1. Did Wyatt Earp and his group act in self-defense when they shot and killed three of the Cowboys?

2. Should the fact that Wyatt Earp’s brother, Virgil, was a U.S. Marshal and that the Earps claimed to be acting as lawmen at the time of the gunfight make a difference in deciding whether their actions were justified?

3. Judge Spicer found that although U.S. Marshal (Virgil) Earp “acted incautiously,” the lawlessness of the frontier country, in part, justified his actions. Should law enforcement officers be allowed greater leeway to use lethal force because of the inherent dangerousness of their jobs?

4. Judge Spicer also found that the Earps’ group was justified in shooting the Cowboys because William Clanton and Frank McLaury drew, or made motions to draw, their weapons. Would it have made a difference if Clanton and McLaury had instead been reaching for their wallets or raising their hands to surrender?

5. According to Wyatt Earp’s wife, Sadie, there was “lying on both sides,” but that the Earps had to lie to counter lies told by the other side. Does lying by one side justify lying under oath or committing perjury by the other side?

For other questions and teaching materials, see:

• National First Ladies’ Library, The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp, at http://www.firstladies.org/curriculum/curriculum.aspx?Curriculum=1369.
• Prof. Douglas O. Linder, Famous Trials: The O.K. Corral Trial (“Trial of Wyatt Earp”), at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/earphome.html.
• PBS American Experience, Wyatt Earp, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/further-reading/wyatt-teacher-resource/.