Why John Adams Defended the British Soldiers During the Boston Massacre Trials

Episode Notes

Transcript

John Adams:

Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts in evidence.

J. Craig Williams:

On a cold moonlit night near an icy Boston harbor in 1770, wearing the red coats that earned them their nickname, a small platoon of British soldiers stood in a ragtag semicircle. They came to protect a lone century who had retreated to Boston’s old state statehouse. From a gathering crowd of colonists infuriated with everything English coming to his aid, the soldier stood shoulder to shoulder, aiming loaded muskets with bayonets mounted as an even larger riotous crowd gathered in front of them with his sword drawn. British Captain Thomas Preston positioned himself in front of his men, hoping to diffuse a dangerous situation and calm the angry colonists. Basing those poignant vaness was a surly crowd of some 200 rough New England dock workers and young mis greens taking out their frustrations initially on the century. And then the newly arrived kingsmen, the crowd hurled snowballs chunks of ice and oyster shells at the soldiers. They taunted the soldiers by yelling, fire, attempting to bait them into shooting swelled by an unchecked gang mentality. The crowd inched closer to the platoon. One Sailor Crispus attics grabbed a bat used by dock workers and stood at the edge of the crowd immediately next to the red coats at swung the bat and knocked private Hugh Montgomery to the ground who was the rose, yelled to his brethren fire. Damn you fire

And the musket shots rang out when the smoke cleared from the several soldiers now empty muske barrels, five Bostonians lay on the cold hard ground with their red blood freezing in the snow. Three were dead including addicts and two more mortally injured who would die in the following days. The next day colonists predicted that the accused British soldiers would all hang for the murder of the five unarmed civilians, especially when judged by a Boston jury. But John Adams then a 34-year-old lawyer, took on the most unpopular defense of the soldiers and orchestrated their trials in a way that defied conventional thinking.

Female Witness:

I jumped back and heard a voice cry, fire. The officer was standing before me with his face towards the people.

Samuel Adams:

The soldiers pushed several persons with the bayonets driving through the people in so rough a manner that it appeared they intended to create stones.

Thomas Handaside Peck:

I was at home when the guns were fired. I went up to the main guard and addressed myself to the captain and said to him, what have you done?

J. Craig Williams:

Please pull up a chair and have a seat with me at the council table. You’re going to sit right next to the lawyers while they cross examine witnesses, fight off objections from opposing counsel and deal with anxious defendants facing big fines, long jail terms, and even death sentences. You’ll also have a front row seat in the jury box as you listen to the testimony straight from the witnesses, and then after hearing the final verdict, you can decide whether the rulings were correct or not. Hi everyone. My name is J.Craig Williams and welcome to In Dispute. In this podcast miniseries, we will look back at 10 famous court cases that stand out for their historical importance, their contrasts with today’s modern criminal trials and their unusual outcomes.

Some historians disagree about the events I’ve related and am about to relate in this episode, but thankfully, a transcript of the soldier’s trial exists in the Library of Congress and other publications. There contained snippets of history allowing us a modern day legal look back at the trials. To understand the Boston massacre, we must first bring several other historic events in the prior three years into focus. Initially, the British Parliament passed the Township Tax Acts on June 29th, 1767. These acts imposed more taxes on products imported into the colonies such as glass, paper, rum, wine, glasses, sugar, and of course, tea Parliament also imposed taxes on court documents, certificates, licenses, deeds, playing cards, pamphlets, books and newspapers. The colonists were firmly under the thumb of British rule, but Bostonians rebelled and refused to pay the taxes. In October, 1768, two years before the massacre, British troops arrived in Boston to restore order and collect taxes for the commissioners of customs.

And ultimately, king George II third once settled on colonial soil. The British troops regularly patrolled the streets of Boston, treating the colonists rudely and showing an outright disrespect for the lower class dock workers secure now with troops behind them, the commissioners of customs collected taxes more easily and with higher success, demoralizing shop owners and manufacturers who passed on those higher taxes to the colonists ultimately frustrating the wider Boston population. This behavior occurred with more frequency and severity, culminating with the Boston Massacre. That evening’s events, however, started with an otherwise nondescript confrontation. The complaints of a local wig maker’s apprentice to a British lieutenant captain regarding payment for his master’s Work on the officer’s wig.

