Volume 1 Issue 1
The Logan's Case By: Jonathan Caen
In 1948, Hammer Logan was in Spokane County, when his house was burned down. He returned home to hear that of the four men who burned his house down, three of them were killed. Hammer was wanted, with a reward on his finding, and was to be accused of murdering these men.
He was walking to his business, oblivious about this situation, and was shot unarmed by a white police officer.
The Preamble of the Case. Hammer Logan was brought to Chicago State Court where his trial was heard. His attorney, Mr. Aaron Dackmoth, realized that the police officer could be sued for shooting Hammer while he was unarmed. He realized that if Hammer were to be proved innocent, then they would have a case.
On June 1st, 1948, Hammer Logan was one trial day away from hearing his fate in court when a Chicago sheriff, Josh Brown, came in with shocking news. They found a man suspicious of killing the three men. Logan’s Case was postponed to try this suspicious man. He was found guilty because of his ownership of a magnum revolver, the same bullet used to murder the three men.
Page 2 of 4
The Logan's Case
They Have A Chance Now that this man, whose name was not revealed, is guilty, then Hammer should be proved innocent. Mr. Dackmoth started preparing for the next case, where they would sue the police officer for shooting Hammer Logan unarmed. They figured that they would win that too, but first Hammer had to be proved innocent. When they returned to trial, the judge expanded the case for another week. In trial, the judge knew that Hammer was innocent, but he just wanted to make sure that he was not guilty by
association. A white trial lawyer said that this was a selfdefense action by the police officer because he heard that Hammer was guilty of murder. Hammer then called the white man a liar and accused him of committing perjury. The case ended and Hammer was proved innocent. He went back to his business and he was arrested again and taken to the Chicago State Court again.
Fairness is not Considered
” Mr. L ogan, Pl ease stand down. I don’t l i ke your tone,
Hammer was brought to Chicago State Court because of when he accused the white men of perjury. The white trial lawyer, Vincent Gambini, was suing Hammer for accusing him of perjury. This was completely unfair, stated Hammer, because it violated the first amendment. “The first amendment protects the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of petition, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech. FREEDOM OF SPEECH! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Therefore, I cannot get in trouble by saying as I please. That is, of course, if it does not harm any man’s life. Now Mr. Gambini, did I threaten your life by calling you a liar? Please answer me, Mr. Gambini, for I think I may already know the answer to my question,” Hammer said in an annoyed and sarcastic tone. The
judge did not like this sarcastic manner and quickly acted upon it. He jailed Hammer for the night, setting the bail at an extraordinarily high rate of $2,000. Hammer could not afford this so he would be forced to spend the night in prison. Come the last days of trial, Hammer was outraged. Everything he did was criticized and punished. He stayed in jail for four nights in a row, all leading up to the day where his final fate would be read. “ On behalf of the Chicago State Court, We find Hammer Logan… guilty of all charges. He will be punished based on his crime of accusing Mr. Gambini of perjury,” read a juror in the court.
The Logan's Case
Page 3 of 4
The outcome Everybody was amazed by this outcome for several reasons. First, it was a discontinued case and two different crimes were charged. Second, what Hammer got accused of was not supported by the constitution, and it wasn’t even a law. This case set an important precedent. Chief justices are given life sentences, meaning that they do not have to be reelected for their position. They are given this privilege so they do not make decisions that will boost their popular status. They make decisions abiding the constitution. However, this made sure that the chief justice was a very wise choice.
This case was seen as a very unfair act most likely dependent on racism. These acts will hopefully not repeat in the upcoming future, solely for the sake of fairness to all men.