DFwk5

From ABC-CLIO's American History website https://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/

Sacco and Vanzetti Trial

In 1920, two Italian immigrants named Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were arrested for an armed robbery in which two men had been killed in Braintree, Massachusetts. Both men, who had been active in the anarchist political movement, denied any guilt in the a�air. Their case became an international controversy and brought the fairness and objectivity of the American justice system into serious question.

Innocent Men or Dangerous Anarchists?

Sacco and Vanzetti quickly became symbols in the growing class struggle in the United States after World War I. In the eyes of immigrant union members, left-wing radicals, and rebels of all kinds, they were innocent men who were being railroaded for their political beliefs. Members of the established power structure saw them as dangerous foreigners out to ruin the American way of life.

In what many observers—including some who believed that the defendants were guilty—felt was an unfair trial, both men were convicted of murder and given the death penalty. Protests and demonstrations were held in support of Sacco and Vanzetti, and appeals to spare their lives came from all over the world.

Execution and Continued Controversy

The two men faced their fate with calm and fortitude. Sympathy for them grew as their execution neared, and letters written by them to Sacco's son Dante were made public. Although their English was shaky, their words seemed strangely eloquent. "One day, you will understand," Vanzetti wrote in an e�ort to comfort the 13-year-old boy whose father was the subject of so much prejudice and hate. "That day you will be proud of your father; and if you come brave enough, you will take his place in the struggle between tyranny and liberty, and you will vindicate his names [sic] and our blood."

Both men were executed in the electric chair of the prison at Charlestown, Massachusetts, on August 23, 1927. Many Americans breathed a sigh of relief at the news of their death. In their eyes, the murderous rebels were dead, and the turmoil that had surrounded their case could now die, too. Others, however, mourned the deaths and agreed with a protest sign carried by the poet Edna St. Vincent Millay: "American honor dies with Sacco and Vanzetti." The question of the two men's guilt or innocence is still a matter of historical controversy.

Michael Kronenwetter Further Reading

Sacco, Nicola and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti. New York: Penguin Books, 2014; Tejada, Susan. In Search of Sacco and Vanzetti: Double Lives, Troubled Times, and the Massachusetts Murder Case That Shook the World. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press, 2012; Temkin, Moshik. The Sacco-Vanzetti A�air: America on Trial. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ABC-CLIO, LLC

This content may be used for non-commercial, course and research purposes only.

Image Credits

Sacco and Vanzetti trial: Library of Congress

APA Citation

7/6/24, 6:16 PM Print Display - Sacco and Vanzetti Trial - Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc--clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/252791?sTypeId=2 1/2

Kronenwetter, M.J. (2024). Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. American History. Retrieved July 6, 2024, from https://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/252791   http://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/252791? sid=252791&cid=0&oid=0&subId=0&view=print&lang=&useConcept=False Entry ID: 252791

7/6/24, 6:16 PM Print Display - Sacco and Vanzetti Trial - Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc--clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/252791?sTypeId=2 2/2

From ABC-CLIO's American History website https://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/

Hauptmann trial The trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh's infant son was one of the 20th century's most sensational and is often referred to as the "trial of the century." As a result of Lindbergh's immense popularity, media scrutiny of the case was unparalleled, but concrete evidence against Hauptmann was negligible. He was found guilty nonetheless, and the Lindberghs were forced to move to England to escape the attention of the press and public. On the evening of March 1, 1932, the 20-month-old son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh was kidnapped from the upstairs nursery of the family's estate in Hopewell, New Jersey. Lindbergh had awed the nation and the world in 1927 by �ying an airplane from Long Island, New York to Paris, France. He and his wife had moved to Hopewell to escape the constant glare of publicity that came with being the most famous man in the world. The kidnapping of their �rst child, Charles Jr., spoiled what was a happy, although very public, life and began several years of sadness, frustration, and anger that culminated in the trial of Hauptmann in 1935.

