In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

In all trials of slaves, the master shall control the defence of his slave. —Code of the State of Georgia,  “Subordination on the part of the slave is absolutely necessary, not only to the existence of the institution, but to the peace of the community. The policy of the law, therefore, requires that the slave should look to his master and the courts to avenge his wrongs.”1 In this uncompromising language , the Georgia jurist Thomas R. R. Cobb set forth the only means by which convicted slaves could challenge their convictions or ease their sentences . From the colonial period forward, masters could apply to the governor for pardons or clemency for their convicted slaves. After 1798, slaveholders could challenge convictions in the superior courts and, after 1845, in the Georgia Supreme Court. But on the plantation, for slaves found guilty of breaking “plantation law”—that is, of disobeying rules of conduct established by the slaveowner—the only avenue of redress was the master’s mercy, and there was no guarantee that mercy would be granted. No free blacks,or their guardians,filed appeals,even though the law permitted them to do so. This failure to seek amelioration or redress may have been a consequence of cost; a free black might not have been able to afford a lawyer or the fees associated with filing an appeal,and his guardian—if he had one—might not have been able or inclined to assume the cost for him. The right to appeal to a higher court was, in theory, the most important right available to slave defendants because it offered the possibility of a second trial and a chance to avoid execution if convicted of a capital crime. {5 “the slave should look to his master and the courts to avenge his wrongs” The Appellate Process t h e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s { 119 Moreover, favorable precedents set in successful appeals could establish or reaffirm rules of criminal procedure that could protect slaves from arbitrary judgment and punishment.But this vital right did not belong to the slave.It was a right of the master alone. According to the Code of the State of Georgia in 1861, “In all trials of slaves, the master shall control the defence of his slave (unless the court in its discretion pass an order directing the defence to be controlled by others), and all motions, demands, consents, bonds, bails, or other proceedings necessary to the defence, may be made by the master or his attorney.”2 If a master chose not to appeal a capital conviction on behalf of his slave, there would be no appeal. The slave—the person with the most to lose—had no recourse or role in the process. Nor could a slave choose to accept responsibility and decide not to challenge a conviction and death sentence.A slave “had to look to his master and the courts to avenge his wrongs.” Only his master determined when a wrong had occurred and what would be done about it. The right of appeal was thus a means for masters and mistresses to protect their interests and their property. In the best cases, a handful of slaves were the incidental beneficiaries of a master’s sentiment or desire not to lose a valuable investment.In the worst cases,slaves were victims of their owners’ penury, poor judgment, indifference, or cruelty. { Origins of the Right of Appeal Across the South, the owners of slaves convicted of capital crimes generally had a right to appeal to the highest court in the county unless the trials had taken place in special tribunals,as in Virginia and South Carolina. After 1839, South Carolina law allowed a single judge of the supreme court to hear appeals for slave defendants; there was no right to a hearing by the full court. In Virginia, the law empowered a single judge of the supreme court to hear slave appeals, but the court heard only one case, and that not until 1865.Louisiana had no provision for appeal on technical errors,and in Maryland’s entire history no court ever heard a slave appeal.3 In Georgia, legislators proposed an appellate process in the slave code of 1765, which the Board of Trade invalidated because it defined slaves as chattel. The act allowed a stay of execution in capital cases in order that the defendant’s master might appeal his...

Share