Sacco and Vanzetti: Innocent or Guilty?

The murder case involving defendants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti was one of the most celebrated criminal trials in the United States during the twentieth century. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who had come to America as young men and professed the radical philosophy of anarchism. They were accused of carrying out a robbery of a shoe factory in Braintree, Massachusetts on April 15, 1920. Two men were killed during the robbery. Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of the crime and were eventually convicted in a trial that was widely regarded as having been unfair. They were sentenced to capital punishment. Many people believed in their innocence, however, and their case became a passionate cause for some. However, attempts at proving their innocence and exonerating the two men were unsuccessful. Sacco and Vanzetti were executed by the state of Massachusetts in 1927. Though their case is no longer as well-known as it once was, Sacco and Vanzetti continue to be regarded by many historians and scholars as having been the victims of injustice. Were Sacco and Vanzetti innocent of the crime of which they were accused? The evidence indicates that the two Italian anarchists were likely not responsible for the crime they were convicted of. Instead, it is probable that Sacco and Vanzetti were instead wrongfully executed after having received an unfair trial and having their attempts to prove their innocence thwarted by a biased legal and judicial system.

Both Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti immigrated into the United States in 1908, and they became acquainted with each other when both were participants in a labor strike in 1917. They shared the political ideology of anarchism, a philosophy which opposed government and capitalism. The anarchists wished to overthrow these institutions and establish federations of workers’ communes. Some anarchists during this time period also advocated using violence to achieve their goals, including bombings and assassinations. President William McKinley had previously been assassinated by a self-proclaimed anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, in 1901. During World War One, anarchists and other radicals, such as socialists and communists, had been involved in an antiwar movement and were subjected to government repression. The Russian Revolution occurred in 1917 and the authorities in other countries feared the revolution would spread. The so-called “Red Scare” was taking place in the United States, and Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led efforts to suppress these radical movements.

It was within this context that the robbery in Braintree, Massachusetts occurred in 1920. In those days, workers were paid through direct cash payments and the money would be transported by company security officers. Payrolls were sometimes the target of robberies by both ordinary gangsters and political radicals. Several other similar robberies also happened in the same vicinity during the time of the Braintree incident. The authorities believed that anarchists, who had a nearby base, were perpetrating the robberies in order to finance terrorist activities. A local anarchist named Mario Boda was found to be in possession of a gun of the same model used in the Braintree robbery and murders, and it was believed by police that his car may have also been a getaway car during the crime. Boda’s friends Sacco and Vanzetti were also detained and were likewise found to have weapons in their possession similar to those used in the robbery and Braintree. Vanzetti was found to have a same model handgun as one that was stolen from one of the robbery victims. Consequently, both Sacco and Vanzetti were charged with first-degree murder, a capital crime punishable by death in the electric chair.

The subsequent trial was one that was highly charged in a political sense. Neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had ever been previously convicted of a crime. Yet both were followers of the radical anarchist leader Luigi Galleani who advocated political change through violent means. The judge was Webster Thayer, an outspoken opponent of radicals and anarchists who had given public speeches calling for their political suppression. The prosecution’s case rested on several primary pieces of evidence. Witnesses reported having seen both Sacco and Vanzetti in the area on the day of the robbery. A hat resembling one worn by Sacco was found at the scene of the crime, and it was claimed that a man who resembled Sacco physically was seen shooting one of the victims. It was claimed that Vanzetti was seen in a vehicle resembling the alleged getaway car on the day of the robbery, and it was also asserted that Sacco had been found in possession of a weapon of the kind believed to be used in the crime.

Both defendants presented evidence that they could not have been presence at the scene when the robbery actually occurred. Sacco claimed he had visited the Italian consulate that day in order to obtain a passport, and his story was corroborated by employees of the consulate. He also claimed that he later went to dinner with a group of friends and produced these friends to testify on his behalf. Vanzetti claimed he had been at work selling fish at the time of the robbery and produced sixteen witnesses to testify having seen him at work that day. The prosecution attacked the alibis presented by both men. It was the prosecution’s contention that Sacco’s friends were anarchists who would lie on his behalf. Many of Vanzetti’s witnesses barely spoke English or spoke English only as a second language. It was difficult for the jury to understand their testimony. When an interpreter had to be used, it was revealed that the interpreter did not himself fully understand certain Italian dialects in which some of the Italians spoke. The prosecution accused Vanzetti’s witnesses of having concocted an alibi on his behalf. When prosecution witnesses were called, their own testimony was often imprecise and inconclusive, and several supposed eyewitnesses failed to physically identify Sacco as having been present at the scene of the crime when asked to do so. The prosecution focused extensively on attacking the radical political beliefs of the defendants, and implied their guilt was likely because of their adherence to the anarchist philosophy.

