Court of Law, v3: Jaime Lannister

[Ghost of Groat]

2. Treason – Innocent

Cersei was never the Queen. The charge presupposes that Cersei were Queen. Marriage is a contract. A contract based upon a fraud is invalid. The marriage contract was vitiated by fraud. Cersei was not the bride she was claimed to be during the premarital negotiations between house Lannister and house Baratheon represented by Ayers. Jaime was a willing participant in the fraud but that is not the crime for which he was charged in #2.

[Mr Hodor]

Innocent of

1. Not a punishable crime in westros

3. Swore to protect

4. Procted a city against a madman

Sent to the wall for

5. Lord stark hand of the king. Jamie assaulted a Lord

6. and 7.

over ridden by

Death by Sword/Hammer for

2.. treason

[Alester Florent]

1. Guilty (nominal monetary fine)

The substance of this charge cannot be disputed. Whether it is a criminal act or merely a disturbing one is debatable. The relationship was consensual and no harm done to either party. Stringent punishment is not appropriate for this wrongdoing. Ser Jaime Lannister is charged a nominal fine of two copper stars.

2. Guilty (stripping of title)

The substance of this charge is likewise beyond dispute. However, the degree to which the king disrespected his own marital vows robs the crime of much of its significance. The marriage contract between Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister is also of questionable validity, in light of misrepresentation. For the fact if not much substance of treason, Ser Jaime Lannister shall be stripped of lands and titles.

3. Innocent.

At no point did Ser Jaime Lannister aid or abet rape. His involvement was limited to witnessing; he did not at any point intervene in assistance of either party. No duty to intervene in the event of witnessing a crime is recognised in the criminal law. Not guilty, for non-performance.

4. Dismiss charges.

Aerys II Targaryen had by the time of his death by his deeds broken the charter of kingship and effectively abdicated the crown in favour of Robert Baratheon. The person of the king can be separated from the office of kingship and it was the person of the former king slain by Ser Jaime, in defence of the realm. Charges dismissed on the basis that no crime was committed.

5. Dismiss charges.

Eddard Stark had laid down his office as Hand of the King before he was accosted by Ser Jaime Lannister. At no time did Ser Jaime attack the Hand of the King.

6. Separate offences. Dismiss charges/Guilty, redundant sentence.

Charges dismissed for grounds of non-specificity, and because several of the original charges were dismissed. Considerations of oathbreaking to be taken into account in sentence (where applicable) for the original charge. The only applicable charges are for incest and treason: for breaking his Kingsguard oaths Ser Jaime would be stripped of his title as a member of the Kingsguard. Sentence already applied for the acts in question.

7. Guilty.

Guilty by admission of attempted murder. The normal sentence of death is recommended to be mitigated by contrition, the rehabilitative principle and the service Ser Jaime is still in a position to offer the realm. It is recommended that Ser Jaime be pardoned, on condition he takes the Black. In effect, send him to the Wall.

[Mr Fixit]

If my fellow judges would help me solve a legal conundrum: what is to be done if on a given charge relative majority of judges votes GUILTY, but, when taken together, NOT GUILTY and DISMISSED comprise an absolute majority of votes?

Wouldn't it be contrary to the sense of justice if an accused in such a position were to be found guilty?

[ab aeterno]

If my fellow judges would help me solve a legal conundrum: what is to be done if on a given charge relative majority of judges votes GUILTY, but, when taken together, NOT GUILTY and DISMISSED comprise an absolute majority of votes?

Wouldn't it be contrary to the sense of justice if an accused in such a position were to be found guilty?

I would argue that a vote for dismissal is implicitly a "Not Guilty" vote, and therefore I think it should be counted as such.

[TheFlayedMan]

1. Incest

I see no crime here. Not guilty.

2. Treason, by sexual relations with the Queen

Yes, guilty.

3. Aiding and Abetting Rape

No, not guilty.