The Lindberghs explored every possible avenue to get their son back. A poorly written ransom note was left in the nursery demanding $50,000 for the return of Charlie, and the Lindberghs arranged through a mediator, retired college professor Dr. John F. Condon, to leave the money at a graveyard in the Bronx, New York. The Lindberghs did not �nd the baby at the designated location after paying the ransom, however. The search continued, and on May 12, his body was found on the Lindbergh estate, the victim of an accident or murder on the night he was kidnapped.

Now looking for a murderer rather than a kidnapper, the New Jersey police questioned the Lindberghs' household sta� intensely. One employee, Violet Sharpe, committed suicide on June 10, although it is doubtful that she was involved. Police did not apprehend a suspect until September 1934, when after months of work looking for the bills given as ransom, they traced a $10 gold certi�cate from a gas station to Hauptmann, a German immigrant and carpenter who lived in the Bronx. Subsequent searches of his property discovered almost $15,000 of the ransom money.

Hauptmann's trial began on January 2, 1935 and lasted until February 13. It was covered by more than 700 reporters, attended by spectators from all over the nation, and centered almost solely on circumstantial evidence, including the money and handwriting analysis that linked Hauptmann to the ransom note. Perhaps the most impressive detective work was that of Arthur Koehler, a wood chemist and forester who even before Hauptmann's arrest successfully traced wood from a ladder left at the crime scene to a lumberyard in the Bronx where Hauptmann had worked. He also traced a replaced rung on the ladder to a missing board in Hauptmann's attic. Condon testi�ed at the trial that the voice of the individual he gave the ransom money to was Hauptmann's. In addition, Condon's phone number was found scrawled on one of Hauptmann's closet doors.

Hauptmann took the stand in his own defense and claimed that the money found in his house was left in his care by Isidor Fisch, an immigrant who had since returned to Germany and died of tuberculosis. Hauptmann claimed he was "borrowing" from the money because of a debt Fisch owed him, but he had not informed Fisch's relatives or his own wife of the existence of the cash, and much of his testimony was contradictory. Many other defense witnesses were shown to be incompetent and lacked credibility.

Hauptmann was found guilty and sentenced to death, to be carried out by electrocution on April 2, 1936. In the meantime, a number of individuals questioned the adequacy of the evidence against him and suggested that, at the very least, he must have had some aid from a worker in the Lindbergh household or elsewhere. New Jersey

7/6/24, 6:15 PM Print Display - Hauptmann trial - Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc--clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/252758?sTypeId=2 1/2

governor Harold Ho�man, a young man with strong political ambition, became intimately involved in the case and even interviewed Hauptmann in his jail cell. Publicity surrounding the trial was intense, and overwhelmed by constant public scrutiny and fear for the safety of their second son, Jon, the Lindberghs moved to England.

Hauptmann went to his death professing his innocence. In 1982, his widow, Anna, unsuccessfully tried to sue the state and other individuals involved for wrongful death. As late as 1991, when she was 92 years old, she pled for a reopening of his case. The remainder of the ransom money has never been found, and no �ngerprints were found linking Hauptmann to the crime scene. Although most trial experts believe that Hauptmann was guilty, many think he may have had one or more accomplices.

One result of the Lindbergh kidnapping, besides an increased public fascination with crime coverage, was that Congress passed the "Lindbergh law," which made kidnapping a federal crime if the victim is taken across state lines or if the U.S. Postal Service is used for ransom demands. Further Reading

Berg, A. Scott, Lindbergh, 1998; Fisher, Jim, The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the Lindbergh Case, 1999; Monroe, Judy, The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping Trial: A Headline Court Case, 2000.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ABC-CLIO, LLC

This content may be used for non-commercial, course and research purposes only.

Image Credits

Charles Lindbergh on the stand: Library of Congress

APA Citation Hauptmann trial. (2024). American History. Retrieved July 6, 2024, from https://americanhistory2.abc- clio.com/Search/Display/252758   http://americanhistory2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/252758? sid=252758&cid=0&oid=0&subId=0&view=print&lang=&useConcept=False Entry ID: 252758

7/6/24, 6:15 PM Print Display - Hauptmann trial - Reference Articles

https://americanhistory2-abc--clio-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Search/Display/252758?sTypeId=2 2/2