Shakespeare Mock Trial part 1: Background

The 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 trial scenario )

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

Mock Trial: Ado, I Do, Adieu Transcript

For the purposes of not typing for the next 8 hours, I'm using initials/acronyms for names in the transcript. They are bolded below.

The Supreme Court of Messina:
Chief Justice: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (SCOTUS) RBGins
Justice Samuel Alito (SCOTUS) ALITO
Justice Elena Kagan (SCOTUS) KAGAN
Judge Brett Kavanaugh (US Court of Appeals) KAV
Judge Douglas Ginsburg (former Chief Justice, US Court of Appeals) DGins
Judge Merrick Garland (US Court of Appeals for DC, former special asst. to the Atty General of the US) GARL
Judge David S. Tatel (US Court of Appeals for DC)

Counsel for Hero: Sanford Ain, cofounder Ain and Bank. HERO

Counsel for Count Claudio: Reid Weingarten, Steptoe & Johnson. CLDIO

( Trial Transcript )

While the court deliberated, the audience could vote (a blue token for Hero; a red for Claudio) and ask questions of a member of the Theater and the two counsels.
( Audience Q&A )

An usher brings in two ziplock bags of chips, one red, one blue and tries to weigh them on the scale of justice stage left.

VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: The scales are uneven!
Theater Guy: That's how we do it in Messina!

Many spill, and members of the audience object. However, any way you slice it, there were far more red than blue. M thinks some people voted red accidentally; someone in her row couldn't remember which chip went with which color, and the counsels calling "Red for Reid" weren't helping.

FINAL COURT DECISION:
RBGins: Three out of the four questions presented to the court had a unanimous verdict.

One: Is the marriage broken? We give a resounding yes to the divorce. We remind you of what the matchmaker said: she married not wisely or well, and men were deceivers ever.

Two: Should Hero get alimony? 2 justices dissented, but the majority agreed that Hero is not entitled to alimony from Claudio. She is young, the world is in front of her, she has no kids.

Three: Did the court err in quashing the subpoena on the Leonato Family Trust? Every lawyer knows this is a moot question without alimony.

Four: Is Hero entitled to the return of her dowry? We do appreciate that she is going to suffer consequences as she is definitely no longer a maiden. We affirm that she keeps the dowry.

The dissent was given by Garland.
We begin with the theory "What's love got to do with it?" We hear that Claudio was a cad who should be punished 5 million a month.

DGins: [my notes are too scribbled, but they boil down to Claudio owing alimony because] Her market value plummeted on the mere thought that she was not a virgin and now this is truly the case.

ALITO: I join with the court except for the part that "men were deceivers ever."

RBGins: [thanked the counsels and] Now it's time for champagne.


trial background