Charged 1: Involuntary Manslaughter of Juliet of the House of Capulet Through analyzing textual evidence, the defendant, Romeo of the Montague house, is proven not guilty of the charge of involuntary manslaughter of Juliet of the house of Capulet. In evidence provided in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo kills himself as a result of Juliet's own previously verified death, therefore Juliet should be guilty of Romeo's death. Friar Lawrence provided Juliet the poison, therefore he is guilty of both their deaths.

Charged 2: Grand Theft, in connection with the pilfering of dowry Through analyzing textual evidence, the defendant, Romeo of the Montague house, is proven not guilty of the charge of grand theft(in connection with the pilfering of dowry). Romeo did not steal the dowry, as he gained no financial profit from his marriage. The families provided nothing for the marriage, as it was unknown to both, therefore he did not gain any wealth from being wed to Juliet.

Charged 3: Contribution to the Delinquency of Minors Defending Romeo the house of Montague Romeo should not be accused with manslaughter due to the following reasons. Mercutio was Romeos BFF Juliet realized Romeo was dead and poisons herself Juliet stabs herself with a dagger, reasons for her stabbing herself is, she felt Romeo got tricked into dying, but why did he get the poison Paris could possibly be the main reason Why Romeo might be charged with involuntary manslaughter of Juliet, because Paris was in the middle of an already relationship with Romeo and Juliet. Paris wanted to marry Juliet, but Juliet didn’t want to. Juliet goes to the nurse for advice but the nurse thinks she should marry Paris. Juliet is surprised about the answer of nurse showing disloyalty. She then goes to Friar Lawrence for advice. Friar Lawrence gives Juliet a potion to make believe that she’s dead so the wedding can be cancelled. Overall, the events that lead to the drinking of Juliet potion could be a main factor of this case.

Counterargument 2&3 Lord Capulet claims that young Romeo stole a marriage dowry from his soon-to-be son-in-law; his soon-to-be son-in-law. This does sound a bit contradictory, does it not? How can any sane human accuse another of stealing an item, when no such item existed? All those here know that young Juliet and Paris never married. Lord Capulet admits this himself, for he planned on marrying them. Sadly, right before the wedding could occur, Juliet faked her death. Such a tragedy too, to think one’s own daughter had died without having any way of knowing otherwise. But the court has not convened for sympathetic grievances of the prosecution’s daughter. No, the court has convened to talk of the innocence of young Romeo instead of his guilt. For, as said before, how can he have guilt, when no crime occurred? Perhaps the court needs a hypothetical situation to make things clear. Hypothetically speaking, Lord Capulet left ten thousand dollars and the deed to the house to Paris when he married Juliet. Well, as the court knows well, they never married, so that point in Lord Capulet’s argument has a flaw. Also as the court knows well Juliet married Romeo. Yet, yet when they returned from their wedding Lo! The dowry remained untouched. Lord Capulet had complete possession of whatever he could have promised to Paris.

Conclusion Remarks Romeo should not be prosecuted for something he played no role in. He was as much of a victim as Juliette. There are not solid proof that Romeo did steal the dowry. Even after they were “married” Romeo gained nothing from the marriage. The dowry remained the possession of the Capulet Romeo can be considered mentally ill and unstable.