On the night of March 5th, 1770, private Hugh White stood a lonely centuries watch on Boston’s King Street just outside the customs house where the commissioners collected their taxes and stored their levees awaiting transport to England as was common at the time. An off-duty officer walked about King Street in his bright red uniform. Nearby a wig maker’s apprentice. Edward Garrick spotted the British officer and called out. There goes A fellow who has not paid my master for dressing his hair. Private White responded to Garrick’s criticisms. He’s a gentleman and if he owes you anything, he will pay for it. Garrick countered with There are no gentlemen left in the regiment. In response, private white left his post and confronted Garrick engaging in a heated exchange of words with the butt end of his musket. To make his point, the soldier struck Garrick knocking him down as Garrick laid in the snow and cried in pain.

One of his companions, Bartholomew Broders, took up the argument with white bloody lobster back, lousy rascal lobster. Son of a bitch borders yelled at white soon joined in by others attracted by the noise. A crowd of about 50 colonists gathered from nearby bars and houses pouring into the street. They threw chunks of ice and other missiles at White who retreated for his safety to his sent box, loaded his musket and waved it at the now angry colonists to keep them away. The crowd continued to grow and in fear for his life, private white retreated to the customs house on King Street where the nearby British main guard slept. Then someone rang the fire bell at the old brick meeting house, which drew curious onlookers, who expected to see flames, other bells in nearby church steeps rang drawing a crowd of three to 400 colonists as Captain Thomas Preston would later state.

In his deposition on March 13th, 1770, about nine of the guard came to and informed me that the town inhabitants were assembling to attack the troops and that the bells were ringing as the signal for that purpose and not for fire. All the colonists stream toward King Street, the customs house, and the main guard at the main guard. Captain Thomas Preston watched the powder cake of his situation. Preston, Lieutenant James Bassett, corporal William Williams and six privates moved from the main guard to the customs house in a column of two with their bayonets drawn, the crowd of colonists pressed surround the soldiers as they formed a semicircle and joined up with private white all with their backs to the locked doors of the customs house and the king’s ransom. The rabble had separated briefly to let the bayonetted guns and men’s through, but still hurled insults at them. Captain Preston described the scene in his deposition. Just a week after the event,

Captain Thomas Preston:

The mobs still increased and were more outrageous striking their clubs or bludgeons one against another and calling out, come on you, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire. If you dare fire and be damned, we know you dare not. And much more such language was used at this time. I was between the soldiers and the mob and endeavoring all in my power to persuade them to retire peacefully but to no purpose. They advanced to the points of the bayonets, struck some of them and even the muzzles of the pieces and seemed to be endeavoring to close of the soldiers on which some well-behaved persons asked me if the guns were charged. I replied, yes. They then asked me if I intended to water them into fire. I answered no by no means observing to them that I was advanced before the muzzles and must fall a sacrifice if they fired.

J. Craig Williams:

Not everyone sees things the same way. In March, 1770, according to an anonymous account of the Boston massacre, a short narrative of the horrid massacre in Boston printed by the order of the town of Boston, the event was quite different. Some believe Samuel Adams helped write this narrative document given his instigation of the events leading up to that night.

Samuel Adams:

In passing to this station, the soldiers pushed several persons with the bayonets driving through the people in so rough a manner that it appeared. They intended to create a disturbance, this occasion, some snowballs to be thrown at them, which seemed to have been the only provocation that was given. Mr. Knox declares that while he was talking with Captain Preston, the soldiers of his detachment have attacked the people with their bare nets and that there was not the least provocation given to Captain Preston of his party, the backs of the people being toward them when the people were attacked. He also declares that Captain Preston seemed to be in great has and much agitated, and that according to his opinion, there were not then present in King Street above 70 or 80 persons. At that extent, captain Preston is said to have ordered them to fire and to have repeated that order. One gun was fired first, then others in succession and with deliberation till 10 or a dozen guns were fired by which means 11 persons were killed and wounded as above represented

J. Craig Williams:

Despite what the differing accounts say all agree on one thing, the British soldiers fired at the colonists and five were killed. Preston and his men were arrested the same evening. The shots were fired, all were charged with murder. Tensions were high and a committee of citizens formed to seek the removal of the troops from Boston, realizing the danger of the situation. Governor Bernard re garrison the British troops at Castle William in the harbor outside the city. He also postponed the trials by some eight months and the soldiers remained in jail pending their trial. For reasons we don’t know, captain Preston was tried separately from the soldiers with John Adams handling his defense as well as the defense of the soldiers. On October 21st, the soldiers objected in a letter to the court.

British Soldier:

We poor distressed prisoners beg that ye would be so good as to let us have our trial at the same time with our captain for we did our captain’s orders and if we do not obey, his command should have been confined and shot for not doing it.

