Following Leschi's conviction in his second trial, an appeal to the Territorial Supreme Court was made.

March 1857:

Leschi's defense attorney, William H. Wallace, files a Motion for New Trial with intent to set aside the verdict for the following reasons:

1st - The verdict of the jury is contrary to Law.
2nd - The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence in the cause.
3rd - For newly discovered evidence material for Defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence and produced at the trial as shown by affidavit herewith filed.
4th - The Court erred in failing to charge the jury that they could find the prisoner guilty of an offense less than that of murder in the first degree.
5th - The Court erred in giving instructions to the jury after the counsel had concluded the agreement in the cause.

March 20, 1857

Defense attorney William H. Wallace gives an affidavit claiming:

...since the trial of [Leschi] ...new testimony has been discovered material for the defense which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence and produced at the trial. This affidavit can prove by A. V. Kautz that the distance from the place where the Indians were discovered in Connell's Prairie as stated by the witness in the trial, to the swamp where the attack was made is greater by the trail mentioned in the testimony of said witness than by the wagon road also mentioned by said witness, and that the road is better and can be traveled quicker than the trail. This affidavit says that he was one of the counsel for the defendant and that should a new trial be granted, the testimony of A. V. Kautz can be had on said trial.

Lieutenant Augustus Kautz

EXAMINE KAUTZ'S MAP

During Leschi's appeal, Dr. Tolmie, Lieutenant August Kautz, and William Tidd survey the prairie where A.B. Moses was killed. The resulting map, rich in detail, shows precisely why Leschi could not have been seen at both the Indian encampment and a mile down the road at the ambush site. However, since the map is completed after Leschi is convicted in the second trial, it is not entered into evidence during the appeal process. But the map provides a plausible explanation for how Leschi could be innocent of the crime of killing Moses.

Using the information provided by the trial's witnesses they calculate the distances Leschi would have to have traveled to ambush the party. Taking Rabbeson's testimony as true, that he did in fact see Leschi at the volunteer's initial contact with the group of Indians in the prairie, Leschi would have had to travel northeast to remain undetected by the Volunteer party. This route was measured out to be 104 ½ (1 chain equals 66 feet) chains distance, or 1.3 miles. The route the Volunteer party took was measured at 68 chains (.85 miles) distant. This route was also along a wagon road and easier traveled then the route Leschi would have had to take. All witnesses testified the gunfire came from the swamp in front of them. If what Rabbesen said was true, Leschi could not have taken the other trail, and traveled that distance to be in front of the vanguard to establish an ambush. Leschi and his party would have to have traveled nearly twice the distance, through brush and swamp, to be in the position to fire from the Volunteer's front.

With his map denied admission into evidence during Leschi's appeal, Kautz (allegedly) penned (under the pseudonym, Ann Onymous) "The Truth Teller," a paper circulated to drum up support for a pardon.
READ THE TRUTH TELLER

Frank Clark, the lawyer defending Leschi, writes a detailed letter to the Truth Teller, February 3, 1858.

"...the fact is not generally understood by our people, that the Indian (Leschi) entered into a truce with a high military authority... In the summer or fall of 56, Leschi with other Indians laid down their arms to Col. Wright and received assurances of protection against harm, for the part they had taken in the late war. I hardly think it will be disputed, that the Indian and his people adhered to the conditions of the truce, and have not been guilty of its breach, history must record (this)."

"...I understand that some gentlemen deny that Col. Wright had the authority; and that it is the generally received impression with our people that Col. Wright could not legally make such stipulations and that Government is therefore not bound by his acts in that behalf. But let me tell you, he had that right, upon that point there is no conflict of authorities..."

Clark goes on to quote the other Indian Chiefs that were present at the meeting with Col. Wright.

"We were present and cannot be mistaken of the facts... (Col.) Wright spoke to Leschi and to us as a good father. He advised us to lay down our arms and told us that we would not be harmed if we did, for that has been done. We laid down our arms; we placed confidences in the pledges of the White Chief. What has been the result? His pledges have been disregarded..."

Clark speaks passionately of the injustice of hanging Leschi.