The case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian immigrant anarchists executed in 1927 for a 1920 murder and robbery in Massachusetts, remains a landmark example of judicial prejudice. Arrested during the height of the Red Scare, their trial was less about evidence and more about their political beliefs and ethnicity. Judge Webster Thayer exhibited overt bias, and the evidence was deeply conflicting, relying heavily on the fact that the men were armed and gave inconsistent statements when arrested.

Despite a global outcry from figures like Albert Einstein and a later confession from Celestino Maderos implicating another gang, all appeals for a new trial were denied. Modern ballistics tests confirmed the fatal bullet came from Sacco’s gun, but the evidence's provenance is considered contaminated. The case was further complicated when the defense lawyer, Fred Moore, later confessed to fabricating their alibis. Vanzetti’s powerful final statement framed their execution not as a defeat, but as a “triumph” in exposing the system’s injustice, a sentiment echoed in worldwide protests.

The legacy of the case is profound. It inspired songs, literature, and, most importantly, legal reforms in Massachusetts to ensure greater fairness in capital cases. In 1977, Governor Michael Dukakis officially declared that Sacco and Vanzetti had been unfairly tried and convicted, condemning the trial as a judicial disgrace. Their story endures as a tragic lesson in how fear and prejudice can corrupt the pursuit of justice.

"Please comment "