J. Craig Williams:

Although this request was denied, no written explanation for it exists. Modern ethical rules require an attorney for each separate defendant, so by present day standards, John Adams should not have represented all nine criminal defendants. The very fact that the soldiers complained about the separate trials should have raised questions of ethics in Adam’s mind, but historical records do not disclose his reasoning on this point. As it turned out, the soldiers were right to fear to trials. Preston’s best defense lay in his denial that he gave any orders to fire at the colonists. Preston in fact, claimed exactly that in his deposition, arguing that he would never have issued that order while he stood between his men and the colonists. John Adams advanced that theory in Preston’s trial. John Adams conflict of interest in representing both the captain and the soldiers in separate trials arose from the soldier’s need to claim Captain Preston and his need to claim them directly contrary to their captain’s best argument, the soldier’s best defense arose from their claim that they had simply followed their captain’s orders, a defense commonly asserted in military trials. Preston’s separate trials started some eight months after the Boston Massacre and took six days from October 24th to October 30th, 1770. The second trial to the soldiers started about a month later on November 27 to 1770, but lasted two weeks because the colonies were still under British rule. All would be tried according to English law.

Robert treat Payne and Samuel Quincy led the prosecution. John Adams defended both Preston and the soldiers in the separate trials. Joining Adams as defense counsel for Captain Preston was Robert Mty Jr. Who was a judge of the Vice Admiralty court and a loyalist to the Crown. Also with Adams was a much younger Josiah Quincy Jr. Who was Prosecutor Samuel’s younger brother ands Samson Salter Laus another crown loyalist. In this first trial, Rex versus Preston, the jurors had to determine whether Preston gave the order to fire on the colonists. Although no transcript of this six day trial is known to exist, historians have pieced together snippets of the testimony from other sources. Court reporter John Hogsdon originally transcribed the trial in shorthand, but as John Adams observed, the British government have never permitted it to see the light and probably never will. Preston’s trial is believed to be the first, the colonies to have lasted longer than one day.

As with all criminal trials, the prosecution started First Samuel Quincy opened and first called Edward Garrick, the apprentice wig maker. After describing his altercation with private Hugh White Garrick admitted that he taunted the soldier. He described the blow struck by white with the end of white’s musket and testified that he saw soldiers in the streets carrying swords before Captain Preston marched his men to the customs house. The crown then called its next witness, Thomas Marshall, who supported Garrick’s statement but added that although Captain Preston most certainly did have the time to order his men to cease fire between the first and subsequent shots he did not. Four witnesses for the prosecution swore Captain Preston gave the fatal order to shoot one of the four eye witnessed. Daniel Calef testified

Daniel Calef:

I was present at the fire. I heard one of the guns wrapped. I turned about and looked and heard the officer who stood on the right in a line with the soldiers, give the word fire twice. I looked the officer in the face when he gave the word and saw his mouth. I saw his face playing the moon shown on it.

J. Craig Williams:

The next witness stated firmly, the Captain Preston standing behind his men had given the order to fire. Two more witnesses would also testify. They heard Preston give the order to fire in all a plethora of witnesses testified all pointing the finger At Captain Preston, the prosecution had established a strong finish to the first day the following day’s. Testimony for the prosecution’s case was not as powerful. Witness Theodore Bliss said Captain precedent. Ben standing in front of his men’s guns bliss heard someone shout fire but did not think it was the captain. Another testified that the crowd was shouting Fire, damn your blood fire. And a third witness said he heard the words fire come from behind the soldiers all pointing to someone other than the captain. That was not the best way to end the prosecution. Trial lawyers prefer to start and end with strong testimony to leave a lasting impression on the jury. Ending with weak testimony shows that your case is well weak. A good trial lawyer on the defense side of the case will seize on that weakness as John Adams did.

Adams and Josiah Quincy put on their case the following day. They presented witnesses who described the angry crowd that rampaged the streets the night of March 5th, 1770. The first witness for the defense stated firmly that it was British Corporal William Williams who had given the men the order to prime and load their muskets. Another said the soldiers seemed to act from pure nature. I mean they acted and fired by themselves. Adams did what every criminal defense lawyer worth their salt would do offered the Saudi defense. Some other dude did it point the finger elsewhere. It wasn’t my client’s order to fire Adams claimed. In closing, it was witness Richard Palmes. However, who gave the loyalist jurors what they wanted to hear?

