Working Title: Sacco and Vanzetti Case: A Delay in Justice - Research Paper Example

Working Sacco and Vanzetti Case: A Delay in Justice? Thesis ment: Whether Sacco and Vanzetti case trail was conducted in a fairly manner?Whether Jurors were confident beyond reasonable doubt that Sacco and Vanzetti were really guilty of the murder? Whether the evidence discovered later was such that a new trial ought to have been ordered? Whether Sacco and Vanzetti were fatalities of a biased legal system and an exploited legal system? Whether Sacco and Vanzetti did not avail a free and fair trail due to the fact of anti-racial and anti-immigrant epitomes of the epoch? Abstract Sacco and Vanzetti case was handled by Massachusetts court for more than seven years ranging from 1920 to 1927. Ordinarily, the ordinary murder trials are promptly handled by Massachusetts courts quickly and fastly and the extraordinary delay happened in this case raised doubts in the minds of justice seekers. Many doubts were raised against the verdict of this case such why an appeal or a new trial based on the new evidence was not granted in this case, whether charges against the accused were proved beyond doubt or not and whether accused were punished due to the anti-immigrant sentiments prevailed during the era. The continuous revelations had spread the interest beyond the frontiers of Massachusetts and even the boundaries of U.S.A. as the case had become one of the controversial and highly criticized case in the international level. This main aim of this research paper is to offer the brief discussion on the facts of the case and try to answer the research questions discussed above. Introduction On April 15, 1920, a paymaster and his accompanying guard were murdered in South Braintree, Massachusetts, U.S.A and cash were robbed from the paymaster. Two Italian revolutionaries, where one was a shoemaker and another was a fish supplier were arrested on May 5, 1920, who were emigrated to the U.S.A in 1908 from Italy for having committed the above crime. The trial for the above case was commenced on May 31, 1921 at the Superior Court of Massachusetts before the Judge Webster Thayer. Both the accused were found to be guilty on July 14, 1921 by the findings of a jury. However, it was demonstrated by both the radicals and socialists that the two convicts were innocent1. Many critics were of the opinion that the trial was unfair and the accused were sentenced because of their anarchist, for their radical beliefs instead of for the felony for which they had been prosecuted. All endeavors for retrial on the footing of wrong identification were not successful. One Celestino Madeiros, on November 18, 1925 who was under a sentence for a murder exposed that he was involved in the crime of murdering the paymaster and his guard, on April 15, 1920 along with Italian mafia Joe Morelli gang. However, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court declined to reverse the lower court findings on the footing that it was only the trial judge, who had the final authority to order for reopening of the case on the ground of availability of additional evidence. On April 9, 1927, the two innocents were sentenced to death2. Throughout U.S.A, a volley of protest happened with huge public participation .Governor of Massachusetts appointed a high level committee to advise him on the issue. The governor also turned down the request for exercising his authority of clemency and his high advisory committee also sided with the governor on the issue. Throughout the world, mass public protests were held and in Philadelphia and New York, there were bomb explosions condemning their death sentence. Unfortunately, on August 23, 1927, Sacco and Vanzetti, both were executed. There were different opinions on whether Sacco and Vanzetti were really accountable as claimed by the prosecution or whether they were gullible fatalities of a biased legal system and mismanaged trial. Many legal distinguished scholars were of the opinion that both Sacco and Vanzetti should have been permitted to have a second trial due to the fact of their trial’s fallible3. Purpose of the Research The main aim of this research essay is to examine the conditions which authorized both ethnic and national stereotypes to man oeuvre the conduct and result of a criminal trial. Whether it carries the same through the lens of the murder trial of Sacco and Vanzetti? Sacco and Vanzetti case raised many legal issues like whether the defendants were guilty as framed? Whether Sacco & Vanzetti trail was fair? Whether Sacco & Vanzetti were arrested and punished because they were anarchists? Whether political hysteria and social prejudice mingled with judicial misconduct had compromised the fairness of the proceedings? Whether the accused were convicted due to their radical political faiths instead of their actual involvement in felony murders. Applying Habeas Corpus for the Release Habeas Corpus, which literally means to “have the body present” is a civil law procedure as contrasted to a criminal- law procedure which can be used by the prisoners who have been detained without proper legal sanction. Through habeas corpus petition, the applicant can compel the appearance of a defendant before a judge in the court. As per Alexander Hamilton, the writ of Habeas Corpus along with a trial by jury, there can be adequate safeguard against indiscriminate methods of prosecuting fake offences and capricious punishments upon haphazard convictions. Sacco and Vanzetti claimed that their detentions were against justice remediable by habeas corpus writ application. The unique feature of Habeas Corpus petition is that it did not enquire into the innocence or guilt of the prisoner but only deal with whether injustice has been done to the defendant by detaining them wrongly. In 1867, the U.S. Supreme Court, five decades well before Sacco and Vanzetti who tried to save their lives with a writ of habeas corpus, observed that habeas corpus was a remedy “for each and every probable case of deprivation of liberty in contrast to the National laws, Constitution or regulations4. Sacco and Vanzetti both were executed seventy-five years ago as Justice Holmes maintained that habeas corpus could not be employed to stop an unfair yet legally valid judgment. As Sacco and Vanzetti were tried and convicted as per legal rules, Holmes did not consider that probable execution of gullible individuals represented an injustice for which habeas corpus might be a relief. Thus, a habeas corpus petition could be used only to liberate a prisoner who was sentenced in a U.S. court when that court was so tainted with non-legal norms as to lose its apparent jurisdiction. In U.S.A, in the early years, habeas corpus had been considered for a long time as a bulwark safeguarding liberty of the individuals and Sacco and Vanzetti claimed that their sentences were illegal, which was remediable by habeas corpus, which was considered to be radical at that time. Even though, habeas corpus had been regarded as another Magna Carta, but, the writ did not bother about the innocence or guilt of the prisoner. It only concerned about whether the detaining official had the proper legal authority to try over the proffered cause. Unfortunately, habeas corpus, was not regarded until the latter part of the twentieth century, a legal way of addressing procedural or factual trial error in state courts5. The Scenarios that Prevailed in U.S.A during 1920 A red scare scenario prevailed in U.S.A. during 1920. In 1919, most intense outbreak of national alarm was started in U.S.A. Russia’s embracing communism during this period, and American radicals started to espouse communism trailed by a chain of mail bombings threatened Americans. During this period, the then American Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer indulged in deportation of Aliens without due process of law. Sacco and Vanzetti trial suggested anti-foreign outlook in 1920s. Both Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists who vehemently resisted all types of governments. They also opposed the World War I and American support to Allies and during this time, they escaped to Mexico from U.S.A during the World War I period to escape from military recruitment. In 1920, they returned to U.S.A and settled in Massachusetts. When Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested, some radical anti-government pamphlets were found in their car. Massachusetts police arrested Sacco and Vanzetti, mainly on the footing of two elements of evidence. The accused were apprehended at a garage when they tried to reclaim a repaired car that had been witnessed in the neighborhood of the crime scene at South Braintree. During the police interrogation, accused gave false and confusing replies as they didn’t know English, which reduced their credibility6. Salient Features of Sacco and Vanzetti Case Proceedings Sacco & Vanzetti case was heard immediately after the end of the First World War when U.S.A. was still haunted with the ambience created by the war. The then scenario at the U.S.A. was that the U.S. government was actively engaged in the hunting for radicals. After the Palmer Raids took place in 1919, people who were not born in the U.S.A were rounded up and were deported without any hearing or trial and without any due process. Thus, in the background of war time scenario, the above case was tried when serious actions were initiated against radicals. Since, Sacco and Vanzetti were considered to be radicals, either the governor or the judge Thayer was not prepared to show a lenient view on them7. The trial started on 31 May, 1921 before the Judge Webster Thayer. American Civil Liberty Union organized support for the defendants and engaged Fred Moore, as defense side lawyers. There was a contradictory version during the trial by the eyewitnesses. Some witnesses gave an exhaustive description of Sacco and Vanzetti. However, during