What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sacco-Vanzetti Trial
Recreates the murder trial of Italian immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti, using edited transcripts of the testimony given in the case, and invites the reader to act as judge and jury
- GenresChildrens
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
About the author
Doreen Rappaport
63 books79 followersDoreen Rappaport has written many books of fiction and nonfiction for young readers, specializing in thoroughly researched multicultural history, historical fiction, retellings of folktales and myths, and stories of those she calls the "not-yet-celebrated." Among her recent books is Martin's Big Words: The Life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., illustrated by Bryan Collier, which received a Caldecott Honor Award and a Coretta Scott King Honor Award for illustration. Doreen Rappaport divides her time between New York City and a rural village in upstate New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 1, 2015
It was a decent introduction for kids, but it was really oversimplified and nothing is really cited at all besides "these are simplified witness statements"-- ok.. but how simplified? Are they just chopped up and re-pasted or completely summarized? I get that it's for kids, but some explanation as to her method would have been nice.
Want to Read
April 6, 2010check back out to read better. has true accounts from trial.
February 4, 2019
A history teaser: if you want a quick view into the issues surrounding the still controversial 1920s trial and execution of the two Italian anarchists accused of robbery and murder in Massachusetts, you can do a lot worse than starting your study with this book. With no ax to grind, Rappaport presents excerpts of trial testimony and related background material in a chronological order that spans the robbery through the trial, appeals process and execution. The book also includes a brief closing chapter that examines the law extant during the 1920s trial vs. the law today, i. e., the impact today’s much stricter laws regarding evidence handling procedures, witness testimony and the rights of the accused might have if the events occurred in more recent times.
The author clearly states her objectives for the book: the reader is to assume the role of juror and in this case, the scope of the information provided is limited, but enough to enable you the juror to intelligently answer the questions posed at the end of each section, e. g. is an eyewitness credible? can conflicting expert testimony be sorted so that you are able to choose one version over another? is the judge guilty of making unbiased statements to the jury and is he (in this case) obviously prejudiced against the accused?, etc. Unfortunately this statement appears as an “Afterword” at the end of the book. The reader might be better served regarding expectations if this statement of the purpose appeared as a “Preface”.
From this juror’s perspective, the sum of the evidence presented during the trial does not allow a guilty verdict “beyond a reasonable” doubt. The physical evidence (gun and cap), conflicting testimony presented by witnesses who often lack credibility or whose statements are not corroborated by another witness, questionable (and even then illegal) behavior by the trial judge, prosecutors, police and defense counsel all add up to a zero-sum game. If this is so obvious, why were they convicted? This trial, like the Bruno Hauptmann trial years later, brought an enormous emotional factor that must have contributed to the jury’s decision: when the evidence is contradictory, incomplete or downright baffling, go with your gut. Sacco and Vanzetti got a bum trial and no mercy in the appellate process, so they paid the price of political expediency. My impression from reading the transcript excerpts presented by the author is that even the most stringent adherence to the rules of law and trial procedure might not have saved Sacco and Vanzetti. The actual jury was out for only five hours and one juror said they had reached a unanimous guilty verdict after only one hour and just hung around for a while to make it look good.
In the end, a complete examination of evidence given by the crime witnesses, expert testimony, the complete trial and appeal transcripts and subsequent post-execution testimony given by myriad individuals would be required to form a more intelligent opinion over the issues, but I suspect that anything resembling certainty regarding what actually happened at the scene of the crime and who was responsible is forever lost.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is the understanding gained regarding the trial process and the (at least theoretical) roles played (or should be) by all participants. Important, lest we as a society bury legal fundamentals / actual law under layers of sentiment, emotion and weaponized media coverage.
The author clearly states her objectives for the book: the reader is to assume the role of juror and in this case, the scope of the information provided is limited, but enough to enable you the juror to intelligently answer the questions posed at the end of each section, e. g. is an eyewitness credible? can conflicting expert testimony be sorted so that you are able to choose one version over another? is the judge guilty of making unbiased statements to the jury and is he (in this case) obviously prejudiced against the accused?, etc. Unfortunately this statement appears as an “Afterword” at the end of the book. The reader might be better served regarding expectations if this statement of the purpose appeared as a “Preface”.
From this juror’s perspective, the sum of the evidence presented during the trial does not allow a guilty verdict “beyond a reasonable” doubt. The physical evidence (gun and cap), conflicting testimony presented by witnesses who often lack credibility or whose statements are not corroborated by another witness, questionable (and even then illegal) behavior by the trial judge, prosecutors, police and defense counsel all add up to a zero-sum game. If this is so obvious, why were they convicted? This trial, like the Bruno Hauptmann trial years later, brought an enormous emotional factor that must have contributed to the jury’s decision: when the evidence is contradictory, incomplete or downright baffling, go with your gut. Sacco and Vanzetti got a bum trial and no mercy in the appellate process, so they paid the price of political expediency. My impression from reading the transcript excerpts presented by the author is that even the most stringent adherence to the rules of law and trial procedure might not have saved Sacco and Vanzetti. The actual jury was out for only five hours and one juror said they had reached a unanimous guilty verdict after only one hour and just hung around for a while to make it look good.
In the end, a complete examination of evidence given by the crime witnesses, expert testimony, the complete trial and appeal transcripts and subsequent post-execution testimony given by myriad individuals would be required to form a more intelligent opinion over the issues, but I suspect that anything resembling certainty regarding what actually happened at the scene of the crime and who was responsible is forever lost.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is the understanding gained regarding the trial process and the (at least theoretical) roles played (or should be) by all participants. Important, lest we as a society bury legal fundamentals / actual law under layers of sentiment, emotion and weaponized media coverage.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews