Shakespeare Mock Trial part 1: Background
May. 12th, 2012 05:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsThe mock trial post is getting really long, so I'm splitting it into two parts: the background information and the actual trial transcript. This is the background post.
Three years ago, I went to a mock trial called "Malvolio's Revenge" held at the Shakespeare Theater.
This year, I went back. And before I get into details, I want to put into record two facts I need to remember for next time:
1) The wait list did indeed come through. It came through so swimmingly that I was called back not just when tickets became free, but *on the day of* just to be sure there were no empty seats.
2) Although seats in advance were $75 and seats for trial & dinner are $350, seats bought 6 hours before the show? ARE ONLY $20!!!! (M came zipping from work like a scalded cat; we didn't sit together, but we both got to go.)
Although? For that night of political humor, law, song lyrics, and theater (in all senses of the term) honestly? It would totally have been worth the $350 not to miss it.
This one was called "Ado, I do, Adieu: Claudio v. Hero." The general gist, as taken from the theater's website (copied because they'll take it down):
After three months of marriage, Lady Hero of Messina files a complaint for absolute divorce from her husband, Count Claudio in the Superior Court of Messina, seeking, inter alia, return of her dowry, division of marital property (specifically, their opulent wedding gifts) and permanent alimony. In a pretrial stipulation, Hero and Claudio agree that in Much Ado About Nothing, their matchmaker, William Shakespeare, has relayed accurately the saga of their courtship and marriage. At trial, they agree on little else.
The court finds in her favor awarding one-half of their wedding gifts and an alimony award of 30,000 florins per month, permanently. Claudio is appealing the divorce and the award of alimony. Meanwhile, Hero is making a cross-appeal with respect to the denial of the return of her dowry. “The course of true love never doth run smooth……”
Full legal text of scenario, as taken from the website before it is pulled down:
SUPREME COURT OF MESSINA
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MESSINA
(DOMESTIC RELATIONS BRANCH)
COUNT CLAUDIO OF FLORENCE, :
APPELLANT :
v. : Case No. 11 DRB 65471
LADY HERO OF MESSINA, :
APPELLEE :
APPEAL SUMMARY FOR “ADO, I DO, ADIEU”
“The course of true love never did run smooth, or so it’s said.”
Factual and Procedural Background:
After three months of marriage, Lady Hero of Messina files a complaint for absolute divorce from her husband, Count Claudio in the Superior Court of Messina, seeking, inter alia, return of her dowry, division of marital property (specifically, their opulent wedding gifts) and permanent alimony. In a pretrial stipulation, Hero and Claudio agree that in Much Ado About Nothing, their matchmaker, William Shakespeare, has relayed accurately the saga of their courtship and marriage. At trial, they agree on little else.
Hero claims that that Claudio has anger and trust issues that have irretrievably broken their relationship. She testifies that she discovered soon after their marriage that Claudio is short-tempered, rash, gullible, unperceptive, paranoid, and irrational when angered. His trust in her was never restored after Don John’s false allegation of adultery and Hero’s staged death. She claims that Claudio mostly carouses around the palace of her father, Leonato, enjoying his wealthy lifestyle, smoking cigars and drinking martinis. Claudio, she avers, has abandoned the marital bed and instead chases after the palace’s ladies in waiting. She claims, moreover, that he falsely asserts that she is unfaithful to him, and in an effort to prove it, frequently snoops in her email, voicemails, and text-messages and, on occasion, even follows her when she leaves the palace. Moreover, she testifies, Claudio refuses to attend marriage counseling.
On the other hand, Claudio testifies that, from the start, Hero never believed his assurances of his affection and fidelity. Hero, he says, exhibited diva behavior, abandoning her conjugal duties and her role as mistress of the house in favor of wasting days shopping at the Messina Mall and of demeaning him with practical jokes. Despite having significant income from the Leonato Family Trust (Trust), she refuses to contribute financially to their household, using her Trust funds only when it suits her, but primarily to purchase designer dresses, daily flower deliveries, and to pay a corps of footmen with no observable duties. Claudio testifies that she appears to resent his inability to provide for her financially on a soldier’s salary. Hostility toward him from her family members, particularly Leonato and Beatrice, exacerbates the tension between them. Despite these troubles, Claudio says that he wants to try to make the marriage work as he is desperate for an heir.
