Piracy Trials: Granting Limited Legal Representation

Not every break with felony precedent worked against the accused. Occasionally, courts recognized the inherent disadvantage for those charged with piracy, granting limited counsel to defendants, something unheard of in felony proceedings. Courts were usually trying to minimize any post-trial cries of injustice by allowing representation, knowing the courtroom limitations on counsel and the structure of the hearings mitigated the potential risk to convictions. Paul Dudley, Governor of Massachusetts and President of the Court during the John Quelch trial, permitted defendants counsel, declaring before the court “The articles upon which you are Arraigned, are plain Matters of Fact; however, that you may no Reason to complain of Hardship, Mr. James Meinzies, Attorney at Law, may assist you, and offer any Matter of Law in your behalf upon

In high treason cases, if the accused refused to enter a plea, the court took his ‘silence’ as a confession. In contrast to this simplistic approach, felony trials responded with brutal blunt force to coerce a plea from intractable defendants. If those before the bar continued in their obstinate behavior, the bailiff returned them to their cell, where they were ‘pressed.’ Jailers placed heavy weights on the accused until they agreed to enter or plea or had their chest cavity caved in. However, during the Kidd hearing, justices followed treason trial precedent to force pleas from defendants, “If you were indicted for Felony, and you will not plead, the Law takes it in nature of a Confession, and Judgment must pass, as if you were proved guilty.” Although holding no legislative authority in England, the Piracy Act of 1700, drafted three years before the Kidd trial, contains nearly identical language and may have been the origin for this break in pre-trial