top of page

Rhody Radio episode transcription has been been made possible by the American Rescue Plan: Humanities Grants for Libraries, which is an initiative of the American Library Association (ALA) made possible with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.


JUSTICE play table read and interview with author Dyanna Morrison White

Cover image for Justice by Dyanna Morrison White, featuring a gavel sitting on a judge's table, with portraits of George Washington, Ben Franklin, and James Madison hanging on the wall behind the table. A Rhody Radio logo banner is at the bottom of the image: the text "Rhody Radio" and an illustration of the state of Rhode Island wearing headphones.

Dave Bartos: [00:00:00] You're listening to Rhody Radio, Rhode Island Library Radio Online.


Dave Bartos: I'm Dave Bartos, Coordinator of Adult Services at the Cranston Public Library. When I'm not creating podcasts, my primary job is collection development, which is really just fancy library talk for buying books for the library. One of the joys of this job is having the opportunity to meet local authors and consider their work for our collection, which is how I was introduced to Dyanna Morrison White.

Dyanna came into our central library with a copy of her recently published play, Justice, to donate to our collection. As you can imagine, publishing a play in 2020 isn't ideal when there aren't opportunities to have it performed live. I suggested featuring this work on Rhody Radio and Dyanna jumped at the chance. In this episode, I talk with Dyanna about her play and what motivated her to write it. Later on, we present an excerpt from the play featuring the Bristol Shakespeare readers. Enjoy.

Dyanna Morrison White: I am Dyanna Morrison White and I am the author of the book and stage play, Justice.

Dave Bartos: Thank you so much for joining me today. I found it interesting that you actually began working on this project back in 2001. Your interest in the Founding Fathers and the events that shaped our democracy started over a decade prior to Hamilton's successes. Talk a little bit about the genesis of the project.

Dyanna Morrison: Sure. I was living in San Diego at the time and started doing the research in 2001, my first copyright's actually 2002. I originally wrote the script in a quasi-book format and then I transitioned it into a screenplay. I was working with some consultants in LA at the time, and they said, "This dialog [00:02:00] could be so dramatically performed on stage." Pretty much, I then shifted my focus to trying to get theaters to stage my script.

I almost got it staged at a theater in Sacramento in 2006. That didn't happen and then I relocated back to the East Coast in 2009, started talking to some theaters in Boston, and then nothing really happened for quite some time. I did a major rewrite of the script back in 2017, 2018, and then, again, came close to getting Justice staged here in Rhode Island for 2020, but then, of course, COVID came along and that ruined that.

Anyways, Justice is not a musical and Hamilton is based on Ron Chernow's book of the same name. It revolves around key events in Hamilton's life who is the central character. Whereas, Justice, paints a bit of a broader stroke and includes the contributions of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin. They were all central to the founding of our democracy and many were central to our victory in the Revolutionary War.

Dave Bartos: Wow. What is it back in 2001 that sparked your interest in researching and writing Justice?

Dyanna Morrison: A dear family friend actually put this crazy idea into my head back in the late '90s, and it always stayed with me. I always had this vision in the back of my head, "What if our Founding Fathers, the guys who wrote the stuff, could witness a couple of contemporary courtroom cases dealing with First Amendment abuses and protections, the First Amendment of their Bill of Rights, and would they agree?"

Dave Bartos: I know we'll get to this when we hear [00:04:00] the clip later on in the episode. You're focusing on the J20 trials from the inauguration in 2017. Obviously, it wasn't focusing on the J20 trials in 2001, 2002.

Dyanna Morrison: Correct.

Dave Bartos: I do wonder what kind of cases were you looking at? I assume they've all been real-life cases in the real life.

Dyanna Morrison: Actually, it was a take on a couple of real-life cases, and, totally, nothing at all similar to what 2017, 2018 version ended up being, but they were first cases surrounding First Amendment abuses and protection.

Dave Bartos: Okay. Talk to us a little bit about what is Justice all about?

Dyanna Morrison: Justice focuses on two trials in Judge Grace Porter's courtroom dealing with First Amendment abuses and protections, aided by the thoughts of our Founding Fathers who are witnessing both trials through a one-way window in the courtroom. As you mentioned, the first trial centers around the J20 trials, which were stemming from the charges of over 200 peaceful protesters who were actually arrested during Donald Trump's Inauguration Day festivities on January 20th, 2017.

