Court of Law v. 6 (Renly Baratheon)

[The Frost Wolf]

Case in present, Lord Renly Baratheon of Storm's End and Master of Laws, charged with five accounts:

Count 1: Renly was lawfully obliged to support his older Stannis, in favour of his own bid to become king. However, Renly could make the claim that Stannis had little or no contact with him or anyone else in the realm for nigh on many months, leaving it to be Renly's duty to gather forces to usurp the abominations on the throne. Sentence: Jail Time.

Count 2: Joffrey is known to be a bastard born of incest, while Stannis had made no such appearance for a long time. With the line of succession being in such turmoil, only King Renly I could be the logical heir and thus has the right to call his banners to install his regime. Sentence: Innocent.

Count 3: Renly was the Lord of Storm's End. He has every right to call the houses sworn to Storm's End to war. Stannis does the same on Dragonstone and everyone thinks that's fine. But if you use the same logic that "The Storm Lords should follow Stannis and not Renly because he's the rightful heir even though he's not lord of Storm's End" then the bannerman of the Narrow Sea who follow Stannis shouldn't rally to him, but to the Targaryens. Stannis has no claim over the Storm Lord's except that his name is Baratheon, only the Lord of Storm's End can call the banners of the Stormlands. Sentence: Innocent.

Count 4: His acts of war such as blocking the Roseroad were completely innocent, since they were done before Stannis made it clear he was king, Renly was the rightful king at this point and had every right to do whatever he saw fit to usurp Joffrey. However, Renly was only legally the King until Stannis declared his kingship. Renly's decision to join his forces to Stannis, give up his kingship and bend the knee to his rightful king were his crimes. Sentence: Death by sword (execution).

Count 5: Renly was king at this point - Stannis was inactive and his health, well-being and whereabouts were all unknown - the men serving him died for their rightful king. Sentence: Innocent.

Count 6: Renly's remarks towards Lady Catelyn Stark were blatant malicious threats and should be treated as such. Sentence: Monetary fines.

Lord Renly Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End, Master of Laws and brother to King Stannis I is found guilty on counts 1, 4, 6 and found innocent on counts 2, 3 and 5. The charges on counts 2, 3 and 5 are all dropped and he is found innocent of them. However, the good doesn't wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.

Renly Baratheon is charged with High Treason for not supporting his brother in his rightful claim (cases 1, 4) to power and forced to pay a monetary sum of 5,000 Golden Dragons (case 6) to Catelyn Stark of Winterfell.

Result: Death by executioner

"Ser Ilyn, bring me his head!"

[Lady Green]

Pretty sure poor Renly is screwed, and not by Loras.

[Lion of Judah]

Pretty sure poor Renly is screwed, and not by Loras.

It's funny how bad I have been at predicting the final verdicts in these trials. Do you know we almost executed Robb Stark! And Melisandre I thought was done for and she basically got a slap on the wrist and ended up being deported.

[Lady Green]

It's funny how bad I have been at predicting the final verdicts in these trials. Do you know we almost executed Robb Stark! And Melisandre I thought was done for and she basically got a slap on the wrist and ended up being deported.

:o I voted to save Robb Stark. And I can't imagine Melisandre being deported quietly!

[Alester Florent]

Count 1. Usurping- Lord Renly unlawfully disregarded the line of succession and ignored his elder brother Stannis Baratheon’s rightful claim to the Iron Throne.

By the precedents established by Aegon I Targaryen ('Fire and Blood'); Aegon II Targaryen ('I'll be King if I want to be') and Robert I Baratheon ('My hammer is my claim) the line of succession can be overturned in times of extremis. The king in fact becomes the king in law. This presents us with a legal paradox: had Renly survived the war he would be the legal king; since he died in it he cannot be found guilty, as he did not succeed in usurping the throne. For the sake of the integrity of the legal process, fresh charges of attempted usurping are assumed to be brought, of which Renly must be found guilty, but due to the peculiar legality of the situation he is given a nominal sentence of one copper star.

Count 2. Rebellion- Lord Renly called his banners with the intent to participate in open war with against The King Joffrey Baratheon and legal claimant to the throne Stannis Baratheon.

