COLLEGE OF TRIBUNES OF ROME
______________________
Salomé,
:
Petitioner
:
v.
:
The People of Rome,
:
Respondent
:
_______________________
Case No. XXIX-xviv-CE
In 28 C.E., during the Roman occupation of Judea, Salomé was tried and convicted for
conspiracy to murder John the Baptist, a social critic whom some considered a prophet. In
this appeal, Salomé challenges her conviction under 18 S.I.R. § 371 (the Roman precursor
of 18 U.S.C. § 371).
Salomé’s conviction depends upon the relationships among her and three others. Salomé’s
mother, Herodias, had divorced her father and married his half-brother the Tetrarch Herod
Antipas, the titular ruler of Galilee and Perea. John, a fiery and popular preacher urging
Jewish resistance, openly criticized Herod’s and Herodias’s marriage as violating a Jewish
law prohibiting sexual relations between a man and his living brother's wife (Leviticus
18:16). Herodias considered John’s criticisms as an act of lèse-majesté, meriting severe
punishment; she made it clear to Herod that she believed that John’s affronts have
undermined Herod’s authority and adversely affected their marriage. Herod perceived
seeds of revolt, championed by John. Stung by John’s personal attack, Herod considered
John’s condemnation of his marriage a threat to his rule as well as his marriage. See
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. XVIII (“Josephus” 5:2, 4; Luke 3:19-20).
Yet to Salomé, John represented a means of expressing her mixture of nascent feelings,
urges, and dreams–of change, of escape, of growth, of rebellion and yet anger and
frustration for her unrequited feelings towards John.
On a day when Herod’s critics had pronounced his efforts to quash revolutionaries as
weak, Herod was hosting a palace party. There he urged his stepdaughter to perform.
Salomé complied by offering the dance she thought her stepfather wanted. Taken by
(even attracted to) Salomé’s dance, Herod rashly promised to give her whatever she
asked as a gift. Salomé, buffeted by her mixed feelings, asks for John’s head. Herod
complied. John was beheaded. (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-28; see Josephus 5:2.)
Roman authorities initially pursued murder charges against Herod. But they chose not to
indict Herod, citing his assertion of and their split decision on whether Herod’s was an
official act as Tetrarch against John, who allegedly posed a threat to Roman authority.
Roman authorities, however, charged Salomé and Herodias with conspiracy to murder
John. (Herod was an unindicted co-conspirator.) During the investigation, and at trial,
Salomé refused to answer pointed questions about the identity of any persons who may
have encouraged her to ask for John’s death. At trial, others testified that Herodias
advised Salomé to request John’s head (Matthew 14:8; Mark 6:24-25) and the magistrate
accepted their testimony as true. In her defense at the trial, Salomé argued for acquittal
on the grounds that (i) Herod’s actions were in his official capacity as he believed John to
be a threat to Roman authority and therefore she cannot be found to be in a conspiracy
with someone immune from prosecution as a sovereign; (ii) she, Herod, and Herodias did
not have the same conspiratorial object (she had personal goals; Herod wanted to quash
a rebellion; and Herodias wanted to quash criticism of her marriage); and (iii) Roman
principles of liberty (on which the United States’ First Amendment eventually would be
grounded) protected Salomé’s speech–either as pure speech or a petition to the
government–that could not qualify as an “act to effect the object of the conspiracy,” 18
S.I.R. § 371.
The prosecution argued that (i) Herod’s order to behead John was not an official act as
sovereign but as a private husband and stepfather acting for purely personal reasons and,
hence, the agreement and the conspiracy are legally actionable; (ii) the agreement among
the conspirators was properly founded (even though their motives might have differed)
because their object–the death of John–was the same; and (iii) Salomé’s words were the
effective cause of John’s death and, therefore, went beyond speech protected by Roman
liberties.
THE DECISION
The lower tribunal ruled for the prosecution on all three issues. The Tribunes of Rome
have granted Salomé’s petition for a writ of certiorari to consider whether Salomé’s
conviction for conspiracy must be reversed for any of the grounds she argues.
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APPEAL
1. Was Herod’s act in his official capacity, rendering a conspiracy a legal impossibility?
2. Was there a justiciable conspiracy among individuals with differing purposes when
entering into an agreement?
3. Are Salomé’s words protected speech, either as expressing political opinion or as
seeking redress from governmental officials?