1. "Judge Blaisdell's Scandal"
Posted by Kat on Jan-19th-03 at 1:33 PM

LBQ, Jan. 2001, "Jennings VS. Blaisdell", by Wm. Masterton.
Front page article, continued to pgs.22-23, with References, transcription of "Resignation Correspondencs" and of excerpts from Fall River Herald, 1893, relevant to the topic:

"...confrontation between Jennings and Blaisdell.  It arose in 1893 when Arba Lincoln, a Special Justice of the Second District Court, brought charges against Blaisdell.  It appears that Blaisdell had continued his law practice after he became a judge.  Indeed, he took on clients who later appeared before him in court.  Arba Lincoln took a dim view of his practice, as well he might.  Lincoln resigned his position to protest and, in effect, publicize Blaisdell's peculiar behavior.  As a result, the charges were investigated by the executive council of the Fall River Bar Association.  One of the five members of this council was (you guessed it) Andrew Jennings.  The remaining four were Hugo A. Dubuque, James F. Jackson, Marcus G.B. Swift and John W. Cummings.

As you might suppose, this investigation produced a great deal of ill feeling.  Blaisdell insisted that he had done nothing wrong, citing a case where, as a judge, he had ruled against his own client.  His opponents described his practice as 'bribery', which is perhaps a little severe.  Blaisdell's supporters claimed that Lincoln's real objective was to get Blaisdell's job.  As the Herald pointed out, that was unlikely, since Lincoln was a Republican and Governor Russell a Democrat.  Indeed, Russell did appoint someone else, presumably a deserving Democrat.

...we do know that Lincoln charged Blaisdell with taking payment for legal advise to clients who later appeared before him for judgement.  Judge Blaisdell admitted to having done this but saw nothing wrong with it.  Here again he was legally within his rights but ethically guilty of what was at best a conflict of interest and at worst bribery.

The executive council was scheduled to submit its recommendation to the Fall River Bar Association on April 12, 1893.  As the fateful day approached, speculation grew.  Would the council exonerate Judge Blaisdell?  reprimand him?  suggest criminal prosecution?  The answer turned out to be 'none of the above'.  The council reported that Blaisdell had resigned effective April 21;  consequently their investigation was over.

In his letter of resignation Blaisdell cited failing health.  A couple of weeks earlier he had to be helped up the stairs to the courtroom.  Since then he had presided over the Second District Court only once, another justice had substituted frequently for him.  Apparently retirement had a salutary effect.  Judge Blaisdell recovered sufficiently to live seven more years, dying on October 3, 1900.

There is, I suppose, an analogy between Blaisdell's behavior here and his action in the Borden case.  It was legally possible for him to preside at both the inquest and preliminary hearing;  whether it was ethical or not was another matter."

-"Kent Sourcebook 109
-Sullivan Goodbye Lizzie Borden 49
-Rebello Lizzie Borden Past and Present, 154."
-Several Newspapers

Wow, that was good Kat.  I would hate to be suing one of Blaisdell's clients and have to argue with him as judge.

I also think it was unfair for him to have served at the Inquest and Preliminary. Once he served at the Inquest it should have disqualified him for the Prelim.  I wonder of the law has been changed to disallow that practice.  However I think the result would have been the same and Lizzie indicted.

Even though he resigned you should think that at least all his cases should have been reviewed by a higher court.

Wow!  I read your posts saying that Blaisdell had resigned, but, didn't know that there was this sort of practise attached to it!  How ironic to be given legal advice by this man and then have to stand infront of him and be judged.  How could he be impartial?  What of client confidentiality?  He would certainly know more than what was told in the court room.

I'm with Harry, I have to wonder if they have changed the laws on this sort of practise?  Maybe all Blaisdell's cases should be reviewed, it would be interesting what the findings are! 

I suppose I thought it *suspicious* that after serving the system as judge since 1874, it was almost directly after the Broo-ha-ha afforded the Borden case, that Blaisdell was accused and all his troubles started.  Of course, I don't know when his law firm was created or for how long he continued these odd business practices before it came to anyone's attention.  He practiced law from 1853, and was made judge in 1874--the year we are involved in is 1892--that could mean he did that for 18 years prior.
I had thought that being in the spotlight caused people to search his background, find this behavior unethical and led to his resignation.
I believe that is why I equated the Borden case as leading to the judge's downfall.
This may be true, or in error, I do not know.  That is what I thought, without memorizing the particulars.