These events occurred as detailed in the play, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of widespread awareness that these arrests and trial actually occurred. Listeners can Google J20 trials, and they'll see that all of the events in Justice are historically accurate. We're going to cover the verdicts rendered in our upcoming scriptory.

Dave Bartos: All right. I know we've got, in our library at Cranston, Justice as a book and the follow-up, which is-- Oh, no.

Dyanna Morrison: Liberty.

Dave Bartos: Liberty. Thank you. There's one with an R-word, too, right?

Dyanna Morrison: Actually, it was Redemption.

Dave Bartos: It was Redemption, okay.

Dyanna Morrison: Yes.

Dave Bartos: Sorry. [laughs]

Dyanna Morrison: No, that's okay. [00:06:00] That was fun. I was all done with the book. I already had my author's copy and I read through it again, and I said, "Why did I ever name this Redemption when it should be Liberty because I read the book and I read it again, and I used the word "liberty" so many times that it just seemed like the natural progression, so from Justice to Liberty versus from Justice to Redemption.

Dave Bartos: Redemption isn't going to be the third book, in other words?

Dyanna Morrison: Correct.

Dave Bartos: Okay. How did you decide or why did you decide to make Justice into this book that we've got in our library?

Dyanna Morrison: Well, I remain convinced that I still am going to have the opportunity to see Justice performed on the stage someday, and maybe I'll even get a chance to direct it, but when COVID hit, I just figured that reading was important during these times of isolation, so I just figured, "Well, I'll go with plan B." [laughs]

Dave Bartos: Get it in people's hands one way or another.

Dyanna Morrison: Yes.

Dave Bartos: Fantastic. What would you say was the biggest challenge turning Justice, the stage play, into a book?

Dyanna Morrison: Well, first of all, the formatting was really a challenge. It's not just-- I think people think that self-publishing is easy and you just push your button. It just doesn't work that way. I actually ended up hiring a professional formatter, so she helped me with that piece of it. The most challenging thing was writing the Foreword section because you don't need a Foreword section in a play, but in turning it into a book, I felt it needed an introduction.

It took me three months to write those 10 pages because I really wanted to incorporate as many different and divergent points of view, introducing Justice and why I wrote it in the first place because so many cultural shifts [00:08:00] had happened since I first started it in 2001. I just wanted to give credence to as many different points of view that I could.

Dave Bartos: Absolutely. I got to say, I work professionally with books. I had no idea but it makes perfect sense that such a thing as a professional formatter exists. Of course, people have to professionally format books. That's incredible.

Dyanna Morrison: Believe it or not, she's in West Africa.

Dave Bartos: Wow.

Dyanna Morrison: I found her online and she was only an e-mail away, right? That's the great thing about technology and e-mail is that it doesn't really matter where in the world somebody can be. She's great. TrioMarketers, highly recommend her.

Dave Bartos: Oh, that's fantastic. You did share that Justice is historically accurate, well-researched, can you just elaborate a little bit on what makes a play or fiction historically accurate?

Dyanna Morrison: Sure. With a couple of exceptions, I made a couple of changes to heighten the drama, but I spent so many years researching the founding of our democracy that much of the words our founders speak are actually verbatim, words they actually spoke.

Dave Bartos: That's fantastic. We're about to read, or rather, we're about to hear acts one, scene three through act one, scene six of your play. Just set up what we're about to hear. Set the stage for our listeners.

Dyanna Morrison: Sure. I, along with the Bristol Shakespeare Reading Group and a couple of other local professionals are going to be reading, as you said, from Justice acts one, scene three through act one, scene six. The opening scene reveals the verdicts handed down in the J20 trials as they actually occurred. The following scene is outside the courtroom after the verdicts have been read [00:10:00] with reporters addressing the defendants and their attorneys.

The following scene sets up the first flashback with our Founding Fathers having witnessed the reading of the verdicts of these defendants who had been charged for doing nothing more than peaceful protesting, ultimately receiving a fair and just outcome at the hands of the judiciary branch of government that they created.