Both men were convicted of murder following a five-hour jury deliberation. The conviction and subsequent death sentence of Sacco and Vanzetti ignited worldwide opinion on their behalf. It was widely believed that they were being persecuted by the legal system of the state of Massachusetts for their unconventional political views. The defenders of Sacco and Vanzetti claimed the prosecution’s case was based on imprecise evidence and unreliable witnesses. It was further claimed that the judge had been openly biased in favor of the prosecution and had incriminated himself by making public statements indicating as much. Those who came to the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti accused the prosecution of inflaming the opinions of the jurors against the defendants because of their anarchist ideals. The cause of winning a new trial for Sacco and Vanzetti, exonerating them of the crime for which they had been convicted, and saving them from the electric chair became an international crusade. The cause of Sacco and Vanzetti attracted the interest and enthusiasm of many intellectuals, artists, writers, and public figures. Among them were H. G. Wells, Albert Einstein, Walter Lippman, Anatole France, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and even the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

During the course of efforts to obtain a new trial, several prosecution witnesses claimed to have been coerced into giving false testimony. It was also claimed that the murder weapon that served as a key piece of prosecution evidence had not been properly identified as having belong to Sacco. A witness was also produced who testified of having observed statements of bias against the defendants on the part of the jury foreman, thereby losing all benefit of a jury trial. It was also claimed that the alleged murder weapon had been tampered with. Numerous motions were brought before Judge Webster Thayer, the judge in the original trial, requesting a new trial in the light of these inconsistencies in the case that were being brought to light. The judge denied each of these motions and when lawyers for Sacco and Vanzetti appealed, the appeals court upheld the judge’s denials.

Five years after the crime for which Sacco and Vanzetti had been convicted, a man named Celestino Madeiros confessed to having been responsible for the robbery and murder at Braintree. He claimed Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent. Madeiros was part of an organized crime group that regularly engaged in payroll robberies and that often used a vehicle similar to the getaway car used at Braintree. Further, the group’s leading figure bore a striking physical resemblance to Nicola Sacco. The lawyers for Sacco and Vanzetti once again sought a new trial in light of the new evidence. However, Judge Thayer once again denied their motion. Once again, the defense lawyers took their case to the appeals courts, and the appeals court once again upheld the judge’s denial of motions for a new trial.

The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti was scheduled for July 10, 1927. Sacco and Vanzetti’s lawyers then began appeals for clemency to the governor of Massachusetts, Alvan T. Fuller. The governor appointed a committee to review the case. Defense lawyers for Sacco and Vanzetti argued that members of the committee lacked the experience necessary to sufficiently review a complex criminal case that included so many nuances and instances of confusion. It was claimed that the committee was comprised of individuals who reflected political, ethnic, or socioeconomic bias in favor of the prosecution. The committee let the original verdict stand. Sacco and Vanzetti were executed on August 22, 1927. Their executions were followed by violent protest demonstrations around the world.

It is clear that Sacco and Vanzetti never had the opportunity for a fair trial. There is little question of the bias of Judge Webster Thayer, the prosecutor Frederick Katzmann, and, indeed, of the political establishment of the state of Massachusetts. It is widely recognized that the investigating policemen targeted Sacco and Vanzetti for their anarchist political beliefs, and their beliefs were used to prejudice the jurors against them. As for the question of their actual innocence or guilt, the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to find either defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While it is possible Sacco was involved in the crime, the case presented against him was not clear enough to send him to the electric chair, and the case against Vanzetti was largely a matter of conjecture. It is quite likely that the state of Massachusetts executed two innocent men on August 22, 1927.

Bibliography

Avrich, Paul. Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Ehrmann, Herbert B. The Case That Will Not Die: Commonwealth vs. Sacco and Vanzetti. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Jackson, Brian. The Black Flag: A Look Back at the Strange Case of Nicola Sacco and Bartholomeo Vanzetti. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.

Russell, Francis. Tragedy in Dedham: The Story of the Sacco-Vanzetti Case. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Russell, Francis. Sacco and Vanzetti: The Case Resolved. New York: Harper & Row,1986.