From vigilantes to judges: What Montana's past teaches us about justice today
A sign on a livery and stable in Virginia City noting where the vigilantes met to discuss how to apprehend road agents (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan).
Montana has always been a place that values freedom and self-reliance. But our early history shows what happens when justice is left to those acting outside the law.
In the 1860s, before Montana was even a territory, rough mining camps like Bannack and Virginia City were plagued by theft and violence. With no real courts or law enforcement, desperate citizens turned to vigilante justice—self-appointed committees who held mock trials and issued swift punishments, often by hanging.
These Montana Vigilantes formed to bring order to chaos. Between 1863 and 1865, they hanged dozens of alleged criminals, including Bannack's elected sheriff, Henry Plummer, who was suspected of leading a ruthless gang of road agents. While some say the vigilantes brought safety to the camps, they operated far beyond the boundaries of due process or constitutional rights.
That dramatic history serves as a cautionary tale. True justice requires more than good intentions—it requires a fair, impartial, and functioning judiciary whose orders are respected not only by the citizens but also by the other branches of government. That is what separates a just society from mob rule.
Today, Montana's legal system looks nothing like it did in the vigilante era. Judges are trained professionals, bound by the rule of law and guided by legal precedent. And while high-profile Supreme Court cases get the headlines, most justice in Montana happens quietly in small-town courthouses.
Last year nearly 57,000 new cases were filed in Montana's district courts alone. Roughly 700 cases ever make it to the Montana Supreme Court. The rest are resolved by district and local judges—judges who help regular Montanans through real-life problems.
They preside over divorces and custody disputes, ensuring parenting plans are fair and that children are protected. They help sort out estates, wills, and inheritances after the death of a loved one. They settle property line disagreements and water rights claims that affect livelihoods. They resolve disputes between business partners and interpret contracts that went sideways. They even protect intellectual property like trademarks and patents that power small businesses and entrepreneurs.
In short, our judges aren't just legal experts—they're guides who help us resolve our most complicated and emotionally charged conflicts. Their work is the backbone of an orderly society.
But access to justice doesn't just depend on laws—it depends on people. We need enough judges to handle the growing caseloads across the state. Unfortunately, some parts of Montana are struggling to keep up. Yellowstone County, in particular, has seen case numbers climb steadily, leading to delays that hurt families, businesses, and communities.
That's why we supported Gov. Greg Gianforte's budget proposal to add three new district court judges in Yellowstone County.
This isn't about helping lawyers—it's about helping people. It's about ensuring that regular Montanans can get their day in court without waiting months or years for resolution.
Because justice delayed is justice denied.
We've seen what happens when people feel like they can't rely on the courts. As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report on the federal judiciary, threats against federal judges have tripled in the last decade. And just last month in Helena, a woman was shot and killed after threatening courthouse staff and a judge.
If we want to keep our state safe, fair, and free, we must protect our legal system. That means defending judicial independence. It means being informed about judicial elections. And it means recognizing that the law isn't an abstract concept—it's a promise. A promise that no matter who you are, where you live, or what you're going through, you can resolve your dispute in a courtroom—not in the street.
We've come a long way from the vigilante days. Let's make sure we never go back.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tense scene at Weinstein trial as alleged perv appears to have medical episode after accuser's defiant gesture
Harvey Weinstein's Manhattan sex crimes retrial took a dramatic turn Tuesday when the accused serial perv apparently suffered a medical episode — sparking a frenzy of court officers to tend to him. The bizarre moment came after a former actress who accused Weinstein, 73, of raping her defiantly stared down the disgraced Hollywood producer after leaving the witness stand and pointed a finger at her eye, demanding that he look at her. The startling 'look at me' gesture by Jessica Mann, 38, prompted Weinstein's high-powered defense attorney Arthur Aidala to argue for a mistrial to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. As Aidala contended that the trial should be tossed, Weinstein bizarrely made gurgling sounds — and two court officers quickly surrounded him. The wheelchair-bound Weinstein took a sip of water, bringing the brief episode to an end. Asked later if Weinstein had a medical episode, Aidala told The Post that the Miramax founder's already-poor health has been getting worse. 'The short answer is yes, but it was alleviated,' the attorney said. 'He's not doing well. The last two weeks there has been a marked difference in his physical appearance and his stamina. I don't know if its the cancer kicking in, but he's definitely suffering.' Mann's daring gesture came after she wrenchingly detailed to jurors, between sobs, an alleged rape by Weinstein at a Beverly Hills hotel. But the convicted sex pest could only shake his head in response, before he descended into gurgling. 