King Richard III's defense counsel, IU Trustee John Walda, addresses the bench at the Oct. 27 trial. Presiding judges were (foreground, from left) Susan Williams, IU professor of law; William Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Randall Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. Seated at the prosecution table (far left) are Paige Porter (left) and James F. Fitzpatrick. Assisting Walda was Dennis Long (seated at table at right).

Photo by Randy Johnson

Not guilty!
Chief justice, IU law prof exonerate Richard III

By Veralyn Kinzer

The rumors started within months, right after his death in battle. Sir Thomas More was the first famous writer to "put them on the record" for posterity, but not until more than 50 years later. Shakespeare added to their "surety" as only a dramatist can. Soon history was condemning him in every textbook.

It took the chief justice of the United States and an Indiana University law professor to put things right. And now it's "official" . . . Richard III, England's last Plantagenet king, did not order the deaths of his two nephews, the famous young "Princes in the Tower."

That judgment, more than five centuries late in coming, was rendered Sunday, Oct. 27, at Indiana University , when U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Susan Williams (at left), a professor at IU Bloomington Law School, found Richard not guilty beyond a historical reasonable doubt, after a mock trial.

But as has been the case throughout history, the verdict was not unanimous. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Randall Shepard, the third member of the judicial court, found in the prosecution's favor and declared Richard responsible for the crime.

The prosecution alleged that the writings of the day, the attendant and later events of history, the behavior of some of Richard's peers, and the discovery of the skeletons proven to be those of children of the approximate ages and sizes of the princes -- located where rumors suggested they were buried, created a "mosaic of guilt" against Richard.

The defense argued that Richard's excellent record as an administrator, warrior, family man and supporter of the crown, along with his quick insistence that all important Englishmen swear an oath of allegiance to the young boy he was later accused of murdering, clearly pointed to his innocence. They also suggested at least two other figures in the drama who were more likely to benefit from the boys' murder than Richard, and pointed out that all evidence in the case was circumstantial.

In rendering their verdict, Rehnquist and Williams noted that both the exact time of the boys' deaths and the physical evidence were ambiguous. And, although they said Richard probably had the better motive and opportunity, there was not enough evidence to convict him -- certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, historical or otherwise.

In his dissenting opinion, Shepard noted that trying a case as a matter of history is different from trying a current case due to the lack of eye witnesses, forensic evidence and similar factors. Although he admitted that historical accounts are often written by people with axes to grind, he said there was enough written at the time about Richard's involvement that, since no evidence has ever been found that someone else was responsible, he had to conclude that Richard did it.

The judges heard 90 minutes of testimony in IU's Moot Court Room. The exercise, said Law Dean Alfred Aman, was to demonstrate "the best in lawyering skills -- the use of extensive research and analysis, the preparation of carefully constructed briefs, and the demonstration of critical aural advocacy skills" -- all part of training IU law students.

Prosecuting the case against Richard was James F. Fitzpatrick, a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter. A member and former president of the Law School's board of visitors, he earned both his B.A. and J.D. degrees from IU. Among his clients have been chairs of the House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce committees, the commissioner of major league baseball, and former U.S. Sen. Robert Packwood.

Fitzpatrick noted that, for legal purposes, it is "quite important for people to understand how the truth of historical record can be established. "And," he continued, "this exercise proves again the great history of this university. It is a bastion of intellectual searching in the state."

Assisting Fitzpatrick was third-year law student Paige Porter, a graduate of the University of Evansville and member of the first-place team in the Law School's 1995-96 Sherman Minton moot court competition.

Asked after the trial how she felt about arguing a case before the country's chief justice, Porter said that she had been fortunate enough to appear in front of Shepard last year. "At the time, I thought that would probably be the highlight of my whole career. When I found out about this opportunity, I was just stunned, in awe. Then I started working on the case, and as the work progressed I thought more about the case and less about the personalities. Then, when Chief Justice Rehnquist walked in today, my knees started shaking -- and they didn't stop until I started the rebuttal."

Defending the king was John D. Walda (at left), a partner in the Fort Wayne law firm of Barrett & McNagny, who is the current president of the IU Trustees. He also earned both his B.A. and J.D. degrees from IU.

Walda found his role "important, exciting and meaningful. It demonstrates the best part of the practice of law, and shows what IU is all about. It's always a great honor to have luminaries on our campus. But the bigger thrill was getting to interact with these terrific, talented students. I've tried to hire them both!"

Walda, who said he had worked on the case in nearly all of his spare time during the two weeks before the trial, has never appeared before the Supreme Court "and I probably never will. But I was pleased to have the opportunity to do this for IU."

Assisting Walda was Dennis Long, a third-year student at the Law School pursuing a joint degree in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. A retired colonel in the U.S. Army, he noted that as a student, even a non-traditional one, the type of opportunity the trial presented "is a rarity. It gives you a chance to put together everything you've learned," he noted.

The trial's final touches were added by Bloomington Mayor John Fernandez, an IU Law School graduate who served as the bailiff; WTIU, Bloomington's public television station, which carried the proceedings live; C-SPAN, which taped the event for later broadcast; and an audience of several hundred onlookers.

The attorneys for both sides had spent many hours researching the case and had prepared and submitted advance briefs of their arguments for the judges to study. Their presentations before the bench represented summations of their efforts.

Each side was limited to 20 minutes to present its most telling points, with the prosecution granted an additional two minutes for rebuttal before the judges retired to deliberate their finding.

At the trial's conclusion, Rehnquist thanked all the participants and said both their briefs and their arguments were "outstanding."

Shepard admitted he had truly enjoyed "being part of one historical event, talking about another." And Williams summed up the experience by saying, "In another 100 years, we could hold this trial again and have just as fascinating a time. History is truly something we create."

Rehnquist was on the Bloomington campus as this year's IU Law School "jurist-in-residence." In 1998, U.S. Justice Ruth Ginsberg will be the program participant.

Return to Table of Contents