At trial, Claudio argues that Hero should not be awarded alimony because she has significant income from the Trust and because she should be gainfully employed. In response, Hero claims to lack any marketable skills. She also contends that Trust income should not be imputed to her because she does not control Trust distributions and does not know the extent of the Trust’s corpus. (Evidence about the latter was unavailable because the trial court quashed the subpoena to the Trust on the ground that discovery about the extent of its assets was irrelevant.) Hero further argues that, although she is her father’s only heir, any inheritance is a mere expectancy and cannot be a factor in any alimony award. In response to Hero’s request for an award to her of her dowry, Claudio argues that the dowry was never owned by Hero, but instead was a pre-marital gift from Leonato to him as an inducement to marry her.
At the conclusion of a four-day merits trial, the trial court awards Hero an absolute divorce from Claudio, one-half of their wedding gifts and an alimony award of 30,000 florins per month, permanently, but not her dowry.
Under the laws of Messina, decisions of the Superior Court are appealable as of right to the Supreme Court of Messina. Claudio exercises this right.
Issues on Appeal
Claudio contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Hero permanent alimony, because their marriage was brief and Hero has ample income from the Trust. He argues that the Court erred by quashing the subpoena to the Trust. He also appeals the divorce itself.
Hero cross-appeals the trial court’s failure to award her dowry to her. She argues that the dowry was constructively hers and constitutes her pre-marital property. Moreover, based on Claudio’s mistreatment of her, she argues that the equities support a dowry award.
Side note 1: Last time, the bios listed how many times each Counsel had argued before SCOTUS. Apparently neither one of these has.
Side note 2: I found out from a former theater usher that RB Ginsburg is a huge Shakespeare fan with season tickets to every opening night and is very likely one of the instigators of the mock trial concept.
There was a champagne reception after, and on my way out I passed Justice RB Ginsburg as she was leaving with a champagne flute. I told her it was always a pleasure to see her working. She inclined her head 1/16th of an inch.
Trial Transcript
Three years ago, I went to a mock trial called "Malvolio's Revenge" held at the Shakespeare Theater.
This year, I went back. And before I get into details, I want to put into record two facts I need to remember for next time:
1) The wait list did indeed come through. It came through so swimmingly that I was called back not just when tickets became free, but *on the day of* just to be sure there were no empty seats.
2) Although seats in advance were $75 and seats for trial & dinner are $350, seats bought 6 hours before the show? ARE ONLY $20!!!! (M came zipping from work like a scalded cat; we didn't sit together, but we both got to go.)
Although? For that night of political humor, law, song lyrics, and theater (in all senses of the term) honestly? It would totally have been worth the $350 not to miss it.
This one was called "Ado, I do, Adieu: Claudio v. Hero." The general gist, as taken from the theater's website (copied because they'll take it down):
After three months of marriage, Lady Hero of Messina files a complaint for absolute divorce from her husband, Count Claudio in the Superior Court of Messina, seeking, inter alia, return of her dowry, division of marital property (specifically, their opulent wedding gifts) and permanent alimony. In a pretrial stipulation, Hero and Claudio agree that in Much Ado About Nothing, their matchmaker, William Shakespeare, has relayed accurately the saga of their courtship and marriage. At trial, they agree on little else.
The court finds in her favor awarding one-half of their wedding gifts and an alimony award of 30,000 florins per month, permanently. Claudio is appealing the divorce and the award of alimony. Meanwhile, Hero is making a cross-appeal with respect to the denial of the return of her dowry. “The course of true love never doth run smooth……”
Full legal text of scenario, as taken from the website before it is pulled down:
SUPREME COURT OF MESSINA
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MESSINA
(DOMESTIC RELATIONS BRANCH)
COUNT CLAUDIO OF FLORENCE, :
APPELLANT :
v. : Case No. 11 DRB 65471
LADY HERO OF MESSINA, :
APPELLEE :
APPEAL SUMMARY FOR “ADO, I DO, ADIEU”
“The course of true love never did run smooth, or so it’s said.”
