POTUS: ITS A VERY BIG MOMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY
Q: "WE STAND AT THE PRECIPICE"
THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY & LITERALLY HUMANITY ITSELF HANGS IN THE BALANCE.
This all boils down to restoring Jurisprudence: The English word based on the Latin maxim jurisprudentia: juris is the genitive form of jus meaning "law", and prudentia means "prudence" (also: discretion, foresight, forethought, circumspection; refers to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters).
The Trial of Jesus (From a legal perspective)
https://www.truthcontrol.com/articles/trial-jesus-legal-perspective
Excerpt [words in brackets are mine]:
To understand the enormity of miscarriage [of justice in the trial of Jesus], we [need to] examine the Jewish law as it then existed, a truly magnificent system of criminal justice.
Under provisions of Jewish law there could be no conviction for a capital offense based on the testimony of less than two witnesses. One witness was the same as no witness at all. If there were only two witnesses, both had to agree [on] every … last detail.
Under rabbinical law, the accused had the right to employ counsel (the forerunner of our guarantee of counsel in criminal prosecutions set forth in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States). If s/he couldn't afford a lawyer one had to be appointed for them. We think of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gideon v. Wainwright that gave rise to our public defender system as an innovation, when … this was [already] the practice of courts at least 2000 years ago!
Under Mosaic law an accused could not be required to testify against himself. This is the soul of our 5th Amendment, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Here is the concept of "taking the fifth", part of criminal justice since the time of Moses!
A voluntary confession was not competent for conviction under Jewish law. The burden of proof is still on the State to establish that a confession, if given, was given freely, voluntarily, and intelligently. We require police officers to read the "Miranda warning" to an accused so the Court can determine if an admission was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made. If confession is made after Miranda is heard and understood, a confession can be admitted. It was not so in Jesus' day. Jewish law admitted no confession, believing the State could never rely on that which a person said from his own mouth.
Nor was circumstantial evidence admissible. One seldom sees a case in our courts today in which circumstantial evidence is not used. Evidence in many cases today is entirely circumstantial.
Hearsay evidence was not admissible
Hearsay evidence was not admitted then. We still have a rule against admitting testimony of witnesses who are not in court to be examined in person, however exceptions to our hearsay rule have virtually gobbled up the rule's original protections for the accused.
The presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence our law recognizes today (i.e., that an accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is established by evidence to the exclusion of and beyond any reasonable doubt) also comes to us from Jewish law and was the rule when Jesus was unjustly crucified.
The accused in a capital case was required to be tried in the daytime and in public. This was the forerunner of our constitutional guarantee to a public trial.
No evidence could be produced except when the accused was present. This established the present day right of the accused to be confronted by the witnesses testifying against him.
Witnesses were not administered an oath. It was felt the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" was [enough] to deter perjury.
Lying in court was perjury-oath or no oath.
Moreover, there were two additional deterrents to perjury: (1) any witness in a capital case who committed perjury was subject himself to the death penalty, and (2) if the accused in a capital case was convicted, the witnesses were required to attend the execution. Under this provision of law, witnesses generally chose their words cautiously and offered testimony only with great care!