From the moment the redcoats set foot in Boston tensions were high. Civilians and soldiers were constantly in conflict, so it is no surprise that the Boston Massacre took place. What is surprising is the surprising outcome of an acquittal. There was undoubtedly hostility on both sides, but the general attitude towards the English occupiers was negative, even more so after the event. But when no lawyer came to the defense on the soldier's behalf, John Adams could not stand by. The idea that every man has the right to a fair and just trial was what I believe was the primary motivation why Adams took the case. Respect for the law was very important to John Adams regardless of the personal beliefs of the accused; by not allowing the soldiers and captain adequate counsel, the colony was behaving hypocritically by believing the law was just and fair unlike the crown of England which they resent. There is other speculation about Adams' involvement in the trials that is not based solely on his nobility. The encouragement to take the case might have come from the possible guarantee of a seat in the Boston legislature, considering he was the first choice three months after the successful trial. Perhaps the attention from the trial, although extremely negative at the time, was something he wanted to be remembered by. Regardless of vanity reasons, John Adams took great risks and faced repercussions as his law practice collapsed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe most important thing to Adams about the case was the facts and convincing the jury to separate their own resentment towards England from that of the accused men. As he famously quotes, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever our desires, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence.” Much of the defense's cross-examination centered on who shouted the word "fire" and whether or not the redcoats were acting in self-defense against a hostile crowd or lawful assembly. But the fact of the matter was that Captain Preston had not given the order to the troops to fire and this was something difficult to prove especially when witnesses in an emotional crowd might be inclined not to tell the truth. But an innocent indictment was still issued for both the captain and his troops, against undesirable odds that John Adams was able to convince a jury to look beyond their own prejudices. Much has changed in the conduct of trials in today's courts, most evidently in the United States, judges do not wear wigs. Another most important aspect of modern court proceedings is the way witnesses are presented. Taking them away from the pressure of the crowd certainly helps to improve the testimony. I believe the phrase "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" was implemented after this trial because the ruling was made based on the jurors' reasonable doubt based on the evidence that the troops acted in self-defense. Another difference between now and then in court proceedings is that inconveniences such as expressing emotional distress from the gallery are not tolerated and can land you in contempt with a fine and possible prison time. Aside from the differences in how courts rule now versus then, many things are still the same. Respect for the law regardless of the emotions of the majority was as relevant then as it is today, at least in this specific case. Keep in mind: this is.