Insurrection in Los Angeles County, July 1853!

Gold Rush-era Los Angeles was, by any standard, a hotbed of crime and violence.  An underfunded and understaffed criminal justice administration system was hardly equipped to deal with the spasms of criminal activity that frequently rocked the small frontier town.

Exasperation by the press and, presumably, many of the community's citizens, boiled over in an editorial in the 16 July 1853 edition of the Los Angeles Star.  The piece began with a simple observation, "This county is in a state of insurrection, clearly and plainly so."

This was, the article went on, because, "A large gang of outlaws, many of them expelled for crime from the mines are daily committing the most daring murders and robberies."  Obviously showing displeasure with the local legal system, the writer advised that, "Good citizens should devise plans to defend themselves."

This 16 July 1853 editorial in the Los Angeles Star claimed that Los Angeles County was "in a state of insurrenction" because of increased criminal activity.  Whether or not there was an actual revolt against the authorities, as opposed to a plethora of robberies and killings, is questionable, but the sentiment of concern over crime was palpable.

There were only two alternatives the editorialist could see.  One was that "orderly and industrious inhabitants must drive out this worthless scum of humanity."  The other was that citizens "must give way before the pirates [an interesting word choice there] and be driven out themselves."

A notable and rare reference to pre-American times was then invoked:

In the times of Micheltoreno [Governor Manuel Micheltorena, who presided over Alta California from 1842-45], when the country was infested by a horde of Cholos, thieves and murderers, the citizens mustered and drove the scamps to the seaboard, and then shipped them off to Mexico, where they belonged. 

To the author, "This was revolution, and just such another revolution is needed now."  Otherwise, the piece prophesied, it "will be too late when the assassin's knife has deprived the county of half her best citizens."

Consequently, the only real action was to "Let good citizens combine and drive the rascals headlong into the sea."

Now, there was almost certainly no little exaggeration, overrreaction and a faulty sense of history at work in this exercise in exasperation.  The overthrow of Micheltorena by rebels led by Pío Pico took place at Caheunga Pass in early 1845 and was about far more than just Micheltorena's notorious "guard" composed, it was claimed, of recently-released convicts (Cholos) from Mexican jails.

As to the claim that these "Cholos" were "thieves and murderers," that is not clear at all.  The one in-depth study of criminal justice in Mexican California, David Langum's 1987 study Law and Community on the Mexican California Frontier does not make any reference to increased crime during the Micheltorena years.  He did state that "Crime tended to be localized in the rural society of Mexican California."

There is also in the book a table of cases, compiled by Abel Stearns in the main Los Angeles court, that of the "First Instance," for the years from 1830-1846.  Of the 100 cases listed, 14 were for murder and 24 for theft and robbery.  On a percentage basis, these are not that far removed from statistics for the American era, other than the general scale for crime was much lower in the Mexican period.

The same issue of the Star included this account of the killing of Mexican-born Dolores Martinez in "the upper part of the city," an area commonly known as "Sonoratown."  The piece noted that an inquest of Justice of the Peace (later County Judge) William G. Dryden led to a verdict of Martinez being shot "by a person or persons unknown."

The same day as the "insurrection" editorial were short articles about a homicide and the capture of a horse thief by the Los Angeles Rangers para-military organization.  1853 was also when legendary bandit Joaquin Murieta was spotted throughout California, sometimes in several places at one, before his supposed capture and killing.

In general, there were many crimes and acts of violence plaguing Los Angeles and its outlying areas, so the sentiment expressed in the editorial is understandable.  Whether there was an "insurrection," defined in The American Heritage College Dictionary as "an open revolt against civil authority or a government in power, or not is debatable.

However, this wouldn't be the last time that kind of language was used.  In July 1856, after a deputized constable, William W. Jenkins, killed  Antonio Ruiz, who was being served with a writ of attachment for a $50 deby, and after the January 1857 murder of Sheriff James R. Barton and members of a posse riding to capture bandits near San Juan Capistrano, the fears of a revolt against authorities and "whites" generally were bandied about considerably in the press and elsewhere.

Certainly, in times of higher criminal activity, in an area often brimming with ethnic tension, the tendency to react with more emotion and fear is common.  Whether these impressions are based on real or imagined conditions is another matter.

Los Angeles County Criminal Courts

From the establishment of Los Angeles County in Spring 1850, the court system in the region had essentially three levels for criminal matters.

At the lowest end of the spectrum was the mayor's court in Los Angeles and the justice courts in the town and outlying townships.  In these busy, but routine and continuously-operating, tribunals, the town's mayor and a justice of the peace would hear minor infractions of the law, including public drunkenness, disturbances of the peace and other petty crimes.  These cases, usually decided quickly during a session during the day or evening, garnered little attention.

Above these was the Court of Sessions, renamed the County Court by the mid-1860s, which heard almost all other criminal business, excepting the most serious of felonies.  It was so named because this court had terms specified by the legislature during the year.  The tribunal originally had a county judge presiding with the assistance of two of the justices of the peace from the county's townships.

This court also dealt with most of the civil cases held in the region and, for two years (1850-1852) was the governing body of Los Angeles County.  When this proved totally unworkable, it was decided to create boards of supervisors for each California county.

So, most cases involving property crimes and assault and battery prosecutions were heard by the sessions court, which kept the tribunal plenty busy and, usually, though not always, somewhat below the radar in terms of public attention.

This short article from the Los Angeles Star's edition of 6 March 1852 lamented the fact that the criminal cases arising from Court of Sessions were set aside due to imprecision in meeting the technical standards of state law.  This was hardly unique to this particular time, as inexact procedural processes plagued the system, leading to the overturning of verdicts, as well as the setting aside of cases generally, as was the case here.

Grand larcenies, serious assaults (intent to kill, with a deadly weapon, etc.), rape, and the several forms (manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder) of homicide were usually (for a time, arson cases were heard at this level) the province of the District Court.

Whereas the other courts were operating within the county, the District Court had its jurisdiction in a much wider area througout southern California until the 1870s, when the court's district was within the confines of Los Angeles County (which did include what is now Orange County.)  That is, the district judge "rode circuit" holding legislatively-mandated terms in the county seats of the several regional counties.

The size of the district changed several times, so that, in earlier days, the judge might preside in cases as far north as San Luis Obispo and as far south as San Diego.  Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Bernardino counties were generally part of the First District, as well, though, again, the district shrunk in size as it grew in population.

Presiding over the most heinous of crimes, the District Court was given much more attention by the press and other observers.  It also had the problem of presiding over those cases that had the highest standards applied to criminal matters, so that convictions could be maddeningly few, especially those involving homicides, in which a unanimous verdict by the jury was mandated.  A lack of forensics, spotty evidence, and missing witnesses were among the hindrances to securing convictions for some of the most serious crimes committed in the area.

This blog will cover more detail on court operations, including how cases were prosecuted in court, who the prominent attorneys and district attorneys were, who the judges were, and how court cases files, even with their minimal contents (as governed by statuete), can give us a provisional view into the operations of the court system in the early days of the common law system in Los Angeles.

So, check back for more in coming weeks and months!