There are two counts to this charge which shall be dealt with separately. On the second count, charges are dismissed. Stannis Baratheon had no legal claim to the throne in the absence of proof of his assertion of Joffrey Baratheon's bastardy. On the former count, the precedent of Robert I Baratheon provides that it is legal for lords to rebel against a monarch acting as tyrant. In disregarding the terms of Robert Baratheon's will and usurping legal power from the Protector of the Realm, Eddard Stark, Joffrey Baratheon forfeited his outright claim to the throne. Renly Baratheon is therefore found not guilty on the first count.

Count 3. Abuse of power- Lord Renly used his position and title as Lord of Storm’s End to illegally gain support of the lesser lords of Storm’s End to assist in his illegal endeavor.

As lord of Storm's End, Renly was legally entitled to the support of the lesser lords of the Stormlands. Such an action was not illegal. The count of abuse of power hinges on the legality of his action in calling his banners. As Renly Baratheon was found not guilty on the second charge he must be found not guilty on this charge.

Count 4. High Treson- Lord Renly knowing he was not the rightful claimant to the throne indulged in acts that push the realm to the brink of chaos. When given the opportunity to stand down lord Renly insisted on war.

Not guilty. As outlined in the answer to Charge 2, above, in order to assert a "rightful claim" Renly Baratheon was obliged to make war.

Count 5. Murder- Because of his illegal acts Lord Renly is charged with the deaths of the men and lords that followed him and died as a result. Those men would still be alive had it not been for Renly’s selfish acts.

Not guilty on the basis of no case to answer. Murder does not work that way; moreover there is insufficient evidence that any such men and lords died in Renly's service.

Count 6. Harrassment/Intimidation- Lord Renly sort to use acts of war to intimidate Lady Catelyn Stark of Winterfell and her son King in the North Robb Stark. At an agreed parlay by both parties, Lord Renly sort to used his impending battle against his brother Stannis Baratheon as an example of “what happens to traitors.” His remarks are testament to his illegal and malicious intent.

Charges dismissed. Such acts were a legitimate negotiating tactic and in no way illegal. Obiter, I will note that as Robb Stark was engaged in an act of rebellion against the Iron Throne, then on any basis that would consider Renly Baratheon a traitor, Robb Stark should be considered doubly so, which would again vitiate the illegality of any such action.

Charges 2(i) and 6 are dismissed. Renly Baratheon is found not guilty on all remaining charges brought. On the replacement charge of "attempted usurping" he is found guilty and sentenced to a nominal fine of one copper star.

A surprising verdict that; when I started I thought I would have to find him guilty, but in fact, thanks to the way the charges were structured and Robert's precedent, I ended up letting him off on most of them. Renly has a lot to thank Robert for!

[TalalOfDorne]

Count 1. Guilty

Count 2. Rebellion- Guilty

Count 3. Abuse of power- Not guilty as the lesser Lords must obey him in whatever he says

Count 4. High Treson-Guilty

Count 5. Murder- Innocent: He didnt kill them himself

Count 6. Harrassment/Intimidation- Innocent: There is nothing wrong with making your enemy afraid of you

Verdict: Guilt of Usurping, Rebellion, and High Treason

Sentence: Death by Sword

[Alester Florent]

It's funny how bad I have been at predicting the final verdicts in these trials. Do you know we almost executed Robb Stark! And Melisandre I thought was done for and she basically got a slap on the wrist and ended up being deported.

I think it's partly down to the way the charges tend to be structured, and partly the sentences available. A few times the defendant has basically been charged multiple times for the same offence under different names, which could be combined into one (the first four Renly charges could all be listed as one charge of high treason, for instance); Robb was charged with some things that weren't even criminal (such as breach of contract).

The charges also tend to be worded in a way that makes the defendant look guilty - some of the charges seem to have been created specifically for each defendant, rather than a "neutral" crime to which the facts of the case are applied. This can make it very difficult to find the subjects not guilty on all counts, and only by exercising legal chicanery (as with my absolving Renly of most of it, above), but since the judges tend to take the charges at face value the defendant looks very guilty.

