03/03/2026
This year marks the 250th anniversary of our nation. As we celebrate this milestone, we naturally reflect on the freedoms and the rights that have made this nation great—the right to speak, worship, and associate consistent with our beliefs. The premise undergirding these rights, first espoused in the Declaration of Independence, is that every person is made by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was these fundamental beliefs that motivated our founding fathers to establish this nation on July 4, 1776. This year, as we celebrate our nation’s founding, we will retell the stories of the vision and courage of the early American leaders who drafted the Declaration of Independence, fought in the Revolutionary War, and set the nation on a course toward a representative democracy.
In that spirit, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the history of the state courts and their significance in preserving the liberties we have enjoyed for more than 250 years. Years before our nation was established, before the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, or the federal courts existed, the American Colonial courts, the forerunners of our contemporary state courts, were formed to maintain order and resolve disputes in the growing communities throughout the Colonies. The courts were the primary guardians of the rule of law during this time. For those living in what would become America in the 17th and 18th century, justice was not something that happened in distant capitals—it happened in local courthouses. These early courts were influenced by English common law, reinforcing the importance of legal precedent and the development of legal codes and statutes, so that rules would be applied fairly and consistently in every case. As many Colonies began to distance themselves from the king and British rule, tensions developed in the courts. Would the courts be loyal to and subject to the influence of the crown, or would the judiciary remain independent and decide cases based upon the rule of law? Trial by jury was one of the primary means by which Colonial courts began to develop independence from the British crown. Jury trials allowed citizens drawn randomly from within the community to make the decisions in cases based upon the rules and facts presented during the trial. One of these first major tests of this independent court system took place in Massachusetts following the Boston Massacre. On March 5, 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd of several hundred Colonists protesting the increasing presence of the soldiers sent by Great Britain to quell the growing rebellion in the American Colonies. Five Colonists were killed. The outrage of Colonists and the local newspapers was swift and immediate. The soldiers were widely presumed guilty of murdering innocent civilians. The public demanded justice. The captain and eight British soldiers were charged with murder and scheduled to be tried by a jury of local citizens in a Massachusetts court.
As one might expect, the British soldiers had a difficult time finding an attorney to represent them in Boston, as defending them carried enormous political and personal risk. Then an unlikely lawyer stepped forward to represent the British soldiers—John Adams, the man who would become our second U.S. president and one of the Committee of Five selected by the Continental Congress a few years later to draft the Declaration of Independence. Adams was fully aware of the difficulties these men faced in obtaining a fair trial. The British captain was tried first. He was acquitted by an independent jury based upon testimony of several eyewitnesses who stated that the captain had not fired his weapon and had not ordered the troops to fire into the crowd. The other eight British soldiers were later tried on murder charges and were also represented by Adams. Following six days of testimony from dozens of witnesses, a jury found two of the soldiers guilty of manslaughter after hearing Boston Massacre print by Paul Revere Jr. testimony that they fired their weapons after they were pelted by rocks and snowballs.
The jury acquitted the other six British soldiers based upon the absence of evidence that any of them had fired their weapons at the crowd. In his closing argument to the jury in the second trial, Adams argued, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact[.]” Adams’ words are just as true today as they were in 1770. The courts must remain committed to deciding cases, not on the dictates of the powerful or upon the often-fleeting impulse of public opinion but based upon the stubborn facts and the equal application of the law. The lesson from John Adams and the Boston Massacre is clear: the strength of our society is measured not by how it treats the favored, but by how faithfully its courts administer justice to every person, regardless of external pressure. State courts matter because they are where this commitment was established and where it is protected for all Americans each day. The story of the Boston Massacre demonstrates the early work of the courts to ensure the liberties that have kept our nation great for 250 years. These rights, now enshrined in our U.S. and South Dakota Constitutions, include the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury, the right to call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses against them, and the right to due process of law. Today, state courts continue this legacy. They handle nearly all criminal cases, family law matters, property disputes, and contract enforcement. Ninety-seven percent of cases tried in the United States are tried in state courts. This is where constitutional guarantees are most frequently tested and applied. When state courts function with integrity and independence, they affirm that justice is not reserved for the powerful or popular but is grounded upon the rule of law and truth.
Copied with Permission from the South Dakota State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Jensen. For Full review See:https://ujs.sd.gov/media/ah2jltbn/2026-state-of-the-judiciary-online-file.pdf