cross-examination, many of the descriptions provided by eye witnesses proved to be contradictory. Many defense witnesses affirmed that Sacco was in Boston at the time murders. To dispute the creditability of the accused statements during interrogation, Prosecutor Frederick G Katzman employed the unreliable depositions made by Sacco and Vanzetti during the initial interrogation. Prosecutor also made unwanted comments about the defendants’ ostracized political ideology and their unpatriotic attitudes. The strange thing is that the Judge Thayer permitted these criticisms to pass. Some of the observers of the trial felt that the Judge Thayer was antagonistic to the defense side and observed that Thayer might was prejudiced in favour of the prosecution side8. The defense lawyer Moore contended that poor English knowledge of defendants was the root cause of false data they offered, and that they were clean-handed persons pushed into an inexplicable scenario. During the trial, the prosecution produced about 61 witnesses, and these witnesses stated that they had seen them at the crime scene. However, the defense side produced about 107 witnesses which explained that they had seen them somewhere else at the time of murder. Finally, on July 14, 1921, the jury convicted both Sacco & Vanzetti for the murders. The convictions attracted cries of indignations from radicals, socialists and renowned intellectuals both in Europe and in the U.S.A. Supporters engaged investigators to search for fresh corroboration that would demonstrate both Sacco and Vanzetti were not guilty. Many motions were presented by the defense side lawyers in the next following six years (from 1921 to 1927) to the Judge Thayer, requesting for the ordering of a new trial so that fresh evidence could be produced to demonstrate that Sacco and Vanzetti were gullible. The defense side investigators claimed that they had discovered new evidence that would repudiate damaging testimony offered by many prosecution witnesses. During that period (between 1921 and 1927), Massachusetts laws authorized the trial judge Thayer with the final authority to reopen a case on the footing of new or fresh evidence. However, the Judge Thayer adamantly turned down the request to order for a new trial repeatedly. Jurors in Sacco & Vanzetti case, in fact, were of strong belief, or else they might be instructed –that their opinions would have a direct outcome, not just for their New England community but the nation as a whole. It was evident from the Frederick Katzman, the prosecutor for the case urged jurors that they should do their duty and should do it like men, and they should stand together as men of Norfolk. Judge Thayer also called upon the jurors to render a significant service to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He added that even though such services could be very intricate, irritating and demanding, yet, it was the duty of the jurors to act like a true soldier, replying to the call in the spirit of supreme American allegiance or loyalty. He also added that there is no other better word available in English language other than loyalty. He further viewed that for those who are loyal to the almighty, to the nation, to his state, and to his colleagues, symbolizes the noblest and the greatest type of true American citizenship. As per Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor that Sacco and Vanzetti were being tried, not due to the fact that they had engaged in a robbery and a murder, but because they were radicals, trouble makers, as their names had already been appeared on Department of Justice lists, and there was a general hunt for anarchists in U.S.A. at that time. There are other factors also which motivated the findings against defendants such as the fact that all the jurors were American born , judge Thayer’s prejudice , both Sacco & Vanzetti were at the mercy of an interpreter as they did not know the English and further , the atmosphere at the court was deeply against anarchists or radicals at that time9. Legal Issues in Sacco and Vanzetti Case The trail of Sacco-Vanzetti offers a lucid illustration of how a given legal dispute can impact various divisions of the society in different manners. For those Italians living in U.S.A, the trial showed immigrants desperateness to get justice in American courts. Those who were advocates of unorthodox political faith and anarchy criticized the case, as an illustration of imperfect freedom of speech in the nation. Some critics were of the view that the case mirrored vulnerability of legal system that was handled by biased judge. According to Felix Frankfurter, an erstwhile judge of Supreme Court of U criticized the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in not making a demand for a new trial of the case. He found many lapses in the case such as lapses in the arguments of prosecution, flaws in identification testimony and viewed that both judges and prosecution had erred in