'That's absolutely inappropriate behavior by her,' Aidala wailed to the judge. Prosecutors argued Mann's reaction didn't even come close to grounds for a mistrial — and Farber agreed, denying Aidala's bid. Mann later returned to the stand and continued to recount the alleged California hotel rape, which took place around the beginning of 2014, recounting for jurors how she had taken an hours-long shower afterward. 'I'm going to bury this so deep and I'm going to forget about this and move on with my life,' she said she told herself. Mann testified that she decided to 'keep going' to pursue her Hollywood dreams – and continued to have contact with the powerful Weinstein, which led to a consensual sexual relationship. She recounted that she faked orgasms to end uncomfortable sexual encounters with Weinstein. 'I'm not saying I performed her performance but I made noises,' she said, comparing her fake orgasms to that of Meg Ryan's character in an infamous scene from the 1989 romantic comedy 'When Harry Met Sally.' 'It was definitely not the best I ever had,' she added when Aidala asked if it was a lie. Mann's first day of testimony Monday saw her tearfully detail another alleged rape by Weinstein in a Midtown hotel. She testified that after the attack, she found an erection-inducing drug needle apparently used by Weinstein in a hotel room's garbage can with a puzzling label. 'I found on Google that it basically meant 'dead penis,' and you inject it and it can only be used a certain amount of times back to back over a certain time,' she told jurors. Weinstein is only charged in the Midtown alleged rape. He has pleaded not guilty to charges in his sex crimes retrial. Weinstein in 2022 was found guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault at a Los Angeles trial. He has appealed the conviction.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Americans are starting to learn who ‘Maryland father' Abrego Garcia really is
For a while, the favored moniker for Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the media was 'Maryland father.' Abrego Garcia was indeed living in Maryland and was indeed a father, but this wasn't what was most distinctive thing about him. There are hundreds of thousands of fathers living in the state who aren't illegal immigrants and don't have ties to criminal gangs. Abrego Garcia, of course, is the man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a judge's order that he couldn't be deported there. Instead of quickly asking for Abrego Garcia to be sent back to the United States, the Trump administration dug in its heels and suffered repeated legal setbacks, including at the Supreme Court. Sensing political opportunity and appalled at the notion of someone living in the US being sent, based on no criminal charges, to perhaps the most inhumane prison in the Western Hemisphere, Democrats made Abrego Garcia a cause. They inevitably downplayed the drip-drip evidence that he was an unsympathetic character. It emerged that he had been picked up by local police in 2019 at a Home Depot years ago and the cops suspected that he and his associates were gang members. It emerged that his wife accused him of abusing her. It emerged that he'd been stopped in Tennessee in suspicious circumstances in 2022 with multiple men in the vehicle. Whether Abrego Garcia was a good guy or a reprobate, a member of MS-13 or of his church choir, had no bearing on whether he should have been imprisoned in El Salvador with our active support. The answer to that was 'no' regardless, but now that the Trump administration has brought him back to the United States and filed charges against him, the 'Maryland father' description has been exposed as ludicrously inapt. According to a Department of Justice indictment, Abrego Garcia routinely engaged in human smuggling, transporting illegal aliens within the United States on more than 100 occasions. The facts set out in the indictment regarding the Tennessee traffic stop are particularly damning. Abrego Garcia's story was that the men in his Suburban had been working construction in St. Louis for two weeks and he was bringing them back to Maryland. The men, all lacking identification, had no luggage or construction tools. The vehicle was outfitted with a makeshift third row for passengers in the back. All of which was suspicious enough. What's more, the indictment says, license-plate tracking data showed that the car hadn't been anywhere close to St. Louis in the past year. It had, however, been in the Houston, Texas, area, where the prosecutors say the illegal-alien passengers had been picked up. The administration will have to prove its charges in court, and if they have been exaggerated in the cause of nailing Abrego Garcia, that will presumably be exposed. The facts matter, and Abrego Garcia never should have been made into a mere symbol. The administration seemed to think keeping him in El Salvador somehow furthered the cause of immigration enforcement, but whether Abrego Garcia stayed there or came back to the United States wasn't going to materially affect deportation efforts one way or the other. For their part, Trump's critics — yet again — assumed because someone was targeted by the president, he or she must be a figure of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that Abrego Garcia never should have been in the United States in the first place. He came here illegally in 2012. Only after he was picked up by police in the aforementioned 2019 stop and put in deportation proceedings did he make a meritless asylum claim. An immigration judge nevertheless granted him a withholding of removal and Abrego Garcia was permitted to go about his business, which, according to the Justice Department, was smuggling other illegal immigrants. We'll learn more as the case proceeds, but we know enough already to conclude that this isn't a typical or commendable Marylander. Twitter: @RichLowry