Also, of course, some of the judges just don't like the character in question, and use this as an opportunity to "inflict punishment" on them.

Then, once found guilty of crimes which look like they should be capital, it's difficult to avoid the death sentence (some judges seem a bit death-happy in any case); mitigation isn't always considered. The list of sentences available, while including some reasonable options (minimal prison sentence, minimal fine, temporary exile, for instance) does focus pretty heavily on the terminal, too.

All things considered, though, while this would be a horrifying way to conduct a legal system in reality (and it's a bit of a damning indictment of the jury system!) it's probably a fair representation of alleged justice in Westeros.

[Lord Pupo]

1) Guilty. Sucession laws are valid, and can never be disconsidered without the best reason ever, not just because you don't like your brother.

2) Guilty. Rebelled against the king from any point of view.

3) Not guilty. As Lord of Storm's end, the support was valid. All the lord shall face trial, tho.

4) Guilty. Highest treason possible.

5) Not guilty. Deaths are consequence of war.

6) Not guilty. As before, due to the war state.

I, thereby, find the defendant, Renly Baratheon I, guilty of usurping, rebellion, and high treason, and sentence him to death by sword.

[Lion of Judah]

I think it's partly down to the way the charges tend to be structured, and partly the sentences available. A few times the defendant has basically been charged multiple times for the same offence under different names, which could be combined into one (the first four Renly charges could all be listed as one charge of high treason, for instance); Robb was charged with some things that weren't even criminal (such as breach of contract).

Some crimes may entail the same thing, but if they lead to different actions that can be viewed as a transgression then it warrants a different charge all together. For example you may charge someone with theft and then charge them with embezzlement. By definition they are similar but they encompass something completely different.

The charges also tend to be worded in a way that makes the defendant look guilty - some of the charges seem to have been created specifically for each defendant, rather than a "neutral" crime to which the facts of the case are applied. This can make it very difficult to find the subjects not guilty on all counts, and only by exercising legal chicanery (as with my absolving Renly of most of it, above), but since the judges tend to take the charges at face value the defendant looks very guilty.

We are prosecuting, remember this is a trial. I facilitate the role of a DA, my purpose is not to make them seem innocent. You and other posters make your argument for guilt or innocence as stated in the OP. If I present charges I do not vote on those charges. I did in the very first trial thread and have never done so again because of bias.

Also, of course, some of the judges just don't like the character in question, and use this as an opportunity to "inflict punishment" on them.

Then, once found guilty of crimes which look like they should be capital, it's difficult to avoid the death sentence (some judges seem a bit death-happy in any case); mitigation isn't always considered. The list of sentences available, while including some reasonable options (minimal prison sentence, minimal fine, temporary exile, for instance) does focus pretty heavily on the terminal, too.

I cannot answer for another persons integrity when passing judgement on a charge or case. If you believe a posters argument is flawed or tainted in some way then call them out on it in a respectable way.

All things considered, though, while this would be a horrifying way to conduct a legal system in reality (and it's a bit of a damning indictment of the jury system!) it's probably a fair representation of alleged justice in Westeros.

Keep in mind we are doing this for fun, we are not attempting to make a mockery of any legal system. I'm attempting to create a fun constructive environment in which we can analyze and pass judgement on character transgressions. Hence the reason you will see charges such as breach of contract etc.

[SeanF]

Perhaps there should be a facility for us to raise points of law, which would have to be ruled on - prior to then determining guilt or innocence.

So, one would have to determine whether breach of contract could be even treated as a crime (in the case of Robb) before then giving consideration to guilt or innocence.

Assuming that you plan to try Daenerys or Stannis in the future, I don't see that any trial could get under way, without determing first whether they possess soveregin immunity from prosecution.

[Lion of Judah]

Perhaps there should be a facility for us to raise points of law, which would have to be ruled on - prior to then determining guilt or innocence.

So, one would have to determine whether breach of contract could be even treated as a crime (in the case of Robb) before then giving consideration to guilt or innocence.

