The proliferation of Atlantic piracy and the British government’s continued crackdown in the decade following the Treaty of Utrecht saw more English piracy trials than the previous fifty years combined. This increased exposure to civil law procedures and piracy trials gave many commissioners the experience and knowledge that their counterparts lacked in the years following the implementation of William III’s statute. Additionally, piracy’s burgeoning popularity in public print, be it in published sermons, novels, broadsides, and most importantly trial reports, further educated the same colonial officials tasked with eradicating it from the seas. The regions that routinely captured pirates obviously had the most experience with trying them,…show more content… They also oversaw the largest number of piracy trials on record. It was not just the number of piracy trials on the court’s docket, but the continuity among senior court officials which helps to explain this regularity. As previously discussed, there were personnel connections between the Quelch and Bellamy trial, despite the two hearings taking place thirteen years apart. This trend continued over the next decade as key courtroom officials routinely maintained their visible position from one hearing to the next. Robert Auchmuty served as defense counsel during the Bellamy crew trials, and as the King’s Advocate for the final two piracy trials in the colony. John Valentine was the register of the court during the Quelch trial, defense advocate for Bellamy’s crew, and the King’s Advocate against Edward Low’s captured pirates. Lieutenant Governor William Drummer assumed the role of President of the Court from Governor Samuel Shute in 1722 and continued in that capacity for the final three piracy trials in New England. James Meinzies served as Judge of the vice-Admiralty for every piracy trial in Massachusetts and Rhode Island from 1717-1726. This consistency for high ranking officials created a stability inside the courtroom full of experienced, knowledgeable…show more content… They called 165 convicted men individually “particularly to acquit themselves of being Volunteers, in their Resistance of the King’s Ship.” The justices made their determination of voluntary or forced service on several factors; their relationship with their crewmates and level of participation, length of service, age, and cooperation with the prosecution. This last aspect, the willingness of convicted men to testify against their fellow sailors, significantly shaped the structure of the hearings. Since the court had already declared them guilty of the only crime for which they were charged, they were incapable of provided sworn testimony. It was not technically accomplice testimony, since those before the bench were already convicted and the court did not request a pardon and present them as a crown’s witness. However, it was a highly questionable practice that mirrored accomplice testimony in several
