Not Guilty--Again!
Three Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court find Richard III Not Guilty Following Mock Trial Oral Argument Held at the U.S. Supreme Court
Trial to be Broadcast on C-SPAN
--by Jeanne Trahan Faubell
On June 4, 1997, the Lawyers' Committee for the Shakespeare Theater in Washington, D.C. sponsored a mock trial before three Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and a large number of members of the Washington, D.C. Bar. Following oral arguments, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen G. Breyer, in a 3-0 decision, rules that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof that "it was more likely than not" that the Princes in the Tower had been murdered; that the bones found in 1674 in the Tower were those of the Princes; and that Richard III had ordered or was complicitous in their deaths.
Chief counsel for the Crown was James Fitzpatrick, of the law firm of Arnold & Porter, who also represented the prosecution in the earlier mock trial at Indiana University School of Law. Chief counsel for the defense (Richard III) was Stephen F. Black, of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Arguments were similar to those of the earlier mock trial at Indiana, with focus on the "more likely than not" standard of proof and on questions of Richard's character. Justice Breyer seemed to be of the opinion that the Duke of Buckingham was the culpable party. (This reports is based upon a telephone conversation between Richard III Society Fiction Librarian Jeanne Trahan Faubell and Mr. Black, and upon Summaries of the Arguments sent to Ms. Faubell, who was not able to attend the trial.)
Following is a summary of both parties' arguments:
For the prosecution:
- Richard III had a clear and strong motive to kill the Princes since they had a better claim to the throne and because the chances of his surviving the Protectorate were dubious.
- Richard had the opportunity to have his nephews killed since he controlled access to the Tower and he had already executed their defenders (Rivers et al.).
- Contemporary sources (Mancini, Guillaume de Rochforte, and the Croyland Chronicle) offer reliable confirmation of Richard's guilt, and Sir Thomas More used sources directly involved in the struggle with Richard III.
- The forensic evidence supports Richard's guilt.
- By contrast, none of the other suspects proffered by the Plantagenets (sic) had the combination of motive and opportunity that reveal Richard to more likely than not be responsible for the Princes' deaths.
Following is a summary of the defense arguments:
- In overview, the evidence of Richard's guilt is, at best, inconclusive. Further, there are other plausible explanations for the disappearance of the Princes.
- Contrary to Tudor propaganda, Richard was a highly regarded leader, an enlightened king, and loyal to his family.
- Elizabeth Woodville's conduct is hopelessly inconsistent with Richard's guilt.
- Once crowned, Richard had no motive to kill the Princes: in 1483, while the Princes were alive, Lords and Commons of England reviewed charges of their illegitimacy and asked Richard to take the throne, and Parliament reaffirmed his title in the Titulus Regius. Further, he would have eliminated his nephew Warwick who was attainted but not illegitimate. Surely, Richard realized the princes were more a problem for his rivals Tudor and Buckingham.
- The absence of surviving reports of the existence of the princes after mid-1483 is not persuasive evidence that they were not alive.
- The contemporary chronicles and Tudor "historians" provide no convincing evidence against Richard and basically report rumors.
- The forensic evidence is inconclusive.
- There are other plausible explanations for the disappearance of the Princes: both Henry Tudor and Buckingham had motive and opportunity to murder the Princes.
The Lawyer's Committee mock trial appeared to have been a great educational vehicle for informing a number of people familiar primarily with the Shakespeare play (as subscribers to The Shakespeare Theater) of the ambiguity of the historical record. According to Mr. Black, many audience members were unaware of the other aspects of Richard's character and accomplishments and of the considerable questions concerning his presumed guilt. The three Supreme Court Justices appeared to have greatly enjoyed their participating in the debate and exploration of the historical ambiguities related to Richard III's character and possible actions. We can only hope that the exercise will encourage audience members to further investigate the historical period on their own.
The trial is scheduled to be broadcast by C-SPAN on a future date. As soon as the date is known, it will be posted on this site.
See also October 1996 Mock Trial