Dave Bartos: That's going to be fantastic. Well, I don't know if this needs any kind of introduction, but now let's hear that play.


Stage Director: Act one, scene three. Interior of the courtroom, morning. Judge Grace Porter enters the courtroom and takes her seat.

Court Secretary: All rise, the Honorable Grace Porter now presiding.

Judge Grace: Thank you. Good morning please be seated, court is now in session. Will the defendants please rise and face the jury? Madam Foreperson, has your jury agreed upon your verdicts?

Jury Foreperson: We have, your honor.

Judge Grace: What say you, Madam Foreperson, wherein each of the six defendants are charged with felonious destruction of property, are they guilty or not guilty?

Jury Foreperson: Not guilty, your honor.

Judge Grace: In that, there were five separate counts for each defendant for the destruction of property, was your verdict of not guilty unanimous across all counts, or do we need to review each account separately?

Jury Foreperson: Unanimous across all five counts, your honor.

Judge Grace: So be it recorded. We move on to the next charges, wherein each of the six defendants are charged with two misdemeanor counts of engaging in and a conspiracy to engage in a riot. Are they guilty or not guilty?

Jury Foreperson: Not guilty, your honor.

Judge Grace: In that, there were two separate counts for each defendant, was your not guilty verdict unanimous across both counts, or [00:12:00] do we need to review each count separately?

Jury Foreperson: Unanimous for both counts, your honor.

Judge Grace: Members of the jury hearken to your verdict as the court will record it. You, upon your oath, do say that each of the six defendants are not guilty of five counts of destruction of property. So say you Madam Foreperson, so say you all members of the jury?

All: We do, your honor.

Judge Grace: And as wherein each of the six defendants are charged with engaging in and a conspiracy to engage in a riot. You, upon your oath, do say that the defendants are not guilty. So say you Madam Foreperson, so say you all members of the jury?

All: We do, your honor.

Judge Grace: Let the record show that the jury has returned in total 42 not guilty verdicts. Defendants Jennifer Amento, Michelle Makio, Oliver Harris, Brittany Lawson, Christina Simmons, and Alexei Wood, the jury having returned verdicts of not guilty on these complaints, the court orders that you be discharged and go without day on these complaints.

Members of the jury, during this trial I told you in my instructions that the verdict was your responsibility. For that reason, I never comment on the verdict reached. I appreciate the seriousness with which you accepted your responsibilities and reached your decisions. Your jury duty is now complete. I thank you for your service.

The privilege to be named and participate in jury service is a critical and founding element of our democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." You will now be escorted back to the jury room where you will be discharged. Court is adjourned. [00:14:00]

Stage Director: Act one, scene four. Exterior, outside, same time. There's great excitement outside the courthouse. Michael Pantovere, one of the defendant’s attorneys, a tall, serious, outspoken advocate for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights steps up to the reporter's microphone to speak.

Reporter: How does it feel to be exonerated on all charges? Do you feel vindicated that the jury obviously agreed with your right to protest the arrival of this current administration?

Michael Pantovere: Justice has been well served here today. My client was doing nothing more than expressing her right to free speech and peaceful assembly, the very essence of The First Amendment. On the very first day of assuming office, this administration exercised far-reaching authority in trying not just my client but in also charging over 200 other protesters with crimes that could have resulted in over 60 years in prison.

My client was subjected to overzealous prosecution by the Justice Department and the Office of the Attorney General who are trying to set an example for those who engage in opposition, relying on an unsuccessful guilt by association argument. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Reporter: This should bring optimism to the remaining protesters awaiting trial?

Michael Pantovere: Yes, it certainly should. When our most basic freedoms are being questioned and criminalized, [00:16:00] then this country has reached a very dark place. Our democracy is at risk. I do not condone violence, the protesters who actually committed acts of violence and destruction have been tried and sentenced or are in the process of being tried accordingly. There is a distinct difference between a lawbreaker and a protester.

Since when has dissent become a crime? It is painfully clear that this has nothing to do with wrongdoing or criminality and everything to do with politics. Why weren't more than a few of the white supremacists protesting in Charlottesville arrested and charged? Every single person in this great country needs to take heed of what is going on and speak up. Please call your Congressman and complain. Let your voices be heard.

