Group+26


 * Minimum Project Requirements: **
 * 5 **//__IN__//** __DEPTH __ discussions with opposing counsel via class network. These discussions must present not only relevant and specific facts from the play, but also from your historical research.
 * Preliminary Draft of Closing Statement entered in your class network. Draft must contain **//__at least 5 detailed paragraphs__//**: 1) Introductory paragraph outlining the overall theme of your case - thesis statement; 2) //at least// 3 paragraphs which include **//__detailed__//** supporting evidence for your case - 1 piece of evidence with explanation per paragraph; and 3) a closing paragraph which ties all the evidence together and solidifies your case.
 * Peer editing of opposing counsel's statement following guidelines to be provided; plus an additional peer revision of your choice.
 * Works Cited page containing **//__at__//** **//__least three __//****//__(3) sources __//**: 2 book sources for each electronic source.
 * Final Draft of Closing Statement, typed, double-spaced at a 12-point font with 1-inch margins. Please no decorative fonts – use something easy to read.
 * Oral recitation of your Closing Statement before the court. Be sure to use your voice as a persuasive tool to effectively deliver your statement. Suggestions for oral interpretation to be provided.


 * Remember that the above represent the minimum requirements for this project, the completion of which will earn you a minimum average grade of 70%. You can improve this grade by going above and beyond these minimum expectations. **

One way to increase your points will be to complete more than five discussion posts with your opposing counsel. To post a discussion, click the DISCUSSION tab above; click NEW POST, label the subject with a specific name, and then type and post your comment. To reply to a comment, simply click on the post heading, scroll to the bottom of the page, and then type and post your reply. Ideally, discussion topics will reflect either specific research sources or ideas learned from your research. You must cite all sources within your discussions so that your opposing counsel can verify your information.


 * Post Prosecution Closing Statement Here:**

Prosecuting When Julius Caesar was ruler of Rome many people loved him, and even though many people loved him there were still some people that did not love him. For instance, Marcus Brutus, Marcus Brutus was a senator in Rome at the time, and he murdered Julius Caesar for no reason. The dishonorable obsessive Marcus Brutus killed the honorable Julius Caesar with the wrong intentions, and is guilty for the murder of Julius Caesar.

Marcus Brutus was obsessed with his ancestors. Brutus very well could have had been driven to follow in his ancestors footsteps. In Michael Grant’s book, Julius //Caesar// he wrote, “Brutus was obsessed with his ancestors” (254). This proves that Brutus was obsessed with his ancestors. Grant also wrote “Aristocratic Romans had long been brought up to regard it as their duty to kill tyrants” (254). Caesar was a tyrant, and Brutus being obsessive could have felt as if it was his duty to follow in his ancestor’s footsteps, and kill Caesar. Brutus was very dishonorable; he broke Roman laws, and got away with it. In Rome one of the laws were "Putting to death of any man, whosever he might be, unconvinced is forbidden." If Brutus was honorable then he would not had killed Caesar no matter how many people wanted him dead. Caesar was not convicted of any crime, and therefore legally his death would have been considered forbidden. Another law in Rome at the time was "No person shall hold meetings by night in the city." When the other senators got Brutus who is supposed to be honorable in on the conspiracy, it was at night. In act 2 Scene 1 on page 786-787 lines 112-140 Brutus agrees to kill Caesar. They met in Brutus' house at night, and meetings at night we're against the law. If Brutus were in fact an honorable man than he wouldn't have broken that law. He would not have broken any laws.

During honorable Caesar’s rule he did many things to better Rome. //In Ancient Rome: Early Civilizations// it says “Caesar made many great changes in his four year rule. He lowered taxes and changed the government in ways to benefit the people” (DuBois). This shows that Caesar was an honorable person, and only wanted to help the people of Rome. Also, in Shakespeare play Shakespeare wrote “To every Roman citizen he gives to every several man seventy-five drachmas” (II.ii.240-242). This shows Caesar’s honor, yet again by Caesar leavening seventy-five drachmas (money) to every Roman man. In the book //Chronicle of Roman Republic: The Rulers of Ancient Rome from Romulus to Augustus// it says “Caesar accepted his punishment from senate when he was suspended from office’ (Matyszak). This shows Caesar’s honor by showing that he accepted his punishment even if he did not want to. Brutus claims to have murdered Caesar with good intentions, but he murdered Caesar with the wrong intentions. In the play //The Tragedy of Julius Caesar// Brutus says “I know no personal cause to spurn him, but for the general” (II.i.11-12). Brutus claims to have killed Caesar for the general good, but it was not for the general good, it only hurt Rome. In //Chronicle of Roman Republic: The Rulers of Ancient Rome from Romulus to Augustus// it says, “After Caesar was killed by Brutus a civil war broke out in Rome, it lasted more than ten years’ (DuBois). This shows that many people were angry that Caesar was murdered, and that it only hurt Rome.

