A Book of Mormon murder trial

Seantum was on his way to assassinate his brother, the chief judge.

Nephi, the son of Helaman, climbed a tower to ritualistically mourn his nation's descent into sin.

People gathered and heard Nephi denounce their corruption and warned them that, unless they repented, their bodies would "become meat for dogs and wild beasts" (Helaman 7:19).

Several of the corrupt judges were present and cried out to the crowd, "Why do ye not seize upon this man and bring him forth, that he may be condemned according to the crime which he has done?" (Helaman 8:1).

Why were these judges afraid to take action on their own?

According to John W. Welch, a professor of law at Brigham Young University, they couldn't.

"That the judges did not bring an action against Nephi themselves indicates quite clearly that judges in Zarahemla did not have authority in the law of Mosiah to initiate ordinary lawsuits," Welch wrote in his book, "The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon."
To get a lawsuit against Nephi for reviling the law, the judges had to persuade an ordinary citizen -- one or some of the people -- to take action.

But the people did not come to agreement. They argued -- some for Nephi, some against. Like many ancient legal settings, this was a public event.

Nephi broke the stalemate with a prophetic challenge. He would prove that he knew of the corruption in the government by giving an immediate example which he could only know by divine help -- the chief judge Seezoram had just at that moment been murdered by his brother Seantum.

Five men were quickly sent to see if this was true. It was.

Seezoram's servants saw the five near their dead master. The five were blamed for the murder and imprisoned.

In his book, Welch explained that, under the Israelite system of justice, circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict. Two witnesses were needed. The murder of chief judge was a difficult case because there were no witnesses of the deed.

After the confusion about the five was cleared up, the suspicion came upon Nephi.
The people believed the only way he could have known about the murder was if he was a "confederate," someone who had planned it with the actual murderer.

Unlike modern law, however, Nephi was not in danger of being convicted as a murderer even if he had planned the assassination.

Welch explained that in Jewish law only the actual murderer is considered guilty of the murder. A person who encourages a murder may deserve some punishment, but not as a murderer.

"Accordingly, the record merely states that the judges hoped that Nephi would 'confess his fault (not his guilt) and make known unto (them) the true murderer of this judge,' " Welch wrote (Helaman 9:17).

Welch wrote that the judges' goal was not to convict Nephi of the murder, but of another offense -- such as false prophecy, reviling or conspiracy. They offered Nephi immunity from prosecution for murder if he would tell them the identity of the real murderer.

"(T)he people must have realized that they were not in a strong legal position to pursue capital charges of homicide against Nephi," Welch wrote.

Nephi responded by revelation. He told them Seantum was indeed the murderer. He told them that if they went to Seantum they would find blood on his cloak and that he would say specific things.

Seantum was confronted. He spoke as Nephi had prophesied -- declaring Nephi's innocence and his own guilt.

Detection of an offender by revelation is not unique, according to Welch. In the Bible, for example, Joshua discovered the transgressor Achan by revelation (Joshua 7:14-15).

Seantum's singular confession seems to violate the two-witnesses rule, but Welch wrote that it falls under an exception.

Ancient law found an exception for the two-witnesses rule if first, the self-incriminating confession was made outside of court or had come via revelation; and second, if there was corroborating physical evidence.

"Quite remarkably, Seantum's self-incriminating confession was precisely such a case on all counts, and thus his execution would not have been legally problematic," Welch wrote. "His confession was spontaneous and occurred outside of court. The evidence of God's will was supplied through Nephi's prophecy. The tangible evidence was present in the blood found on Seantum's cloak."

Welch wrote that Seantum was probably summarily executed.

The case was given prominence in the Book of Mormon not for its effect on Nephite jurisprudence, but for its vivid distinction between unrighteous and righteous judgment, according to Welch.
 
Welch wrote that the case may also may have opened hearts to accept another prophet who came 15 years later -- Samuel the Lamanite -- and his prophecy of the birth of the righteous judge of all the earth.

E-mail: mdegroote@desnews.com