Guest post by Michael Ariens:
This is the first of five posts related to the idea that American lawyers have a duty to representing unpopular clients, for the sake of both those clients and in the interests of a public that despises those clients. These stories come from my book, The Lawyer’s Conscience: A History of American Lawyer Ethics (2023).
In 2011, President Barack Obama declared that May 1, since the late 1950s celebrated as “Law Day,” would be dedicated to “The Legacy of John Adams: From Boston to Guantanamo.” “Boston,” of course, meant the 1770 Boston Massacre, and John Adams’s legacy concerned his work representing Captain Thomas Preston and the eight soldiers accused of murdering five Bostonians. Adams, then in his mid-thirties, was one of three lawyers representing Preston, including Robert Auchmuty, a loyalist, and Josiah Quincy Jr., a patriot who died in 1775 at thirty-one. They obtained an acquittal for Preston, in part a result of successful cross-examinations of witnesses, which placed into doubt the claim that Preston had ordered the soldiers to fire. The following month, Adams and Quincy represented the eight soldiers. Six were acquitted, and two convicted of manslaughter, the punishment for which was branding on the thumb rather than hanging. Although loyalists, including lieutenant governor Thomas Hutchinson, voiced some suspicions that Adams was “not so faithful as he ought to be” in defending the soldiers, the received wisdom was that Adams had served his unpopular clients well by zealously defending them in extraordinarily lengthy trials. Shortly before Adams died in 1826, a Massachusetts lawyer and writer concluded, “it required no little independence, to appear in defence [sic] of the prisoners, when the popular sentiment was so highly adverse to his side of the case.” This became the standard story: Adams’s zealous defense of unpopular clients represented the “apogee of the American legal profession.”
Though the standard story has occasionally been questioned, it has largely held up, as demonstrated by President Obama’s declaration. But in praising Adams, lawyers have glossed over some of his tactics in representing the soldiers. In particular, few have noted his attack on the victims in his closing argument in behalf of the soldiers. The victims, Adams told the jury, constituted a “motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes, Irish teagues and out landish [sic] Jack tarrs.” “Negroes and molattoes,” “Irish teagues” (likely a slur against Roman Catholics), and “Jack tarrs” (sailors) were not true members of the Boston community. Adams also made false declarations regarding the behavior of one of those victims, Patrick Carr, “a native of Ireland.” Adams wrongly accused Carr of threatening the soldiers when no evidence of any such threats was offered. Adams was wrongly accused by Hutchinson of too little ardor; playing on the passions and prejudices of the jury in an effort to obtain acquittals, Adams may have demonstrated too much ardor for his clients’ cause.
Recent Comments