The Trial of Captain Preston: Eyewitness Testimony Analysis

Introduction

The Trial of Captain Preston was a landmark legal proceeding that took place in Boston, Massachusetts in 1770, following the Boston Massacre. Captain Thomas Preston was a British officer 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 British authorities. John Adams, who later became the second President of the United States, served as one of the defense attorneys. 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. Based on the contradictory testimony of eyewitnesses, it was the right decision — and this paper will explain why.

Preston's Deposition

A 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 that 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 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 toward the soldiers and that the soldiers 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 frequently cited in discussions of the incident. It should be noted, however, that his version of events is not the only one, and many have disputed his account over the years. Nonetheless, he offers a credible explanation for what happened — as opposed to the contradictory testimonies of the many different eyewitnesses. His credibility, coupled with the discrepancies in what eyewitnesses reported, is sufficient to show that he deserved to be acquitted, since one could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did as he was accused.

Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimony

The eyewitnesses gave contradictory testimony, casting serious doubt on who was responsible for the shooting. For instance, there is considerable confusion as to whether the man who gave the order to fire was an officer or the captain, and whether he wore a surtout. William Wyatt testified that the man wore a cloth-colored surtout — not the captain, but the man speaking to him. John Cole said Preston wore no surtout but had on a red coat. Diman Morton said the captain had on a surtout and that it was not red. Nathaniel Fosdick said the captain wore a sword and was dressed in his regimentals.

These discrepancies alone are enough to call into question the veracity of all the testimonies, since the witnesses could not even agree on what the captain was wearing. If there is no agreement on that basic matter, how can there be agreement beyond a reasonable doubt as to whether he gave an order to fire? Quite simply, there cannot be. The testimonies are, on this point, inconclusive.

Then there is the matter of where the captain stood before, during, and after the firing. Again, there is no agreement among the witnesses. Some say he was behind the soldiers, others say he was among them, and still others say he was in front when giving the order. The reliability of eyewitness testimony in chaotic, high-stress situations has long been questioned — and the record from this trial illustrates precisely why.

For instance, Peter Cunningham alleged: "Captain came and ordered the Men to prime and load. He came before 'em about 4 or 5 minutes after and put up their Guns with his Arm. They then fired and were priming and loading again. I am pretty positive the Capt. bid 'em Prime and load. I stood about 4 feet off him." This stands in clear contrast to what Benjamin Burdick reported: "After the firing the Captain came before the Soldiers and put up their Guns with his arm and said stop firing, dont fire no more or dont fire again. I heard the word fire and took it and am certain that it came from behind the Soldiers. I saw a man passing busily behind who I took to be an Officer. The firing was a little time after."

Conclusion

For these reasons, the jury was correct to acquit. Proof 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 precisely because of the gravity of those consequences. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — meaning the evidence presented must 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 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. In the case of Captain Preston, there was no certainty with respect to eyewitness testimony about what he wore, where he was standing, what he said, whether he gave the order to fire, or what exactly transpired at that moment. The eyewitness testimony varied significantly — enough to render it all inconclusive. Some witnesses said he gave the order, others said he did not. That is sufficient to establish reasonable doubt and to justify acquittal.

References

Fahsing, I. (2022). Beyond reasonable doubt: How to think like an expert detective. In Police Psychology (pp. 267–295). Academic Press.

Wheeler, B., & Becker, R. (1990). The American Past. Houghton Mifflin Company.