John Adams wins acquittal of Boston Massacre Soldiers

A Party of One ^ | 2005 | James Grant

[sopo]

It is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent Person should die,” Adams began, quoting Hale’s Pleas of the Crown. He next explained the law as it bore on mob actions, and he reminded the jury of Blackstone’s view of self-defense: it is the “primary Canon of the Law of Nature.” He then moved on to the evidence, masterfully picking apart the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the crown’s case and passing quickly over the damning portions. Instead of challenging the truthfulness of the prosecution’s witnesses, he noted the fallibility of human perception. Honest men could disagree about passion-stirring events. He was embarking on an exegesis of Preston’s side of the case when Thomas Hutchinson appeared in the courtroom. Adams’s nemesis was, technically, chief justice of the court, as well as lieutenant governor. Today, however, he appeared before the proceedings as a witness for the defense. (For this reason he was not on the bench.) “Had I wanted an Officer to guard against a precipitate action,” said the man Adams loathed, in vouching for the character of Adams’s client, “I should have pitched upon him as soon as any in the Regiment.”

[sopo]

A jury in Revolutionary Boston found reason to acquit British soldiers who had fired on their fellow citizens, and they were not afraid to go to their homes , though their identities were known. Drshowitz has maed the point that one reason for the unanimity of NYC, D.C. juries in convicting Republicans, acquitting Democrats is the consequences jurors would fac in returning to neighborhoods if they held out ( think of the juror who smiled at the defense throughout the trial( head fake/ play acting?)Revolutionary Boston 1770 could deliver a fair trial to Redcoats charged with murder. NY 2024 can't deliver a fair trial in a hoked up misdemeanor. Those were patriots,these are Communists THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

[kiryandil]

There is no thing as “justice” in BananAmerica in 2024.

[ClearCase_guy]

Although there are problems with bias in our current Artificial Intelligence, I think that the justice system ought to move towards using AI more and humans less. As far as I can tell human judges and human juries are not up to the job.

[sopo]

How about just updating what a “jury of peers” should be about? In a case where hthe motivation was supposedly purely political, how can a fair trial be held in a jurisdiction where the “peers” are unabashedly political opponents of the defendant? It’s the Democrats favorite trick, and the elephant in the room when republicans try to bring a Democrat to trial, ie having to try D case in D.C.

[ClearCase_guy]

Heck, I’d like to randomize the whole thing. Imagine this trial taking place in — let’s spin the wheel — Oh, I guess this trial will take place in Kansas. And the 12 people from Kansas who are chosen for the jury will never see or know the name of the defendant. That shouldn’t matter, right? So the trial comes down to some guy from somewhere who paid his lawyer and claims this as a “legal expense”. So those 12 people from Kansas have to decide is this is a felony and if 120 years in jail is a reasonable penalty to put on this guy, whoever he is.

I bet they’d acquit.

[sopo]

I’m thinking the Supreme Court could be the arbiter, lots of details would need to be worked out, but the Supreme Court is at least a jury of 9 peers to decide jurisdiction to be tried in.

[Socon-Econ]

Wan’t it “John” Adams?

[LibertyOh]

“…updating what a ‘jury of peers’” is exactly what needs to be done.

[sopo]

So Sorry, I wonder if that can be corrected

[sopo]

Thank you to the moderator

[SunkenCiv]

• Sir William Blackstone provides a strong defence of personal liberty...

[SunkenCiv]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hutchinson_(governor)

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks sopo.