Yes, chances are, we've most of us encountered the play at one time in our lives, some of us sitting in desks or at tables on one side of the podium, others merrily pontificating about Shakespeare's brilliance on the other. . The mock trial of Hamlet, Prince of Demark, the "brainchild of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy," has been staged twice, once in 2007 and the newer version quite recently. I think we all recognize the tendency, when a court hearing is held to discuss the possible mental illness of a defendant at the time of his or her crime, or on the rare occasions when an insanity defense is used, to fly up in arms and to feel that the defendant is, well, faking the whole thing, in order to escape punishment. In the end, following stirring closing arguments, the jury - as it had in 2007 - found itself deadlocked, 10-2 for conviction in the most recent trial; in 2007, the tally was split evenly at 6-6. Washington Post article about the 2007 trial: Is He to Be Guilty, Or Not to Be Guilty? Thoughts on the play itself, or, more importantly, on the issues it raises?