4. Regicide

Well, knowing the reasoning behind this act, I say absolutely innocent

5. Assaulting the Hand of the King

Guilty

6. Sundry Oathbreaking

I'd dismiss this as the separate cases of oathbreaking have already been dealt with

7. Attempted Murder

Guilty

Sentence: The Wall

[LuisDantas]

1. Incest

Ser Jaime Lannister maintained a sexual relationship with his sister Cersei Lannister for 21 years. The products of this relationship are Joffrey, Myrcella & Tommen "Baratheon".

Dismissed due to lack of proof. It should also be noted that however wrong the deed might have been, no true reparation is possible at this point in time.

2. Treason, by sexual relations with the Queen

In the commission of Charge 1, Ser Jaime Lannister also committed treason, by sleeping with the Queen during her husband's reign.

Dismissed, unless some witness presents itself, and even them we will have some trouble establishing reliability.

3. Aiding and Abetting Rape

During his service in the Kingsguard during the reign of Aerys II, Ser Jaime Lannister witnessed and failed to prevent multiple instances of Rape perpetrated by King Aerys II on Queen Rhaella.

Alas, dismissed. The Kingsguard's vows really make any attempts at protecting people from the King exceedingly difficult to enforce without falling into a direct violation.

4. Regicide

During Robert's Rebellion, Ser Jaime Lannister of the Kingsguard attacked and slew the King he was sworn to defend and protect.

Pending investigations. The defendant must present his own take on matters. I must point out that this is no ordinary decision, for a court that has been established on challenge of a King's right to rule has no authority to punish those who enforced that challenge. I would insist on hearing the defendant, however, because his reputation and rights will nonetheless suffer the consequences and therefore the truth should be pursued.

5. Assaulting the Hand of the King

Ser Jaime Lannister mustered men, and attacked the Hand of the King and his company in the streets of King's Landing

Guilty. There are plenty of witnesses, and the defendant doesn't even deny it. Even taking his claim of illegal arrest of his brother at face value, that still gives him no special privileges to arrest and kill people without going through the King's Justice.

6. Sundry Oathbreaking

In his acts detailed in the previous two charges, Ser Jaime broke the vows he swore as a member of the Kingsguard, to defend the the King with his life. He also ignored this oath in fathering three children in incest with his sister, Cersei Lannister.

Guilty. He must be expelled from the Kingsguard in dishonor. At this time I would advise no stronger punishment for this.

7. Attempted Murder

While visiting Winterfell, Ser Jaime was observed by 10 year old Bran Stark in the act of sexual relations with his sister Cersei, the Queen. Upon realizing this, he pushed the boy from the tower in which they were observed. Ser Jaime has confessed to this charge:

"I seldom fling children from towers to improve their health. Yes, I meant for him to die." ~Ser Jaime Lannister, ACOK, Chapter 55.

Guilty. His choice between long imprisonment with no special privileges (and loss of his titles and lands) or serving in the Night's Watch. The defendant is free to propose alternate compensation if he can think of any.

[ab aeterno]

Dismissed due to lack of proof. It should also be noted that however wrong the deed might have been, no true reparation is possible at this point in time.

Dismissed, unless some witness presents itself, and even them we will have some trouble establishing reliability.

I'm pretty sure that Jaime and Cersei have admitted this. The whole point of this court is for us to judge characters based upon what we know.

[Dolorous K Dilkington]

1. Guilty--no question here

2. Guilty--likewise

3. Not Guilty--damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation. oath applies equally to king and queen.

4. Not Guilty--already been pardoned for this crime

5. Not Guilty--Ned had resigned the office of hand

6. Guilty--despite #4, still applies to #'s 1 and 2

7. Guilty--no question here

gets sent to the wall, only avoids the sword because the acting king pardoned #4

[Top12Gun]

I'm pretty sure that Jaime and Cersei have admitted this. The whole point of this court is for us to judge characters based upon what we know.

This. You are judging as readers, so you DO know whether or not incest occurred. Judge based on what you read, not based on what the average Westerosi would know.

[Top12Gun]

4. Regicide

Not Guilty. Jaime Lannister had declared himself in rebellion by donning an enemy uniform and killing the King's Hand. As such, both he and King Aerys were lawful enemy combatants.

The court questions whether the underlined is true, given that until Ser Jaime revealed his intentions, Aerys saw no cause for alarm, presumably because he was dressed as he usually was and nothing in his attire signified his allegiance.