Brutus is guilty. He killed Caesar for wrong intentions, and broke several laws in Rome. Brutus had no good reason to kill the honorable Caesar. Brutus was both obsessive and dishonorable. Brutus is guilty for killing the honorable Caesar for all the wrong intentions.

Nikki Ferneding English Defending Brutus The honorable Brutus killed the ambitious Caesar to protectRome. Brutus was honorable and Caesar was ambitious. So for the good ofRome, Brutus killed Caesar Therefore Brutus is not guilty. The topics of the paper include Brutus’s honor, Caesar’s ambition, and Brutus trying to protect. All of these topics show that Brutus was not guilty for killing Caesar. Caesar deserved to be killed for his power hungry actions. Brutus was an honorable and respectable person. In our English book Shakespeare has Octavious state, “ According to his virtue, let us use him with all respect and rites of burial. Within my tent his bones tonight shall lie, most like a soldier ordered honorably. So call the field to rest, and let’s away to part the glories of this happy day.” (871). This quote is said at the end of the play after Brutus died. Octavious is talking about Brutus and while talking about him he is saying that all of the soldiers need to stop and honor Brutus whowas a good man. Even though Brutus was Octavious’s enemy, Octavious still considered Brutus as a good man. Then in the play Brutus says, “ Kneel not gentle Portia.” (798). The quote means that Brutus is telling Portia not to kneel for him and then he picks her up off the ground. Brutus respected his wife which many men didn’t do during that time period. So that can show how he treat others. Which would mean he treated Caesar with honor and respect. Caesar did anything to get more power, even if it meant hurting others. Ellen Galford in the book //Julius Caesar: The boy who conquered an empire,// it states, “ Caesar’s first priority was to make sure that no one would stand in his way.” Caesar cared about only his own power. He didn’t care what happened to the people just as long ashe had power. For a person to be a leader, they have to be caring and Caesar wasn’t. Caesar didn’t even care about the Romans needs. Then in John’s Boardman’s, //The Oxford history of the Roman world,// it says “An even older friend of Rome’s, Massilla, had been taken by Caesar, for supporting Pompey.”. This states that Massilla was a supporter of Rome and Pompey, which Caesar killed him for supporting Pompey. Caesar killed ot eliminate his competition, so he could be the soul leader. Brutus was protecting Rome because of Caesar;s mean and ambitious qualities. This is shown in Denise Rinaldo’s, //Julius Caesar: Dictator for life// book, which states, “ In 45 B.C. he demanded that the senators name him dictator for life. Partly out of fear and partly out of devotion they obeyed.”. This means that in 45 B.C. Caesar demanded that he become dictator for life, which scared the senator’s so out of fear they named him dictator for life. During that time period someone could only be dictator for life for six months not for life. Caesar didn’t listen to people and just did what he wanted for his own power. Then in John Boardman’s //The Oxford history of the Roman empire,// it says “For Casear’s campaign’s we have his own commentaries, oftn disingenuous.” This is Casesar writing about his own military campaign’s and they were often dishonest and over exaggerated. Caesar lied to people just to get more power. As a leader that doesn’t help Rome. Brutus is not guilty. He killed Caesar for good reasons because he was honorable. He also killed him because Caesar was ambitious and power hungry. Casear was killed also for the good of Rome. Brutus knew that Caesar wouldn’t have been a good leader because of Caesar’s past actions. So Brutus had good reasons to kill Caesar. Brutus was an honorable person, so he wouldn’t have killed Caesar for a no good reason.
 * Post Defense Closing Statement Here:**