Lawyer questions for Hamlet on trial?

Question

So I have a very important school project tomorrow. I am basically having a trial for Polonius' murder by Hamlet. I need some great questions that will stump my witnesses. I am unfortunately not defending Hamlet...I am going against him. So what questions for my witnesses, make him seem GUILTY?

Answer 1

Just state the facts. If the murder was commited today, there would be no chance of him getting off. First of all, the defense can't claim temporary insanity because it was premeditated.

He had the classic "eye for an eye" motive. There's no chance he would get off. If the witnesses are contradicting the evidence, then you may have a slight problem. You'd have to have witness of your own that would corroberate with the testimony accusing hamlet of murder. But with the circumstantial evidence, he'd get life any way. Maybe man slaughter and serve 15.

The fist thing I would ask the witnesses (I would get those close to Hamlet on the stand to testify), to assess Hamlets character. I would want to know how he acted and what he talked about. Was he an angry person? What drove him in life. Ask them, if some one killed your family, would you want to kill them?

You have to put the witnesses in Hamlets possition. You have to ask the questions that make those closest to him, SAY that it is POSSIBLE that Hamlet would commit murder. That with the evidence will be enough to put Hamlet away.

Of course, given History, Hamet gets killed. So he'd never make it to trial anyway. Hehehe.

Answer 2

Was Hamlet Guilty of Murder? - http://www.thyorisons.com/#Not_Guilty

In this essay I will prove, based on evidence from the play, that Prince Hamlet was the legitimate ruler of Denmark and that he killed Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Claudius in defense of the legitmate government of Denmark and, more importantly, the people of Denmark. First I will demonstrate that Prince Hamlet's father was the legitmate and popular King of Denmark. Then I will prove that Claudius was not the legitmate successor to the throne. Then I will prove that Prince Hamlet was the legitimate successor as King of Denmark. Then I will show that the killings were legitmate acts of war, in circumstances that prevented normal due process, although Hamlet nevertheless conducted a de facto trial (the Mousetrap) to prove Claudius' guilt. Finally, I will show that, even though a government court of law would have absolved Hamlet, the Prince appealed to a higher authority (God) and Shakespeare submitted the case to higher judges (the audience). In those higher courts, Hamlet confessed his sins (and the sins of his dynasty) in the hope that his confession would prevent further evil.
. . . .
There is not enough space here for the full essay. To read the rest (with links to relevant lines in the play), please go to
http://www.thyorisons.com/#Not_Guilty

Also please see
The Madness of Hamlet - http://www.thyorisons.com/#Madness
and
How to Love Hamlet - http://www.thyorisons.com/#Love_Hamlet