Stage Director: Act one, scene five. Interior, Grace's office, afternoon. Grace is sitting at her desk and closes her eyes briefly. She takes her gift book, entitled The Framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out of her briefcase which she had mysteriously found gift wrapped and waiting for her on her desk upon arrival at her chambers that morning. She opens the book lost in thought.

Act two. Side window in the courtroom. Dissolves through the window to the other side to introduce the initial flashback scene, 1790s. Act one, scene six. Interior, the red room where all flashback scenes will occur. Day. George Washington is reading a newspaper, John Adams is pacing back and forth, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, [00:18:00] and James Madison are all seated or standing at various locations around the room. John Adams introduces the conversation.

John Adams: Why Thomas said it would appear that the doctrines of due process and trial by jury remain intact and well functioning in these United States of America whatever the date may be.

Thomas Jefferson: Yes, John, oddly enough, indeed. Well, our Lady judge quotes me quite sincerely. The people of these United States of America can rely upon and hold high right of trial by jury as a form of democratic involvement in the administration of criminal justice. Well, I've heard trial by jury referred to as the first privilege of freemen, the noblest article ever entered the Constitution in a free country, a jewel whose transcendent luster adds dignity to human nature. Do you not agree, Dr. Franklin?

Benjamin Franklin: And yet, I've also heard it said that a jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. As I like to say, a countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.

Thomas Jefferson: As I remember it, Mr. Adams, evolving from the Magna Carta and English common law, trial by jury has dated back as early as the year of 1606 in the State of Virginia.

John Adams: The right to trial by jury received formal recognition in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, shortly followed by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. [00:20:00]

Thomas Jefferson: In 1776, Virginia framed the first state constitution and specified that in criminal cases, the defendant had a right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage. With the exception of religious freedoms, no other personal right received as much protection from individual state constitutions. Virginia was the first permanent state constitution that included, among other liberties, freedom of the press.

John Adams: I just love to remind you that Pennsylvania's Bill of Rights was more comprehensive, and Massachusetts, a state near and dear to my heart, had the most comprehensive state Bill of Rights, and it was an ideal source of reference in helping to frame the federal version.

Benjamin Franklin: Simply mad. Simply mad. I, Dr. Franklin, am persuaded, however, that he means well for his country is always an honest man, often is a wise one, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.

Alexander Hamilton: An inherently erratic character who often lacks control over his impulses.

John Adams: There have been many times in my life when I have been so agitated in my mind as to have no consideration at all of the light in which my words, actions, and even writings would be considered by others. A few traces that remain of me must, I believe, go down to posterity in much confusion and distraction as my [00:22:00] life has been passed.

I must tell you that my wife bids me tell you that she thinks my head to a little crack and I am half of that mind myself. How is it that I, poor ignorant, I must stand before posterity as differing from all other great men of the age? I, John Adams, am obnoxious and suspected and unpopular.

James Madison: Dear gentlemen, let us get back to the topic at hand. As my support for this noxious project of amendments has grown in magnitude, I have become more convinced that these inalienable rights are critical in ensuring a smooth, functioning, sovereign state. Initially, I too had my doubts about amending the Constitution with a set of enumerated rights for fear as what that would purportedly imply about those rights not specifically spelled out.

My concern was that if an enumeration be made of all our rights, will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government? Did we just hear counsel state that this current administration is, in fact, attempting to repress free speech and the right to peaceful assembly? Why that was not what we had in mind?

Thomas Jefferson: Well, I certainly agree, Mr. Madison. That was not what we had in mind at all. All free and independent men must, at all times, retain the ability to disagree with our government and gather to do so. Certainly, if we can only agree on one thing, we can agree on that, Hamilton. [00:24:00]

Alexander Hamilton: Why, gentlemen? The Constitution is itself, in every rational sense and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights. Such restraints are implied as we continue our efforts to frame and regulate a government of limited powers, and it certainly sounds like this administration is exercising powers that they do not possess. The tyrannical manipulations of George III forced us to stand united and revolt to earn our independence, creating a democracy and freeing us from the onerous, cumbersome chains of an authoritarian dictatorship.

