milligan.

Other Indianapolis lawyers in the cast include Jamie Geiger, Debbie Lynch, Karen Reisinger, Ricardo Rivera, Michael Rosiello, and Kevin Smith. A committee of the cast chaired by Russell that included Geiger, Lynch, Massey, and Reisinger wrote the script.

The Milligan case originated in 1864 in what became known as the "Indianapolis Treason Trials." Milligan, a Huntington lawyer, was convicted of treason against the Union and sentenced to death by a military tribunal. Milligan challenged the conviction and sentence in the federal court in Indianapolis, contending that a military court could not properly impose a sentence on him because he was a civilian and Indiana was not a theater of war.

In 1866, the Supreme Court held that the trials were unconstitutional. "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace," the Supreme Court said, "and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."

"There were lots of famous jurists and lawyers involved in the case," Buchko said. "And the opinion by the Supreme Court is a very interesting one, talking about our liberties and the importance of protecting them."

Buchko said this case is an example of an early decision that influenced the course of justice. "This is a case that set down some great basic law – we have a bunch of those cases around," she said.

The play was a collaboration between the Indianapolis American Inn of Court and the Sagamore American Inn of Court, Buchko said. The inns are groups of attorneys and judges committed to supporting high standards of ethics, civility, and legal skill.

Buchko said the six-member committee wrote the script for the play, using transcripts from the trial before the military tribunal, decisions before the District Court and the Supreme Court, and other relevant historical information.

"There was a diary that came up that one of the judges, Judge McDonald, kept," Buchko said.

The event on Oct. 18 was the culmination of a celebration that has been going on all year. In March, the cornerstone of the building was re-laid, and there was a commemorative dinner in June.

For her part, Russell said, "The narrator is really just to give background information to connect one scene from another."

Russell is the president of the Sagamore American Inn of Court. The Inns of Court, she said, often have dramatic presentations as part of their meetings, so doing a play wasn't a major stretch for the groups' members.

But it still was a challenge, she said. "It was harder memorizing lines than I thought it would be," Russell said. With several of the other parts, the characters can have notes in front of them, but the narrator's lines are totally memorized.

"I'd been practicing in the car on the way to and from work," she said.

Russell said there wasn't an elaborate set – the actors simply utilized the existing courtroom – but the participants did dress the part.

"I had a hoop skirt, and many of the characters were wearing Civil War uniforms," she said.

The play probably won't be performed again, although Russell said the inns might consider similar activities in the future. "But this is a unique thing for this particular event," she said.