[King Minos]

1)Dismissal:Incest may be an inappropriate act but does not count as a crime

2)Guilty

3)Not guilty:Because of his oaths any act against the king is illegal

4)Guilty:Because of his oaths any act against the king is illegal

5)i)Dismissal for his act against Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell ex-hand of the king at that time as the accusation is wrongfully formulated

ii)Guilty for attacking and killing Lord Rossart hand of the king Aerys II

6)Guilty

7)Guilty

Death by behaeding

[balefired-ed]

The court questions whether the underlined is true, given that until Ser Jaime revealed his intentions, Aerys saw no cause for alarm, presumably because he was dressed as he usually was and nothing in his attire signified his allegiance.

But when he closed his eyes, it was Aerys Targaryen he saw, pacing alone in his throne room, picking at his scabbed and bleeding hands. The fool was always cutting himself on the blades and barbs of the Iron Throne. Jaime had slipped in through the king’s door, clad in his golden armor, sword in hand. The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well. When Aerys saw the blood on his blade, he demanded to know if it was Lord Tywin’s. “I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you’ll bring me his head, or you’ll burn with all the rest. All the traitors. Rossart says they are inside the walls! He’s gone to make them a warm welcome. Whose blood? Whose?” “Rossart’s,” answered Jaime. Those purple eyes grew huge then, and the royal mouth drooped open in shock. He lost control of his bowels, turned, and ran for the Iron Throne. Beneath the empty eyes of the skulls on the walls, Jaime hauled the last dragonking bodily off the steps, squealing like a pig and smelling like a privy. A single slash across his throat was all it took to end it. So easy, he remembered thinking. A king should die harder than this.

So he had changed his armor, but left the cloak on, and had killed the Hand of the King. Make of that what you will.

[Lion of Judah]

If my fellow judges would help me solve a legal conundrum: what is to be done if on a given charge relative majority of judges votes GUILTY, but, when taken together, NOT GUILTY and DISMISSED comprise an absolute majority of votes?

Wouldn't it be contrary to the sense of justice if an accused in such a position were to be found guilty?

Good question. By definition not guilty renders the defendant legally blameless however the charge(s) are rendered worthy of trial, whereas a dismissal renders the charge baseless and not worthy of trial and/or consideration. Thus you being the judge must consider the merit of the charge and pass your judgement, the court cannot combine the vote. That would be a play on politics and I would point out, it would be irresponsible to assume that every single judge who found the defendant blameless, also found the charge baseless and visa versa. Good question though.

[Mr Fixit]

(...) the court cannot combine the vote. That would be a play on politics and I would point out, it would be irresponsible to assume that every single judge who found the defendant blameless, also found the charge baseless and visa versa.

I agree... in part. However, as it stands now with the legal procedure adopted by this high court, particularly having in mind a certain lack of understanding on the part of some judges (whose competence and dedication to justice I don't doubt in the least, it needs not be said) regarding what dismissal is, I am afraid this situation will de facto amount to one option 'guilty' and two options 'not guilty', with votes being split as a consequence, to the detriment of the defendant.

I point the most honourable Lion of Judah to the previous case heard before this court. On charges (1) and (2) Robb Stark prevailed by a rather slim margin due to votes being split in the manner described above. It could have easily gone another way if a few more voted to convict. If I may be so bold to interpret the reasoning of my fellow judges in that case, I think the verdict of guilty on those charges would be very much against their legal opinions, no matter what the relative majority vote indicates.

Ideally, the decision on whether to dismiss should be made earlier and separate from the judgement on the merits, yet I understand that such a lengthy procedure would be unwieldy in this most worthy forum. Therefore, conscious of the deficiencies present in the proposal drafted by Judge ab aeterno and myself, I suggest we combine the votes of 'not guilty' and 'dismissed' in case they, taken together, constitute over 50% of total votes cast (of course, if either of these two has the relative majority by itself, there would be no need to do so). It would, in a way, be an affirmation of the defendant's rights to a fair trial summed up by the old Valyrian maxim In dubyo pro raeo - when in doubt, favour the accused.