Richard Palmes:

I saw Captain Preston at the head of seven or eight soldiers at the custom house drawn up their guns breast high and bayonets fixed. I saw something resembling snow. I strike the grenadier on the captain’s right. The grenadier instantly stepped one foot back and fired the first gun. After the gun went off, I heard the word fire. I don’t know who gave the word fire.

J. Craig Williams:

The next witness confirmed palm’s testimony.

Female Witness:

I jumped back and heard a voice cry, fire. It seemed to come from the left wing from the second or third man on the left. The officer was standing before me with his face towards the people. I am certain the voice came from beyond him.

J. Craig Williams:

With these statements, Adams clinched the testimony necessary to establish his main argument. Someone other than Captain Preston gave the order. Still Adam’s face conflicting testimony. Prosecution witnesses blame Preston. Defense witnesses blame someone else. When you’re faced with conflicting testimony, another part of the story requires you to paint your client as a fine upstanding citizen. Defense witness Benjamin Lee said,

Benjamin Lee:

I saw Captain Preston as soon as the soldiers were arranged. A man went up to him and asked him if he was going to fire. Preston said, no sir, upon my honor, if I can in any way avoid it, I knew the captain by sight and name. He had his regimentals a hat on his breastplate and sash round his body and a sword in his hand.

J. Craig Williams:

Lawyers call that wrapping your client in the flag. The trouble here, of course, is that the English flag was presumably not highly favored with this jury character. Evidence is a tricky thing, especially in murder trials. Even so Adams brought a friend to the stand. Thomas Handaside Peck who said of Preston,

Thomas Handaside Peck:

I was at home when the guns were fired. I heard him distinct. I went up to the main guard and addressed myself to the captain and said to him, what have you done? He said, sir, it was none of my doings. The soldiers fired of their own accord. I was in the street and might’ve been shot. His character is good as a gentleman and soldier. I think it exceeds any of the core.

J. Craig Williams:

Adams would also call upon prosecution witness Theodore Bliss’s testimony about Captain Preston’s position in the melee, which confirmed what Preston himself claimed that he stood between his men in the crowd and that he would’ve caused his own injury had he given the order to fire. Adams had done what all good lawyers do in trials, introduce testimony that bolsters your side of the case and makes sense. He also took favorable testimony offered by the other side by placing Captain Preston directly in the line of fire. Adams could convincingly argue that the good captain would never have ordered his men to fire because he would’ve been among the first shot and killed. Adams also solicited supportive testimony from common Bostonians offering a more believable scenario than the testimony offered by the prosecution who had oddly claimed that the angry crowd had their backs turned to the red coats. That is the best a trial a lawyer can do. Weave a logical story from the testimony of witnesses that makes common sense and mixes it with the facts as we would believe them to have occurred based on how people really behave. It’s the same way we argue cases. Now,

Typical of the times, Samuel Quincy did not close the prosecution’s case with the summation of the evidence. Instead, he quoted from legal treatises,

Samuel Quincy:

Not such killing only as proceeds from premeditated hatred or revenge against the person killed, but also in many other cases such as accompanied with those circumstances that shoo the heart to be perversely. Wicked is a judge to be of malice, pretense and consequently murder.

J. Craig Williams:

Snooze away here because that’s likely what the jurors did. Pompous legal phrases were as boring then as they are now and typically they succeed only in putting a jury to sleep. Samuel Quincy’s argument didn’t persuade anybody. Unlike modern trials where only one lawyer can stand up for each side, both John Adams and Josiah Quincy presented closing arguments. Quincy poked at the jurors,

Josiah Quincy:

You lobster, you bloody back, you cowered and you dasd are but some of the expressions proved what words more galling. What? More cutting and provoking to a soldier to be reminded of the color of his garb by which he was distinguished from the rest of his fellow citizens to be compared to the most despicable animal that crawls upon the earth was touching. Indeed, a tender point, a soldier and a coward Gentlemen of the jury, for heaven’s sake, let us put ourselves in the same situation. Would you not spur at the Spiritless institution of society which tells you to be a subject at the expense of your manhood?

J. Craig Williams:

No remaining record appears to exist of John Adams closing argument in Captain Preston’s trial. Although in the next trial of the soldiers, his closing argument there gives an indication of what he would’ve said. In Preston’s case,

John Adams:

Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions. They cannot alter the state of the facts in evidence, nor is the law less stable than the fact if an assault was made to endanger their lives. The law is clear they had a right to kill in their own defense if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives. Yet, if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snowballs, oyster shells, cis clubs, or sticks of any kind, this was a provocation for which the law reduces the offense of killing down to manslaughter. In consideration of those passions in our nature which cannot be eradicated to your candor and justice, I submit the prisoners and their cause.

