John Adams’ courage: The Boston Massacre trials

Listen to this article

It was a cold, snowy night in Boston on March 5, 1770, when an angry, frenzied confrontation erupted between a lone British sentry guarding the Custom House and a small group of colonists taunting him. The discord attracted hundreds of other Bostonians to join.

Hostilities stemmed from England’s oppressive treatment that made life difficult for the colonists, including multiple “taxations without representation” and the presence of English soldiers.

On that particular night, English Capt. Thomas Preston was in charge and assembled backup military support, which was loudly jeered and taunted by the crowd. The Bostonians threw snowballs and ice at the soldiers, who eventually began firing, killing five and wounding many. The situation was chaotic.

The next day, Preston and all eight soldiers were arrested and charged with murder. The first trial was that of Preston, followed by that of the soldiers. Initially, no lawyer would agree to represent them. The rage of the Bostonians toward the “murderers” was intense.

But Boston lawyer John Adams stepped forward, stating strongly that it was the lawyer’s duty to provide representation to those charged with crimes. “Let such be told … that these criminals charged with murder are not yet legally proved guilty, and therefore however criminal are entitled by the laws of God and man to all legal counsel and aid, that my duty as … a lawyer strengthened the obligation.”

At this time in his career, Adams’ law practice was expanding, and he was a staunch supporter of the colonists’ adversity to England. But notwithstanding this or the outrage and protests of his contemporaries, John Adams served as lead counsel at both trials.

Preston was charged with ordering his men to shoot into the crowds but asserted it was self-defense. In its opening statement, the prosecution told the jury that there had been a disturbance, and Preston ordered his soldiers to fire on the people. Witnesses for the prosecution testified that British soldiers carried swords and attacked the Bostonians. One witness testified that he heard Preston order his men to load their weapons. Other witnesses testified similarly.

The following day, more witnesses testified for the prosecution that they experienced or observed the violence of the soldiers. But one witness acknowledged he heard Preston warning the crowd to disperse or they would be murdered. Another testified that he heard Preston give the order to fire.

For the defense, Adams called numerous Boston citizens. One testified that he had heard some Boston men saying they were going to attack the main guard. Another testified that he had witnessed Preston instructing the troops to fire no more. Still another told that he witnessed Bostonians urging others to join the fight. It was said that Adams was a tour de force during the trial. His eloquence was captivating.

After several hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted Preston. This result stunned the city, but the defense had been successful in countering the various claims on the basis of self-defense. Even during the trial, it was reported that spectators who spoke out demanded blood.

Soon after, the trial of the eight soldiers began. The pressure on defense counsel was even greater than at the first trial, as the soldiers were accused of firing without orders. Again, Adams’ eloquence in the courtroom was notable, quoting to the jury: “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates or our passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence.”

In his closing statement, Adams disassembled the prosecution’s case, arguing that the court of law protects soldiers as well as citizens. He stressed that killing an innocent person in defending oneself was not murder, but manslaughter. He spoke of the intent of the soldiers to defend themselves and stressed that self-defense was a basic rule of law.

He met his biggest challenge of showing reasonable doubt, having produced at trial evidence that the mob yelled “Kill them,” while pelting the soldiers with snowballs and ice. “What you doubt of, do not do,” he stated. “It is always safer to err in acquitting rather than punishing.”

After deliberations, the jury acquitted six of the soldiers. The remaining two were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to being branded on the hand.

To this day, Adams’ courage in undertaking this most unpopular case provides a solid example of a trial lawyer’s duty to provide representation to all in need. While it may not be enjoyable to be hounded by the press, or criticized at dinner, for representing an unpopular person, the trial lawyer’s duty to provide representation should not be ignored.

(Sources: David McCullough, “John Adams,” pp. 65-67, Simon & Schuster, 2000; John Abrams and David Fisher, “John Adams Under Fire,” Hanover Square Press, 2021.)

Paul Mark Sandler, trial attorney and author, can be reached at [email protected].