The idea that a person ‘shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’ is a relatively new one. Not that medieval jurisprudence was all that, well, medieval. In fact, it was downright civilized … to a point. And in England it was well-reasoned and workable.
By the way, that rule about self-incrimination in English common law became law in the latter half of the seventeenth century, too late to do Crispin any good. Prior to that, silence was construed as guilt. In the 1600s, reason seemed to prevail. But in the early fourteenth century it wasn’t about the individual’s right to remain silent but the opportunity to speak out and defend yourself.
There aren’t any details as to exactly how a criminal trial proceeded during Crispin’s time. All we have are the bare facts from the court records, which are interesting enough. Because we don’t know exactly what transpired and there were no records of every step and word uttered at a trial as you would see today in court transcripts, I’ve taken only a few liberties. But the court, as we know it or knew it, was depicted extant. Defendants and juries were specifically not ‘sworn in’ so that they would not be compelled to blaspheme themselves if they lied, assuming they might. And there was no assumption of innocence or guilt. A crime was committed, evidence suggested the accused might be guilty, an indictment or formal accusation was made, and the accused arrested.
Jurors were seated because they had intimate knowledge of the case and came from the immediate vicinity of the crime or knew the accused’s character. This is completely unlike today when both of those aspects would get you immediately thrown off the jury.
London was divided into wards, and jurors were culled from those wards where the crimes were committed. Sometimes jurors were important people chosen to be seated in likelihood that they could corral some of these common merchants and laborers who didn’t know what they were doing. Unfortunately, that could be stacking the jury. There were a lot of checks and balances in place to try to prevent that, but it did happen with varying results.
A jury, though usually ready with their decision before ever getting to trial, could still be swayed by further testimony or new evidence – or a bribe – but on the whole, trials were pretty quick business, lasting no more than ten minutes. You can see how this might have made for a very short novel.
Despite what bribes might have been levied or not, it seems that sixty percent of trials ended with an acquittal. This either speaks about the seriousness with which all parties took the events or it was a clear sign of widespread corruption. And no mistaking, there was corruption, and bribes, and favors gained and meted out.
All that trial by combat or ordeal was done away with by the end of the fourteenth century. You might remember in Blood Lance that Crispin was involved in a trial by combat, but this was a different situation of a knight being tried for desertion and cowardice by the court of chivalry. In that instance a trial by combat was certainly appropriate.