J. Craig Williams:

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty in favor of Captain Preston. With that finding, our small fledgling country took a giant leap onto the world stage. We showed the world that we could be a people governed by reason, not by unchecked passion. The soldier’s trial began some eight months after Preston’s trial finished. If King George wanted a conviction, then colonial juries did not present a problem for the crown. In many cases, England simply removed the accused criminals to be tried in England instead of allowing the case to proceed in the colonies, it was King George’s practice of divesting Americans of jury trials that led the framers of our constitution to include the right to a jury trial that Wright first appears in Article three, section two and requires trial by jury in criminal cases. But in 1770, crown loyalists realized the tense situation in the colonies after the Boston massacre, they knew the colonists would not tolerate the king taking his soldiers back to England for trial after killing their fellow citizens, the prosecution of the soldiers opened with a short introduction and proceeded to call a lengthy list of witnesses. Typical of the testimony offered by the prosecution, the second witness, Ebenezer Bridgham was questioned by Samuel Quincy.

Samuel Quincy:

Did you apprehend the soldiers in danger from anything you saw?

Ebenezer Bridgham:

I did not indeed.

Samuel Quincy:

You said you saw several blows struck upon the guns. I should like you would make it more plate.

Ebenezer Bridgham:

I saw the people near me on the left strike the soldier’s guns daring them to fire and call them cowardly rascals for bringing arms against naked men.

Samuel Quincy:

Did you see any person fall?

Ebenezer Bridgham:

Yes, I saw Samuel Gray fall.

J. Craig Williams:

Witness after witness testified for their prosecution. Many testified without import because the lawyers simply were questioning witnesses without ever having talked to them prior to the trial. Many testified as patriots instead of eyewitnesses following the lead of those who wanted, the soldiers found guilty. A few like bridge testified with their observations of the events. One piece of key evidence introduced for the defense at the trial was the dying statement of Patrick Carr, one of the victims in the massacre. Whether Carr’s testimony would be admitted into evidence depended on the hearsay rule because Carr was not present in the Courtroom for obvious reasons. Legal historians believe this testimony is the first recorded use of the dying declaration exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule. Carr’s attending physician Dr. John Jeffries testified for the defense.

John Adams:

Was you Patrick Carr’s surgeon?

Dr. John Jeffries:

I was.

John Adams:

Was he Carr apprehensive of his danger?

Dr. John Jeffries:

Yes. He told me he was a native of Ireland, that he had frequently seen mobs and soldiers called upon to quell them. He had seen soldiers often fire on the people in Ireland but had never seen them bear half so much before they fired in his life.

John Adams:

When had you the last conversation with him?

Dr. John Jeffries:

About four o’clock in the afternoon preceding the night on which he died and he then particularly said he forgave the man whoever he was that shot him. He was satisfied. He had no malice but fired to defend himself

J. Craig Williams:

As it is today. It was then a finding of murder requires a finding of intent here, described as malice before a man can be convicted of murder resulting in a sentence of death. Carr’s testimony gave defense attorney John Adams the ability to argue for a lesser included charge of manslaughter, claiming that the soldiers felt threatened by the mob at the conclusion of the trial. Two judges then known as justices instructed a jury of 12 men and in particular Justice Oliver commented on this testimony, this car was not upon oath. It is true, but you will determine whether a man just stepping into eternity is not to be believed, especially in favor of a set of men by whom he had lost his life. The basis for the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule lies in the belief that a dying man has no reason to lie. In his closing argument, John Adams argued from the soldier’s perspective, if the soldiers were endangered by the mob, he reasoned, then they had the legal right to fight back and consequently were innocent. If they were provoked but not endangered, then they were at most guilty of manslaughter without a finding a malice. Adams argued the jurors could not convict the soldiers of murder. He argued the defense’s evidence and pointed out to the jurors the conflicting testimony presented by the prosecution.

John Adams:

However, it is apparent that witnesses are liable to make mistakes by a single example before you. Mr. Bass, who is a very honest man and of good character, swears positively that the tall man Warren stood on the right that night and was the first that fired, and I’m sure you’re satisfied by this time, by many circumstances, that he is totally mistaken in this matter. This you will consider. It’s your leisure. The witnesses in general did not know the faces of these persons before. Very few of them knew the names of them before they only took notice of their faces that night. How much certainty there is in this evidence I leave you to determine

J. Craig Williams:

Here is an ultimate lesson intact. One lost on many trial lawyers today, John Adams called Mr. Bass a liar, but did so in a most kind way using flattery With that kind of lead in, the jurors knew Adams was not attacking the man. Instead, Adams sliced his attacks slowly at the quality of Mr. Bass’s testimony, not at Mr. Bass himself. Adams argued for 12 hours over two days worn out by the long speech court reporter John Hogsdon noted with Bare Kindness.

