Martin, I'm just answering your question as to why Shaw's trial was in New Orleans and not Texas. As to if Oswald could only have been put on trial in Texas or not, I honestly don't know. I'm from Britain and know very little about USA state laws. What I do know is that defendants are generally put on trial in the state they're charged in. Are there precedents to making exceptions? Would those exceptions have covered Oswald? I havent a clue.
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.