Knowlton Papers, Glossary:

BLAISDELL, JOSIAH COLEMAN 1820 - 1900: born in Campton, New Hampshire, the son of Eliphalet Blaisdell. Educated in the Campton public schools and at the Scientific Institute at Hancock, New Hampshire, he relocated to Fall River, Massachusetts, in 1843 and engaged in the shoe trade. Inclined towards law, he studied in the office of James Ford, Esq. and by 1853 was practicing in Fall River. He quickly rose to prominence and became active politically, serving as state representative, state senator and for nine years on the Board of State Charters. He was mayor of Fall River from 1858 to 1859. He married twice; his first wife was Miss Sarah E. Eddy of Fall River and his second Mrs. Annie (Wilcox) Mitchell. His interest in music and excellent natural singing voice led him to establish singing classes at the Baptist Temple, where he was an active member. Appointed to the post of district court justice in 1874, it was in that capacity that he presided at the inquest into the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Borden as well as at the preliminary hearing. Resigning from that post in April of 1893, he died shortly thereafter [sic] in Fall River, Massachusetts. His son, William, married Miss Minnie Borden, a distant relative of Miss Lizzie A. Borden.

--Harry, maybe these highlighted areas above could be why his cases weren't reviewed, that we know of?  What do you think?

They sure would increase his influence.  It would be interesting to know whether lawyers who had lost cases to his clients while he was judging ever appealed to a higher court.  Were their appeals ever heard or did the higher courts decline to hear the appeal?

A lot of lawyers would be afaid to appeal as they would probably come before Blaisdell again in future cases.

Just as bad was Dewey's not recusing himself as a justice at the trial. He was appointed a justice by Robinson when the latter was Governor. To make it even worse Dewey's charge to the jury is considered by most legal "experts" to be a charge to acquit.

".  It appears that Blaisdell had continued his law practice after he became a judge.  Indeed, he took on clients who later appeared before him in court.  Arba Lincoln took a dim view of his practice, as well he might.  Lincoln resigned his position to protest and, in effect, publicize Blaisdell's peculiar behavior.  As a result, the charges were investigated by the executive council of the Fall River Bar Association."

Ah-ha, so this was the situation that lead evidently to why Blaisdell resigned. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Borden Inquest or Preliminary hearing directly, but I am wondering if at one time Andrew wasn't involved with a case in which Blaisdell's client had an altercation concerning a business deal, and Blaisdell lost, which might have made Blaisdell prejudiced against the Borden's.  He might have found it easier to deal with her negatively at her Inquest and Preliminary hearing.  In that way  connection might be made.

The only statement I know of that has been quoted much regarding Blaisdell concerning Lizzie is that he knew her since early on and supposedly wept when giving his decision, leading everyone to believe he was favorably disposed toward Lizzie.  Maybe this wasn't the case.

It is my understanding, as limited as it is, of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) that if a Justice of the Commonwealth (in the last century at least) has had any prior legal dealings with a person appearing before him/her at the bench in the trial court capacity, such Justice must recuse himself/herself or face serious charges if this fact becomes known EVEN after the fact. 

The purpose of this rule is straight forward as its intent is to lessen the liklihood that a Justice will rule favorable or disfavorable against the defendant.  The judiciary door swings both inward and outward. 

I know personally if I had been in a case AGAINST a lawyer who is now the Justice I would certainly NOT want that person swinging the, forgive the pun, axe.  I believe that because of Blaisdell's history the defence team knew it had something of an ace in its deck and used this as a bartering chip.  Little is known of what did or did not transpire OUTSIDE the courtroom.

The legal eagles of the 19th century were undoubtedly as foxy then as they are today.  Private meetings supposedly held at the Mellen House could have easily produced the ultimate game plan.  The defence may have offered never to leak the Blaisdell saga in exchange for certain evidence not to be brought to trial.

Any Perry Mason fans out there........??

BC

Thanks for the info, Bob.  Good to see you back! 

So, was this case "fixed" to get a not guilty result? Many said so.