John Hogsdon:

Mr. Adams proceeded to a minute consideration of every witness produced on the crown side and endeavored to shoot from the evidence on that side, which could not be contested by the Council for the crown, but it would swell this publication too much to insert his observations at large and there is the less necessity for it as they will probably occur to every man who reads the evidence with attention,

J. Craig Williams:

Hodgdon at least was convinced, which is quite an admission because this man who had documented innumerable trials would’ve been the most qualified juror in the room if he had been a juror as a trial lawyer. You’ve won when the court staff is on your side and you’d be smart to get to know them well before the trial and rely on their observations of the witnesses. In all six of the eight soldiers were acquitted. The only two soldiers proven to have fired Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy were found guilty of manslaughter, a charged lesser than murder due to the jury’s belief that they did not act with the required malice. Just as Adams had argued, these two privates were punished by branding M on their thumbs to prevent them from using the same defense again and were later discharged from the British Army. A comparatively minor punishment for his part, John Adams called his defense of the soldiers, one of the most gallant generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country

Colonists bent on war with. England saw these acquittals as bad decisions because the result robbed them of a rallying cry to further foment revolution. The English on the other hand saw the jury’s verdicts as a vindication of their actions and perhaps as one of America’s first tentative steps onto the world stage. Some trials like this one transcend those directly involved in these two cases. The outcome was largely dependent on one man, John Adams. Had he not taken on these unpopular cases, the soldiers would’ve likely been convicted and probably hung by a mob. The victims of the massacre would’ve been hailed as heroes instead of rabble-rousers. Even today, our country’s patriot propaganda attempts to cast the soldier’s actions as the Boston massacre, an obvious attempt to disregard the actual outcome of the two trials. Don’t get me wrong here. I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, a somewhat distant Boston suburb, and I’m consequently proud of the city’s role in the American Revolution, but it’s hard to correlate the Acquittals with a massacre.

Had all the soldiers been convicted, the American Revolution may have occurred just that much sooner. Convictions may have had other consequences as well. Had he been the losing lawyer, John Adams would most likely have been forgotten by history, but instead the Boston Massacre trials was one of the tipping points of his career as a practicing lawyer after his law practice dwindled away because of his unpopular defense of the soldiers. On the other hand, our country’s leaders saw Adam’s defense of the soldiers as a service to his country, which vaulted him first to vice president under George Washington, and then as America’s second president.

Thank you for joining us today. I hope you enjoyed this story. This episode was adapted from the chapter in my book. How Would You Decide 10 famous Trials That Changed History? So if you want the full story of the Boston Massacre Trials and the other nine trials covered in my book, please pick up a copy and learn all the details, testimony, and juicy bits that didn’t make these episodes. You can buy copies on Amazon and all major booksellers. The book is published by Crimson Cloak Publishing and I’m its author, J.Craig Williams. Thanks. Also, go to our script writer, sound designer and sound mixer. Nathan Toddhunter, our producer, Kate Kenny Nutting. Lisa Kirkman, our director of partnerships, and the publisher of my book, Carly McCracken of Crimmon Publishing, who granted permission for the Legal Talk Networks adaptation, and a very special thanks to our voiceover actors, Scott Well, who played the role of John Adams.

Alan Chudnow, who played the role of Samuel Quincy, Skylar C, who played the role of Josiah Quincy, Alan Parsons, who played the role of Captain Thomas Preston. Neil Harvey, who played the role of the British soldier, Robert Matson, who played the role of Samuel Adams. Dan Ring, who played the role of Daniel Calef Patrick Correia, who played the role of Richard Palms. Kate Kenney Nutting, who played the role of the female witness, Brian Dreesen, who played the role of Benjamin Lee. Andrew Clark, who played the role of Thomas Handaside Peck Robert “Terry” Terelak, who played the role of Ebenezer Brim. Judd Pierce, who played the role of Dr. John Jeffries, as well as Christopher Rogers who played the role of John Hogenson. Thanks for the privilege of your time today. We look forward to seeing you again. I’m Craig Williams. Please stay tuned for our next episode of In Dispute on the Legal Talk Network.

Continue Reading