John Adams and The Boston Massacre Trial

Introduction: The Historical Context of the Boston Massacre

From the moment the redcoats set foot in Boston, tensions were high. Civilians and soldiers were at constant odds, so it’s not a surprise that the Boston Massacre took place. What is surprising is the astonishing outcome of an acquittal. There were undoubtedly hostilities involved on both sides, but the general attitude towards the English occupants was negative, and even more so after the event. But when no attorneys came to the defense on the soldiers’ behalf, John Adams couldn’t willingly stand by. The notion that every man is entitled to a fair and equal trial was, I believe, the prime motivation for Adams taking the case. Upholding the law was very important to John Adams, regardless of personal beliefs about the accused. By not allowing the soldiers and the captain proper counsel, the colony was acting hypocritically to the belief that the law should be just and fair, unlike the crown of England they resented. There are other speculations about Adams' involvement in the trials that are not solely based on his nobility. Encouragement to take the case could have stemmed from the possible guarantee of a seat in Boston’s legislature, considering he was the first choice three months post-trial success. Maybe the attention of the trial, although extremely negative at the time, was something he wanted remembrance for. Regardless of vanity reasons, John Adams took major risks and did face repercussions, with his law practice plummeting (Smith, 2020).

John Adams and The Boston Massacre Trial

The most important thing to Adams regarding the case was its facts and getting the jury to separate their resentment towards England from the men being accused. As he famously quoted, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” (Adams, 1770). Much of the cross-examination by the defense was centered around who shouted the word “fire” and whether or not the redcoats were acting in self-defense against a hostile mob or a lawful assembly. But the fact of the matter was that Captain Preston did not give the order for the troops to fire, and this was something difficult to prove, especially when witnesses amongst an emotional crowd might be inclined not to speak the truth. An innocent indictment was still ruled for both the captain and his troops. Against undesirable odds, John Adams was able to convince a jury to look beyond their biases.

A deeper understanding of the trial reveals the complexities of legal ethics and the importance of impartiality in the judicial system. Adams' dedication to justice, even for those considered enemies, underscores the foundational principles of American jurisprudence. A lot has changed about the conduct of trials in today’s courts, the most obvious being U.S. justices don’t wear wigs. Another more important aspect of modern court proceedings is the way witnesses are presented. Removing them from the pressures of the crowd definitely helps to improve witness testimony. I believe the phrase “to prove beyond reasonable doubt” was implemented after this trial due to the ruling being declared based on the reasonable doubt of the jurors based on the evidence that the troops acted in self-defense (Johnson, 2018). Another difference between now and then in court proceedings is that disruption, such as vocalizing emotional distress from the gallery, is not tolerated and can land you in contempt with a fine and possible jail time. Other than differences in how the courts regulate today versus then, a lot is still the same. The law being upheld regardless of the emotions of the majority was just as relevant then as it is today, at least according to this specific case.

Reflection: Personal Concerns and Contemporary Relevance

I personally had concerns with the rulings of the case. I can’t help but feel as though the redcoats should have been better prepared for a situation such as this; the tension between the civilians and the troops was very obvious, for apparent reasons, so a mob shouldn’t have been something completely surprising to them. It is the duty of the captain and the soldiers to respond in a professional manner and to be prepared for outbursts without the immediate use of artillery. Perhaps I have this perspective due to today’s law enforcement history, but the shooting of children (as depicted in the film) should never be justified. Another concern I had was whether the men who did shout the infamous “fire” were ever prosecuted. Nonetheless, the trial is definitely inspiring and insightful. We need more John Adams in today’s world, individuals who are willing to stand by principles of justice and fairness, even when it is unpopular to do so (Thompson, 2019).