It sounds like this new administration needs a refresher course in history so that they may be reminded of the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. My concern all along has been that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous and unnecessary because it would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and on this very account, would afford a very colorful pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? For instance, it should be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed.

James Madison: It sounds like that is what we are witnessing here, and it pains me to think that the checks and balances we worked so hard to create are being manipulated or ignored altogether. What say you, Mr. Adams?

John Adams: It is unfathomable that innocent constituents are being arrested and tried for exercising such basic freedoms.

Alexander Hamilton: [00:26:00] Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law that it be attended with a sanction, or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. For if this is not the case, my friends, why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of all men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.

Thomas Jefferson: We cannot assume that reason alone will be enough to steer this country and its citizens down a path of peace and prosperity. Are you in agreement, Dr. Franklin?

Benjamin Franklin: So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature. Since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything that one has a mind to do, let us hear from our fearless leader and commander-in-chief, General Washington. What are your thoughts, sir?

George Washington: I believe that our constituents have become accustomed to the idea that government exists by the consent of the governed, that people create government, that they do so by a written compact, that a compact constitutes fundamental law, that the government must be subject to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the rights of the people, and usually, that a reserved rights of the people are enumerated in a Bill of Rights. Are we in lockstep regarding this, Hamilton?

Alexander Hamilton: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchment or musty records. [00:28:00] They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

George Washington: While it is entirely unreasonable to assume we will be in total agreement as to the content and the intent of these unprecedented documents of collective faith, I do think we must all agree, gentlemen, upon the imperative nature of many of these suggested enumerations, specifically freedom of speech and of the press. For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken away and dumb and silent, we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.


Dave Bartos: Now that we just heard the play, what do you want the biggest takeaway for readers, or, if people are watching the play, for audience members when they're watching Justice?

Dyanna Morrison: Well, taken from my perspective, and this is just that, my perspective, I have great respect for anyone whose thoughts are different than mine. When we started a conversation, I really tried to incorporate as many different viewpoints as possible into the Foreword section of Justice and into the play and the book itself. I did a ton of research. I spoke with local [00:30:00] college and university professors. I think we all agreed that our Founding Fathers and their contributions to the emergence of the United States of America need to be viewed contextually.

In the sense of what was going on in the late 1700s versus through a 21st-century lens, 240 plus years later, slavery was, is, and always will be our original sin. The framers incorporated Article 1, Section 9 into the constitution which basically prohibited the conversation of abolishing slavery for 20 years. What they thought they were doing was kicking the can to the next generation to address.

One of the misconceptions that they held was that future generations would be as apt and skilled in debate, but most importantly, negotiating and compromised. That was a flawed assumption. Unfortunately, the only thing that was going to end slavery was violence as the civil war taught us. That was just the beginning. They were imperfect men who formed an imperfect union and it's been up to every future generation to do their part in improving upon it. That's my thought.

At the end of the Foreword section of Justice, I use a quote of James Madison from the Federalist Papers 14, where in discussing the future and the experience of the people of America, he ends by saying, "They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate."

Dave Bartos: Fantastic.

Dyanna Morrison: The very first sentence of our Constitution starts with, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a [00:32:00] more perfect Union", they didn't say a perfect union, they said a more perfect union, but we wouldn't have our Constitution or our Bill of Rights or the freedom to peacefully gather and demonstrate, or to march in the streets without their contributions. For that, I think they deserve some credit.

Dave Bartos: I will be honest that, I was around in 2017, I don't remember the J20 trials. I think it's thought-provoking to compare and contrast the charges brought against J20 defendants with the current and ongoing charges being brought against the January 6th defendants. If you were to-- I'm not asking you to rewrite the play again, but if you were to, how might you deal with that contrast there?

Dyanna Morrison: When I was working on getting Justice published in 2020, clearly, there was no way that I could have anticipated the events of January 6th of 2021. I actually think that the message of Justice is more timely now than when I published it over a year ago. What's fascinating is that the Department of Justice charged these 200 people with crimes that could have put them in jail for over 60 years, each.

Dave Bartos: This was in 2017?

