Legal Process and Judgement

There were three pleadings possible to a defendant: guilty, not-guilty and no-plea. A failure to plead was generally the only occasion on which torture was used, being inflicted until a plea was made or the suspects death. Such stubbornness often occurring as the property of one who refused to plead passed to his heirs, free from blame.

Due to the lack of forensics, evidence was not important; far more weight being placed upon witnesses. However as many crimes were unwitnessed or committed in secrecy, Divine power was invoked to determine guilt or innocence.

The most basic form of test was oaths, the accused swearing on the gospels or holy relics, that he was innocent. This would be sufficient for some minor transgressions to grant an acquittal. However the accused might need, for more serious offences, to provide a number of compurgators; other men willing to swear to his innocence. Oaths actually had some merit for judicial use, as almost all believed God overlooked over such vows, and were generally reluctant to forswear themselves; typically preferring to confess minor crimes rather than risk divine retribution.

In game terms such perjury, might cause the forsworn to suffer nightmares and visions of eternal damnation, possibly being worrying enough to cause a -5% TSC% penalty to actions as a result of tiredness–such a gnawing guilt might even eventually drive them to confess. In more fantastical settings the results of making a “broken” pledge might be far more drastic than purely psychological self-torture.

Judicial Duels: An accused could always resort to their basic entitlement to a trial by strength of arms, it being believed that the Deity would ensure that the ‘just’ party would prevail. Children, women, the physically incapacitated and, from 1140, ecclesiastics were barred from offering or accepting judicial battle–serfs could also not challenge freemen, bastards the legitimately born, and lepers non-lepers. In such cases a “champion” might be appointed to fight on their behalf, however in criminal cases besides the accused suffering their fate, a losing champion would normally be hung, or suffer the loss of a hand or foot as a perjurer. In the EF period a losing accuser would be outlawed (if they survived later periods merely pressing charges of False Accusation with a stiff fine. Towns without charters and institutions might employ a regular champion, but such men were thought of as little better than street-scum.

Witnesses could be challenged too, in order to eliminate their testimony. In 13th century England a defendant could even challenge their own witness, while in France by the 14th century witnesses were only allowed if they were capable of fighting, if challenged. However, rulers increasingly restricted the right of trial by combat, starting with towns and cities, as revenues from court cases were substantially greater. By 1300 very few countries or regions still allowed judicial duels, King Charles VI of France banning duels totally in 1409, except under special license–although they retained a degree of popularity in Germany.

The duel might be fought mounted or (more commonly) on foot, with local custom and rank dictating the form and weapons used. Such battles always drew great crowds, but could often devolve into biting and scratching fights. However, a combatant would only be provided with equipment if they were too poor to equip themselves.

Judicial duels are best modelled in game terms by applying a die roll modifier (if desired by the Gamemaster) to the attack rolls of both sides, aiding the innocent and penalising the guilty.

Additionally nobles had the feudal right of Private War, by which an unfairly treated vassal, wronged by his overlord could resort to armed resistance. This ultimate expression of Trial by Combat was sometimes common, but decidedly risky, as losing could be fatal–or at least, harmful to one’s purse.

Trial by Ordeal (EF & HC only): Besides being tried by a judge and jury, the accused could often elect for Trial by Ordeal in which the Deity was held to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused (although members of the clergy, however minor, could not be tried so). This method of ascertaining guilt involved a grievous test such as (in order of popularity): the ‘ordeal of boiling water’ in which the hand or forearm was dipped into a cauldron of boiling water (or pulling a ring or stone out of it), and the ‘ordeal by fire’ which involved either carrying a 1 lb. lump of heated iron (3 lbs. in treason cases) a set distance (usually nine feet) or in the EF period, walking barefoot over 6, 9, or 12 heated plough-shears. The innocence or guilt of the accused being judged on the limbs’ condition, if the burns had not become infected and were healing after three days, they were judged innocent of the crime. Additionally there was the ‘ordeal of cold water’ in which the accused was immersed, being found guilty if they floated.

In some areas only accused women and free men could undertake the ordeal of fire, serfs the ordeal of water, while members of the nobility could also opt for trial by ordeal, if they so wished–although few did. Ultimately, these practices were increasingly seen as barbaric relics and not very effective (with more than two thirds of those subjected being acquitted). The religious underpinning of them was removed in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council (which banned clerical participation), with trial by ordeal being universally abandoned by 1300. In game terms the ‘ordeal of cold water’ follows normal drowning rules, while the ‘hot’ ordeals typically inflict 2D10 Body damage, not enough to kill, as that was not the intention. There is the chance of exposure to septicemia–but this is rare, and may be resisted normally.