The Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti

James BrownPeriod 4

October 28, 2010

After the Great War, or World War I, our nation was left in a position

of economic power. Our country may have been left stronger, but the people

of the United States were left much more segregated. Communism,

socialism, and anarchism were known as threats to our nation’s government

and became targets for the press and the law. Many of the lower class

immigrants, at the time, believed in new forms of governments that would

make people of all employment, and nationalities, equal financially and

socially. However, to achieve these governmental changes, many

participants of these groups become radicals and use violence to demonstrate

their feelings towards their causes. Such radicalism may include bombings,

murders, and suicides. (1)

In the year 1920 a double murder and robbery occurred in Braintree,

Massachusetts on April 15. The employees of the Slater and Morrill Shoe

Co., Parmenter and Berardelli, were shot by the bandits during the theft.

The bandits were seen in a getaway car filled with several other men. On

May 31, 1921, months later, two men by the names of Nicoli Sacco and

Bartolomeo Vanzetti were brought to court to be proven guilty for said

crimes. (2,3)

The prosecution began the trial with eyewitnesses of the event. Seven

different men and women were in, or near, Braintree and who had seen

Sacco in town. One witness, Mary E. Splaine, explained to the court, “I ran

to the window and I saw a dark car on the street driving very fast.” She,

along with several others, testified that that Sacco resembled one of the

bandits. Upon cross examination by the defense, Splaine was over 70 feet

away from the actual event, making it unclear what she really saw. The

defense also referred to the uncertainty of the witnesses when questioned by

the police, and some confessed they were unable to identify Sacco. (2,3)

Similarly, eyewitnesses were brought up to testify against Vanzetti.

All four of whom placed him near the crime scene, with him arriving at

Braintree around 10am and driving away in a car, after hearing gunshots,

around 4pm. The witnesses, however, gave the prosecution a weaker

testimony because none of them had actually seen Vanzetti at the time of the

shootings, and several defense witnesses placed Vanzetti in Plymouth selling

fish as opposed to in Braintree at the time of the crime. (2)

As well as witnesses, others were brought to the stand to give expert

advice on cetain situations. For example, during the trial the prosecution

brought William Proctor to the stand, an expert on firearms. The question

was whether or not the gun that shot at the employees was that of Sacco’s

Colt 32 rifle. After examining the evidence and looking over the exhibit,

bullets found at the crime scene, Proctor concluded that “Bullet 3” was

“consistent with being fired by [Sacco‘s] pistol.” However, this point was

dismissed from defense experts, Burns and Fitzgerald, who told the court

that it was impossible for the bullet to have been shot from said pistol. Years

later, in 1961, researchers found that the bullet was indeed fired through

Sacco’s pistol. (2,3)

The evidence found on Vanzetti was once again much weaker than

that of Sacco. The gun Vanzetti had on his person resembled Berardelli’s

gun that he kept for his guard duties, with the butt being repaired just like

Berardelli had done. However, Vanzetti testified that he bought his gun from

a friend in order to Falzini, who later confirmed the story, for fear of being

mugged. In 1977 it was discovered that Berardelli’s gun was a .32 caliber,

not a .38 like the one on Vanzetti’s possession. (2)

The one piece of evidence not shared between the two defendants was

put on Sacco. On the day of the robbery it was reported that he was not at

work. Sacco gave an explanation of why he was not at work on that day,

saying he was in Boston getting a passport and after going to Boni’s

Restaurant, with four witnesses confirming the statement. The prosecutors

were convinced that he was not in work that day because in his initial

questioning he said nothing of being in Boston on that day and, after being

questioned, the clerk could not seem to remember ever seeing Sacco to take

the day off. (2,3)

The final piece of evidence, that could be argued as the most

influential, was the amount of falsification by the defendants. Both lied

about many of the occurrences such as withholding information about

anarchist radical beliefs, affiliation with the anarchist Boda, recent

whereabouts, and firearms. The information was either altered or, in some

cases, completely left out. The defendants both used the excuse of being

harmed and mistreated because of their radical affiliation with the Anarchist

movement. (2)

After striving to prove themselves the defense had failed. Judge

Thayer and the jury had sentenced both Sacco and Vanzetti to death. Both

men gave testaments as to why the death penalty should not be their

sentence but were unsuccessful. While waiting for their time in the electric

chair they had written to their loved ones in their cells and made their final

arrangements before being electrified on August 23, 1937, becoming martyrs

for their cause in the anarchist movement and causing the radicals to act out

even more, such as the bombing of Judge Thayer’s house in 1977, most

likely caused by his sentencing at the trial. (2,3)