The Trial of Captain Preston

Introduction

The Trial of Captain Preston was a famous trial that took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770, following the Boston Massacre. Captain Thomas Preston was a British officer who was accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd of American colonists, killing five people. The trial was a highly charged political event, with tensions running high between the colonists and the British authorities. John Adams, who later became the second President of the United States, was one of the defense attorneys in the trial. The prosecution argued that Preston had ordered his men to fire on the crowd, while the defense maintained that the soldiers had acted in self-defense. In the end, the jury acquitted Preston, and based on the contradictory testimony of eyewitnesses, it was the right decision; this paper will explain why.

Prestons Deposition

Deposition was given by Captain Thomas Preston on March 12, 1770, regarding the events leading up to the Boston Massacre. In it Preston describes how the arrival of the British troops in Boston had been very unpopular with the locals, who had been actively trying to weaken and undermine the regiments. It is [a] matter of too great notoriety to need any proofs that the arrival of his Majesty's troops in Boston was extremely obnoxious to its inhabitants, he notes in his deposition (Wheeler, 1990). He goes on to detail several disputes between the townspeople and soldiers, which had been escalating in the days leading up to the massacre. Preston then describes the events of March 5, when tensions boiled over and a mob of townspeople began attacking British soldiers. He then claims that he had been trying to defuse the situation and that the soldiers had not been ordered to load their weapons. He also reports that the mob had been using violent and threatening language towards the soldiers, and that they had been struck with clubs and other weapons. Preston's deposition provides insight into the perspective of the British troops during the Boston Massacre, and his account is often cited in discussions of the incident. However, it should be noted that his version of events is not the only one, and many people have disputed his account over the years. Nonetheless, he does offer a credible explanation for what happenedas opposed to the contradictory testimonies of the many different eyewitnesses. His credibility coupled with the discrepancies in what the eyewitnesses reported is enough to show that he deserved to be acquitted, since one could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did as he was accused.

The Eye Witnesses

Indeed, the eye witnesses gave contradictory testimony, casting doubt as to who was responsible for the shooting. For instance, there is a great deal of confusion as to whether the man who gave the order to fire was an officer or the captain, and whether he wore a surtout or no surtout. William Wyatt says the man wore a cloth colored surtoutnot the captain, but the one speaking to him. John Cole says Preston wore no surtout but had on a red coat. Diman Morton says the Captain had on a surtout and that it was not red. Nathaniel Fosdick says the Captain wore a sword and was dressed in his regimentals. So just these discrepancies are enough to...

Conclusion

For these reasons, the jury was correct to acquit. Certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction in criminal cases because the consequences of a criminal conviction are serious and can result in loss of liberty or even the death penalty. Therefore, the legal system places a high burden of proof on the prosecution to ensure that the accused is not wrongly convicted. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is higher than that required in a civil case because of the seriousness of the consequences. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence presented must be such that it would leave no reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that the accused committed the crime (Fahsing, 2022). The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is intended to protect the accused from being convicted on flimsy or circumstantial evidence, and to ensure that only those who are truly guilty of a crime are punished. While this high standard of proof can make it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions, it is essential for maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and protecting the rights of the accused. There was no certainty with respect to eyewitness testimony about what Preston wore, where he was standing, what he said, whether he gave the order to fire, or what exactly transpired at the time. The eyewitness testimony varied significantly and enough to make it all a moot point. Some said he gave the orders and others said he did not. That is enough to give…