Sacco and Vanzetti :: The Art of Advocacy

July 14 is a sad date in the annals of American legal history. On that day in 1921, after only five hours of deliberations, a Dedham, Massachusetts jury rendered guilty verdicts against two Italian immigrants, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, for robbery and murder.

The crimes occurred on April 15, 1920 in South Braintree, Massachusetts, a small town south of Boston. Those responsible shot and killed a guard and a shoe factory paymaster carrying over $15,000 in payroll cash, then made off with the money in a getaway car. Less than a month later, police arrested Sacco and Vanzetti as they were traveling at night on a trolley from Bridgewater to Brockton. Both men were carrying guns when apprehended.

One hundred witnesses testified during the trial. For every eyewitness who identified the defendants as the culprits, another witness swore to the contrary. Many eyewitnesses for the prosecution were exposed as simply mistaken or not testifying truthfully. The defense presented a straightforward alibi. Vanzetti was in Plymouth selling fish. Sacco was in Boston at the Italian consulate obtaining a passport.

The evidence against the accused consisted of the following: questionable eyewitness testimony; evidence of consciousness of guilt consisting of the state’s assertion that one of the accused reached for his gun at the time of arrest; untruthful responses to questions during interviews; testimony by experts that bullets found in one of the decedents was not inconsistent with the type of bullet fired from Sacco’s gun; and the gun Vanzetti carried at the time of his arrest was very like the gun owned by the slain guard and taken from the crime scene.

In an infamous incident during the trial, the prosecution introduced a cap found at the scene that witnesses claimed was similar to Sacco’s hat. The cap supposedly revealed an indentation where it would be hung on a hook at Sacco’s workplace.

To justify Sacco and Vanzetti’s possession of guns, the defense acknowledged that their clients were anarchists. In light of the public outcry against foreign anarchists and the violence then being perpetrated against such activists, the defense argued that it was necessary for Sacco and Vanzetti to carry guns for protection. Nevertheless, this line of defense was said to contradict an earlier explanation of their having fled to Mexico as pacifists to avoid the draft.

In its argument before the jury of white males, the prosecution was clearly aided by the public outcry against foreigners and anarchists. The hysteria about socialists, foreigners and anarchists throughout the nation at the time of the trial was at a feverish pitch. In his State of the Union address in 1915, President Woodrow Wilson had commented: ‘There are citizens…I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom of opportunity of America who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. … Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out.’

Indeed, after World War I, as the ‘Red Scare’ gripped the country, the U.S. government became especially wary of domestic dissent. The so-called Palmer Raids in 1920 resulted in the arrest and deportation of thousands of aliens. The raids followed a series of explosions in various east coast cities, including Boston, where a bomb was detonated in front of the house of U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer.

Given the historical background and the evidence that the defendants had fled to Mexico as pacifists, consider the court’s instruction to the jury: ‘You are not to allow the fact that the defendants are Italians to influence or prejudice you in the least degree. They are entitled to the same rights and considerations as though their ancestors came over on the Mayflower…Keep courage gentlemen, in your deliberations just as was typified by the American soldier boy as he fought and gave up his life upon the battlefields of France.’

It’s no surprise the jury convicted. Motions for a new trial and appeals were for naught. Even a special commission established by the Massachusetts governor was of no help to the hapless immigrants. They went to their deaths on August 22, 1927 passionately professing their innocence. Stirring, angry protests around the world punctuated the executions. Newspaper headlines and citizen furor in support of the executions and against the executions dominated public debate for months.

Were they guilty? Scholars and commentators debate the issue even today. There are theories that support either view. One theory even poses a case that one was innocent and the other guilty.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, I suggest that a trial lawyer or judge today reading the transcript would cringe at the unfairness of the proceedings. The judge was biased, and his rulings and instructions so demonstrate. Meanwhile, the defense lawyers were less than mediocre and lacked the skill and prowess of today’s advocate.

Sadly, we have had cause to remember Sacco and Vanzetti as our government has sought to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. While exigent circumstances are surely upon us, there is nevertheless an even greater need for fairness. The Sacco case teaches us that we cannot permit fervor and fear to eclipse the basic right to a fair trial, even for those who are not citizens.