their most basic duties10. He was under the belief that Sacco’s case was a case of mockery of justice, and he openly came out in the press that Sacco and Vanzetti were fatalities of ethnic and political bias. Some critics wondered whether Sacco and Vanzetti were the scapegoats of bigotry as they belonged to working –class Italian immigrants who advocated political extremism. Some critics argued that no fair trial was organized for Sacco and Vanzetti as they were given sentence on the footing of chiefly anecdotal evidence and due to their poor English knowledge, which caused them mistakenly offer implicating replies during initial investigations. Their sentence is also questionable as they were refused for a new trial despite the fact that another convicted murderer who admitted that he had murdered the paymaster and his accompanying guard and also advanced inside information about the same. Many labour unions, intellectuals, journalists and religious groups fervently shielded Sacco and Vanzetti and contributed liberally funds to their defense and gathered public support to their cause. It was alleged that Sacco and Vanzetti became the victims of antagonism toward immigrants and leftists that swamped the nation in the background of Russian Revolution and the seclusion that trailed World War I. Some studies found that Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty as the courts painstakingly found norms of “due process” as the court proceedings were closely monitored. A forensic study conducted in 1962 linked a bullet which was found in one of the murder victims to that of a gun found with Sacco. Despite the fact, the innocence or guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti is probable to remain as a source of disagreement, the case lingers as a recapitulation of danger of inequality against downtrodden and weak minorities11. Conclusion The extraordinary delay in delivering the verdict in this case raised doubts in the minds of justice seekers. Judge Thayer was antagonistic to the defense side and it was observed that Thayer was prejudiced in favour of the prosecution side. The defense lawyer Moore contended that poor English knowledge of defendants was the root cause of false data they offered, and that they were clean-handed persons pushed into an inexplicable scenario. The defense side investigators claimed that they had discovered new evidence that would repudiate damaging testimony offered by many prosecution witnesses. However, the Judge Thayer adamantly turned down the request to order for a new trial repeatedly. It was evident from the Frederick Katzman, the prosecutor for the case urged jurors that they should do their duty and should do it like men, and they should stand together as men of Norfolk. Judge Thayer remarked that it was the duty of the jurors to act like a true soldier, replying to the call in the spirit of supreme American allegiance or loyalty. As per Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor that Sacco and Vanzetti were being tried, not due to the fact that they had engaged in a robbery and a murder, but because they were radicals, trouble makers, as their names had already been appeared on Department of Justice lists, and there was a general hunt for anarchists in U.S.A. at that time. Sacco’s trial showed immigrants desperateness to get justice in American courts. Some critics were of the view that the case mirrored vulnerability of legal system that was handled by biased judge. Sacco –Vanzetti case demonstrated that allowing political ideology to contaminate the judicial process can prove to be a double-edged sword. Thus, political ideology can be employed by politically biased judges, prosecutors and judges to convict innocent individuals’ thereby letting loose otherwise guilty defendants from punishments and prosecutions. Embracing to controversial ideologies by the defendants could become a mighty tool in the hand of prosecution in getting severe sentence and convictions against innocent individuals. U.S.A. had a history of respect for law, liberty and freedom and however, some legislations in USA were used to exhibit the prejudice in the nation. The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti was one example. One another example is how Jim Crow law is being used to curtail the rights enjoyed by black Americans even today. Whether Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent or guilty which is being deliberated even today in the legal jurisprudence sector. Majority of the critics are aware and agree that the innocent defendants should have been offered a new trial as the earlier one was tainted with ethnic and political bias that made a fair proceeding not viable12. In 1977, on the 50th anniversary of Sacco and Vanzetti deaths, Michael S. Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, issued a statement that Sacco and Vanzetti had been given bad treatment and hence, no disgrace should be added with their names. Read More