The Legacy of Sacco & Vanzetti

Experts argued over whether the four bullets removed from the victims could be matched to Sacco's pistol. Their opinions had no basis in science and one expert was even exposed as a conniving fraud. Nevertheless, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder and sentenced to be executed. There rose an outcry from the Italian community that the trial had been unfair. People formed protests, here and abroad, insisting the men were innocent (as did the defendants themselves).

Calvin Goddard, from the Bureau of Forensic Ballistics in New York

During their appeal, a committee hired Calvin Goddard, from the Bureau of Forensic Ballistics in New York, to re-examine the evidence with his newly devised comparison microscope. In the presence of one of the defense experts, he fired a bullet from Sacco's gun into a wad of cotton and then placed the ejected shells on the comparison microscope. Next to it, he examined the collected evidentiary shells. In terms of the marks left by the gun, the first two shells from the scene were no match, but the third one was. Even the defense expert conceded the remarkable similarity. That same year, 1927, the two defendants went to the electric chair. Vanzetti proclaimed his innocence, while Sacco cried, "Long live anarchy!"

Sacco's Gun

However, there continue to be opponents to the verdict, claiming that because the defendants were anarchists, the conviction was politically motivated: they had been guilty from the start. Any investigator who wanted to see them convicted could have substituted a spent casing fired from Sacco's gun for one of the suspect bullets. Thus, whatever science could tell them was beside the point. Despite a subsequent investigation with better ballistics technology in 1961, which supported Goddard's findings, in 1977, Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts issued a proclamation declaring Sacco and Vanzetti innocent.

Former Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts

While the question of whether they were guilty or innocent is certainly appropriate, the filmmakers are clear that it's not the key issue. The real question was whether they received a fair trial, based on the idea that they were innocent until proven guilty. The clear answer is, no, they did not. But they aren't alone. Neither did immigrant Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and probably others not nearly so well known. It was a time of power and thuggery, even (especially) in our government. It was also a time of fear of foreigners.

Bruno Richard Hauptmann

While we can't change the past, there's still a good reason to look back at what happened: we can use this case to remind us of how, during times of unrest, we're vulnerable to stereotyping and a rush to judgment that has terrible repercussions in the lives of individuals. We forget our ideals and adopt an "us vs. them" mentality that cannot help but undermine what our country stands for.

Actors Tony Shalhoub and John Turturro

What this film brings out that's new is the writing that both defendants did while in prison. Tony Shalhoub and John Turturro read their letters to flesh them out as individuals. Music, artwork, and footage from the times punctuate the narrative and remind us of the indelible impression the case has made on our culture.