Thanks for that, Denis. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. First of all, if Shaw was a co-conspirator he would be in the same legal position as Oswald was, if indeed Oswald was part of the conspiracy. In other words, whatever rules would apply to Oswald should also apply to his co-conspirators, right?
Secondly, you are indeed correct in saying that defendants are generally put on trial in the state the murder took place and thus in the state they're charged in. However, in this case Shaw was not extradited to Texas, like one would usually expect for a murder suspect/conspirator charged with a crime in Texas. His trial went forward in New Orleans instead, making Richard's claim that a trial about a murder in Texas always has to be held in Texas a bit silly.
It seems to me that the Clay Shaw trial was held in New Orleans and not Texas simply because Texas didn't want it. They had never charged Shaw with anything and as far as they were concerned the case was closed (which it never is when unresolved by the death of the suspect). They, and I don't know this for a fact. most likely simply didn't want any part of Garrison prosectution.
Having said that, the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans proves beyond any doubt that Richard Smith was only blowing hot air when he pretended to be a know it all armchair lawyer. The fact that Richard Smith hasn't been able to answer the question I asked him just confirms the same as well.
Martin, I'm aware many states didn't want anything to do with Garisons 'dodgy' trial which made subpoenaing some witnesses impossible. I can well believe Texas was one of these. But there are other considerations to take into account. Garrison definitely wanted the 'glory' and publicity for the trial, to be fair he had done all the work, so even if Texas had requested extradition, Garrison would have almost certainly refused it. Also, as I said earlier, Shaw was never charged with Kennedy's murder. The State of Louisiana was charging Shaw with conspiracy to
commit murder, a completely different charge.
You asked for my opinion so I'll give it but I admit, it is
only an opinion, I'm no expert; Had Shaw been found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in New Orleans, Texas would have had no choice than to request the extradition of Shaw to face a charge of murdering Kennedy in Texas. IMO, this wouldn't affect the double-jeopardy law because Shaw had never been tried for the Kennedy murder in New Orleans, 'only' conspiracy to commit. Hope this makes sense, hope this is correct.