Factual and Procedural Background:
After three months of marriage, Lady Hero of Messina files a complaint for absolute divorce from her husband, Count Claudio in the Superior Court of Messina, seeking, inter alia, return of her dowry, division of marital property (specifically, their opulent wedding gifts) and permanent alimony. In a pretrial stipulation, Hero and Claudio agree that in Much Ado About Nothing, their matchmaker, William Shakespeare, has relayed accurately the saga of their courtship and marriage. At trial, they agree on little else.
Hero claims that that Claudio has anger and trust issues that have irretrievably broken their relationship. She testifies that she discovered soon after their marriage that Claudio is short-tempered, rash, gullible, unperceptive, paranoid, and irrational when angered. His trust in her was never restored after Don John’s false allegation of adultery and Hero’s staged death. She claims that Claudio mostly carouses around the palace of her father, Leonato, enjoying his wealthy lifestyle, smoking cigars and drinking martinis. Claudio, she avers, has abandoned the marital bed and instead chases after the palace’s ladies in waiting. She claims, moreover, that he falsely asserts that she is unfaithful to him, and in an effort to prove it, frequently snoops in her email, voicemails, and text-messages and, on occasion, even follows her when she leaves the palace. Moreover, she testifies, Claudio refuses to attend marriage counseling.
On the other hand, Claudio testifies that, from the start, Hero never believed his assurances of his affection and fidelity. Hero, he says, exhibited diva behavior, abandoning her conjugal duties and her role as mistress of the house in favor of wasting days shopping at the Messina Mall and of demeaning him with practical jokes. Despite having significant income from the Leonato Family Trust (Trust), she refuses to contribute financially to their household, using her Trust funds only when it suits her, but primarily to purchase designer dresses, daily flower deliveries, and to pay a corps of footmen with no observable duties. Claudio testifies that she appears to resent his inability to provide for her financially on a soldier’s salary. Hostility toward him from her family members, particularly Leonato and Beatrice, exacerbates the tension between them. Despite these troubles, Claudio says that he wants to try to make the marriage work as he is desperate for an heir.
At trial, Claudio argues that Hero should not be awarded alimony because she has significant income from the Trust and because she should be gainfully employed. In response, Hero claims to lack any marketable skills. She also contends that Trust income should not be imputed to her because she does not control Trust distributions and does not know the extent of the Trust’s corpus. (Evidence about the latter was unavailable because the trial court quashed the subpoena to the Trust on the ground that discovery about the extent of its assets was irrelevant.) Hero further argues that, although she is her father’s only heir, any inheritance is a mere expectancy and cannot be a factor in any alimony award. In response to Hero’s request for an award to her of her dowry, Claudio argues that the dowry was never owned by Hero, but instead was a pre-marital gift from Leonato to him as an inducement to marry her.
At the conclusion of a four-day merits trial, the trial court awards Hero an absolute divorce from Claudio, one-half of their wedding gifts and an alimony award of 30,000 florins per month, permanently, but not her dowry.
Under the laws of Messina, decisions of the Superior Court are appealable as of right to the Supreme Court of Messina. Claudio exercises this right.
Issues on Appeal
Claudio contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Hero permanent alimony, because their marriage was brief and Hero has ample income from the Trust. He argues that the Court erred by quashing the subpoena to the Trust. He also appeals the divorce itself.
Hero cross-appeals the trial court’s failure to award her dowry to her. She argues that the dowry was constructively hers and constitutes her pre-marital property. Moreover, based on Claudio’s mistreatment of her, she argues that the equities support a dowry award.
Side note 1: Last time, the bios listed how many times each Counsel had argued before SCOTUS. Apparently neither one of these has.
Side note 2: I found out from a former theater usher that RB Ginsburg is a huge Shakespeare fan with season tickets to every opening night and is very likely one of the instigators of the mock trial concept.
There was a champagne reception after, and on my way out I passed Justice RB Ginsburg as she was leaving with a champagne flute. I told her it was always a pleasure to see her working. She inclined her head 1/16th of an inch.
Trial Transcript