[Pod The Impaler]

If it please the court,

The charges are not taken all together, nor should their offenses be taken solely as a single act.

Innocence of one set of crimes, or other resolution in favour of the defendant, does not negate the defendant's guilt in the matter of the others. The good does not wash out the bad.

The only clear dismissals have been for the bringing up of offenses for which the defendant had been previously pardoned (counts related to the betrayal of Aerys II of House Targaryen), or which are contradictory because of it.

Even with all charges above cleared away, there is the rest to consider.

When in doubt, clear away the extraneous charges and proceed to the most immediate charges at hand:

Treason against His Grace, King Robert of House Baratheon, by having carnal knowledge of the Queen.

Violation of his service oaths of loyalty to the crown, fidelity to the lawful chain of command, and knightly honour.

Attempted murder of Bran Stark, in an attempt to pervert the course of justice with regard to the above crimes.

Aggravated assault upon the Hand of the King and murder of his men, without lawful basis.

The charge of incest with the Queen is clear enough: Guilty. The matter has been confessed by the defendant. The parentage of Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen has been confessed by him as well. These facts are not in dispute by the defendant.

Let me be clear - the issue is not one of morality or hurt feelings. It is one of crimes against the sovereignty of the realm, and the core principles governing the men in arms who support it.

Automatic acquittal simply for reasons of indecision or mistrial would bring the system of justice into disrepute, not to mention undermine the legitimacy of the state itself.

Sins may be forgiven, but crimes must be punished. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

[Lion of Judah]

I agree... in part. However, as it stands now with the legal procedure adopted by this high court, particularly having in mind a certain lack of understanding on the part of some judges (whose competence and dedication to justice I don't doubt in the least, it needs not be said) regarding what dismissal is, I am afraid this situation will de facto amount to one option 'guilty' and two options 'not guilty', with votes being split as a consequence, to the detriment of the defendant.

I point the most honourable Lion of Judah to the previous case heard before this court. On charges (1) and (2) Robb Stark prevailed by a rather slim margin due to votes being split in the manner described above. It could have easily gone another way if a few more voted to convict. If I may be so bold to interpret the reasoning of my fellow judges in that case, I think the verdict of guilty on those charges would be very much against their legal opinions, no matter what the relative majority vote indicates.

Ideally, the decision on whether to dismiss should be made earlier and separate from the judgement on the merits, yet I understand that such a lengthy procedure would be unwieldy in this most worthy forum. Therefore, conscious of the deficiencies present in the proposal drafted by Judge ab aeterno and myself, I suggest we combine the votes of 'not guilty' and 'dismissed' in case they, taken together, constitute over 50% of total votes cast (of course, if either of these two has the relative majority by itself, there would be no need to do so). It would, in a way, be an affirmation of the defendant's rights to a fair trial summed up by the old Valyrian maxim In dubyo pro raeo - when in doubt, favour the accused.

Considering the precedence of the Court v. Robb Stark I believe serious consideration must be given to the bolded suggestion. Judge Mr Fixit formally write and present said stipulation to the court so other judges may question and vote on the matter.

[balefired-ed]

Considering the precedence of the Court v. Robb Stark I believe serious consideration must be given to the bolded suggestion. Judge Mr Fixit formally write and present said stipulation to the court so other judges may question and vote on the matter.

I vote that a move for dismissal also be considered a vote of Not Guilty.

[GallowsKnight]

1. Incest

Guilty

2. Treason, by sexual relations with the Queen

Guilty

3. Aiding and Abetting Rape

Innocent - mitigating circumstances

4. Regicide

Innocent - mitigating circumstances

5. Assaulting the Hand of the King

Guilty

6. Sundry Oathbreaking

Innocent of oath breaking - mitigating circumstances.

The incest covered under 1 and 2

7. Attempted Murder

Guilty

Sentence:

The wall or death, flames if Stannis is trying, sword otherwise.

[Lion of Judah]

I vote that a move for dismissal also be considered a vote of Not Guilty.

I want judge Mr Fixit to write up the rule first so we have it to directly reference for the record before we vote on it.