Dyanna Morrison: Right. Now you look at what's happened with those being charged for the January 6th, 2021, Insurrection. I think they finally just were able to charge a group or a handful of people within a group of sedition. Even that charge is still only carrying 20 years. I don't quite understand how the Justice Department is having such a hard time, honestly. You can't really compare them. You should be able to compare them, but it's interesting to [00:34:00] me that I've only seen one other journalist point out that dichotomy, that actually brought up what happened in 2017 and compared it to what happened in 2021. I'm not really sure why no one else has been making that big of a deal about it.

Dave Bartos: Huh. You did share that Justice is the first of three stage plays in the Justice Trilogy. The second was also recently published and released, right?

Dyanna Morrison: That's correct. I published the paperback and ebook of Liberty in August of 2021, so recently, where, again, in Judge Grace's courtroom, except this time the trial focuses on protections and abuses of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms with our Founding Fathers, again, witnessing these events through a one-way window in the courtroom.

Dave Bartos: Fantastic. Just to give us a peek at the third in the trilogy if you're willing to share anything about that.

Dyanna Morrison: It's in my head.

Dave Bartos: Right on.


Dyanna Morrison: It's been in my head for a really long time. I can tell you that it's going to take me quite some time to finish the trilogy because I'm introducing a new character, a little tease there, and I have a lot of reading to do.

Dave Bartos: If we look ahead even further to live theater as a thing, all three of the plays are out, as far as the performance, what do you envision for what those performances look like? This question might go nowhere. [chuckles]

Dyanna Morrison: You mean as far as how much time would be in between each one being performed?

Dave Bartos: Right. Would it be performed over one night? Would it be--?

Dyanna Morrison: No, no.

Dave Bartos: It's no Ring Cycle like Wagner or anything?

Dyanna Morrison: No, no. I could see one perhaps being done one year, and then, perhaps, Liberty being done the following year, and then the final [00:36:00] one being done the final year.

Dave Bartos: For a troop to cycle through it?

Dyanna Morrison: Yes.

Dave Bartos: Neat. Why don't we wrap up by you just telling our listeners how they can get their hands on Justice, if not actual justice, at least your book.

Dyanna Morrison: The latter might take some time.

Dave Bartos: We'll keep working on it, for sure.

Dyanna Morrison: Well, of course, Amazon. I really hope that listeners here in Rhode Island might frequent some of our local and independent booksellers, Books on the Square in Wayland Square, Stillwater Books in Pawtucket, Barrington Books here in Barrington, both Barnes and Nobles in Warwick and Portsmouth. If you want to go to one of our local libraries, so far, downtown Providence, Rochambeau, Sockanosset Crossing, and Barrington, all have copies of Justice.

Dave Bartos: Fantastic. Well, Dyanna, thank you so much for sharing your time and your work with us today. I appreciate it.

Dyanna Morrison: Thanks for having me. I really appreciate the opportunity.


Dave Bartos: Copies of Justice and Liberty, the second in Dyanna's trilogy are available now at libraries across the Ocean state. I'd like to thank Dyanna Morrison White for allowing us to present this adaptation of her work, as well as the Bristol Shakespeare Readers for assembling the cast for this table reading. Alexander Hamilton was played by Ed Carusi, Michael Pantovere and Ben Franklin were played by Ray Edler. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were played by Chris Lane. John Adams and George Washington were played by Jim Manchester. The bailiff and reporter were played by Joni Pratt. Stage direction and jury foreperson were played by Sarah Weed. Finally, Judge Grace Porter was played by Dyanna Morrison White.

Special thanks also to the Barrington Public Library for their time and technology to create this recording. Finally, thank you for listening today. If you enjoyed this episode of Rhody Radio, we'd love for you to share it with a friend, and, please, rate and review Rhody Radio on Apple Podcasts [00:38:00] or wherever you get your podcasts.

Rhody Radio is a resident partner of the Rhode Island Center for the Book and is brought to you by the American Rescue Plan, Humanities Grants for Libraries, an initiative of the American Library Association made possible with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. When you are listening to Rhody Radio, you know you're listening to something good.


[00:38:33] [END OF AUDIO]


bottom of page