How would Athenians have dealt with Donald Trump?

Has Humpty-Trumpty had a great fall, or a great bounce? That will depend on what the Great American Public thinks was at stake in his trial. It was ever thus in the democracy of ancient Athens.

In the absence of a state prosecution service, all legal cases in ancient Athens were brought by individuals. But a jury trial often had to await the result of an attempt to settle out of court. This consisted of two mediation processes: one private and, if that failed, the other public under an appointed arbitrator. If there was still no agreement, the case went to trial before a randomly selected jury of between 200 and 1,000 Athenians, selected from an annually empanelled body of 6,000 male citizens in good standing, aged over 30.

There were no presiding judges, barristers, solicitors, rules of evidence (etc.), and no cross-questioning of witnesses, whose evidence was read out. The two parties each made their case in a single (timed) speech, the jury retired and without further discussion, let alone instructions from legal authorities, produced a majority verdict by secret ballot, which could not be appealed. The people had spoken, with no help from experts.

The speeches that survive were composed by professional speech-writers like Demosthenes. Trained in the art of persuasion, they knew all the tricks. Since their clients must have been wealthy – and it was the wealthy who financed public gymnasia, theatrical performances, choral and religious events and the costs of war, in particular the equipping and running of triremes – the speeches regularly harped on the enormous benefits which Athens enjoyed because of the defendant’s generosity. Surely the jury should prioritise his worth to Athens over any charge he might face!