The Legacy of Sacco & Vanzetti
The South Braintree Trial
This trial began the day after Memorial Day, May 31, 1921. Sacco was represented by Fred H. Moore, a lawyer from California noted for his defense of radicals. Vanzetti's counsel was Jeremiah McAnarney, an associate of Moore's.
Once again, the prosecutor was Katzmann, and the presiding judge, Webster Thayer. It took over a month to select a jury. Much was made in the press of Moore's out-of-state origins, and his willingness to defend unpopular radicals.
The case for the prosecution was developed along three principal lines. First, Katzmann produced eye-witnesses that placed Sacco in the area of the killings. Four identified Vanzetti, seven recognized Sacco. Of these eleven witnesses, only one, Lewis Pelzer, testified that he had seen the shooting, although prior to the trial he had told the defense that he had ducked under the table when the shooting began and had seen nothing.
Second, Katzmann centered on the bullets. Six bullets had been removed from the victims, and testimony concerning the types of guns from which the bullets were fired was confused. One expert for the prosecution, Captain Proctor of the State Police, could only say guardedly that the bullet that killed Beradelli was "consistent with being fired by that [Sacco's Colt] pistol." Later, Proctor would state that Katzmann knew of his uncertainty as to the identification of the source of the bullet, and framed his equivocal answer for Proctor to give in court.
An oddity that was never developed by either the prosecution or the defense was that the different kinds of bullets in the bodies of the two victims would suggest that the one gunman who committed the killings must have used two guns, firing with both hands. No testimony was given that this had been the case.
Vanzetti's gun, Katzmann maintained, was, in actuality, Beradelli's. Beradelli had owned a similar gun, but it had been in the repair shop receiving a new hammer. No evidence existed to show that Beradelli had ever picked up his gun, and employees at the repair shop could not be certain that Vanzetti's gun was the one that they had repaired. The long string of owners of the gun and the repair men never noted the gun's serial number.
The third line of the prosecution's case was "consciousness of guilt," that is, Sacco and Vanzetti behaved like guilty men. First, there was their need for the car, and their "flight" when they found they could not get it. The defense argued that the car was needed to dispose of incriminating material anarchist literature, the guns in the light of Sacco and Vanzetti's fear that they would meet the fate of Salsedo if they were found with anarchist materials. Second, they were armed when arrested, Third, their weapons and ammunition were consistent with the shootings of Parmenter and Beradelli. Fourth, they gave false accounts when arrested about who they had been visiting and the source of their guns.
In order to explain all of these issues, the defense found it necessary to introduce the anarchistic beliefs of the defendants, so that their fears could justify their possession of firearms Sacco was at times a night watchman for his shoe company, Vanzetti carried comparatively large sums of cash in his fish-peddling business and their need to dispose of radical literature. This provided, with Judge Thayer's assistance, a method by which Katzmann could prejudice the jury.
In a savage cross-examination of Sacco, Katzmann played on the patriotism of the jury by questioning Sacco's flight to Mexico, his refusal to accept the draft, and his "love of country," a sarcastic ploy by Katzmann to discredit Sacco. The transcript of this section of the trial is maddening, with numerous objections by McAnarney, over-ruled by a clearly prejudiced Judge Thayer. Sacco's attempt to explain himself, in broken English, allowed Katzmann to seize on innocent statements, and forced "yes-or-no" answers from Sacco, who viewed the questions as unanswerable.
The defense built up the alibis of both men. Sacco had been in Boston, seeking a passport to return to Italy. This was supported by several witnesses, including a member of the Italian consulate. Katzmann countered with the argument that a visit to Boston might be true, but it had occurred on a day other than April 15th, and that it was impossible after over a year to remember the actual date. Katzmann used the same device when witnesses testified that Vanzetti had been selling fish and talking with friends.
On July 14, 1921, after a little more than half a day's deliberation, the jury found both Sacco and Vanzetti guilty.