Assuming that you plan to try Daenerys or Stannis in the future, I don't see that any trial could get under way, without determing first whether they possess soveregin immunity from prosecution.

I was hoping that the option of dismissal would serve the purpose of defining an act as criminal or not criminal to some degree. No character possess sovereign immunity, we will try every character who we can bring reasonable charges against. There will be no 'Stannis is king or Dany is queen so we can't bring charges against them.' Every character will be on an equal playing field. We only have a week to present cases and pass judgement, it's not ideal but I believe the overall reception of the thread has been positive. Any amendment will have to be presented arbitrarily, but keep in mind we will never really achieve a perfect process. Also our definition of what is criminal and not criminal will stretch a bit more that what is conventional, which is why we can charge a character with oath breaking or breach of contract etc.

[SeanF]

Fair enough. And, it does mirror quite well what would be considered a fair trial in Westeros, with jurors and judges being one and the same.

[Alester Florent]

Some crimes may entail the same thing, but if they lead to different actions that can be viewed as a transgression then it warrants a different charge all together. For example you may charge someone with theft and then charge them with embezzlement. By definition they are similar but they encompass something completely different.

Yeah, I understand that. With regard to Renly (since this is his thread), though, for instance, "rebellion", usurpation" and, probably, "abuse of power" are all elements of high treason, and encompass the same set of facts. These could be listed as the same charge, evidenced by what are listed as different charges here.

This has a knock-on effect on the way the judges perceive those charges. Actually, in this case, Renly might benefit from the separation of charges, because consideration of separate ones without that nasty-looking automatic death penalty for high treason makes it easier to let him off with a warning on the lesser charges, while if they were all considered under one heading, finding of guilt on any element would probably send him to the block.

We are prosecuting, remember this is a trial. I facilitate the role of a DA, my purpose is not to make them seem innocent. You and other posters make your argument for guilt or innocence as stated in the OP. If I present charges I do not vote on those charges. I did in the very first trial thread and have never done so again because of bias.

Oh, sure. I must admit I'm not completely au fait with the US legal system so I don't fully understand how things operate over there. However, if a judge approaches it with the mindset that the charges presented are legally neutral charges to be assessed on the basis of evidence we already know, rather than as the summation of the prosecution case (which it actually is) then things look worse for the defendant.

Essentially, the judges don't have a neutral charge sheet in front of them, just the prosecution case. This probably inclines them in favour of guilt to start with, especially since some judges don't always seem to consider the elements of the actual crime that need to be proved.

I cannot answer for another persons integrity when passing judgement on a charge or case. If you believe a posters argument is flawed or tainted in some way then call them out on it in a respectable way.

A lot of judges don't post arguments, which makes it difficult to determine their neutrality. Some judges use phrasing that gives an indication of bias without explicitly stating so, or request a sentence out of proportion to the crime or in such a way that also makes a bias obvious, but not displaying any obvious fault in their reasoning (for instance, whoever it was who suggested "impalement" as sentence above). But that's all part of the process.

Keep in mind we are doing this for fun, we are not attempting to make a mockery of any legal system. I'm attempting to create a fun constructive environment in which we can analyze and pass judgement on character transgressions. Hence the reason you will see charges such as breach of contract etc.

Don't worry, I get that. And it is good fun! As SeanF says, it is also a pretty good representation of a Westerosi trial: I've noticed a distinct absence of consideration of burden of proof or presumption of innocence in a lot of judgments, for instance... and while I understand why non-criminal transgressions are mentioned, it's alarming to see people applying criminal sentences for them!

I'm not trying to criticise, mind; as I say, I enjoy these threads - it was just a comment on the way these things tend to go and speculation as to why they can be unpredictable.

[Lion of Judah]

Renly Baratheon Lord of Storm's End, Master of Coin, On this day Monday February 4th judges of this court find you:

Guilty on count 1-Usurping

Guilty on count 2-Rebellion

Not Guilty on count 3-Abuse of power

Guilty on count 4-High treason

Not Guilty on count 5-Murder

Not Guilty on count 6-Harassment/Intimidation

Lord Renly Baratheon, judges of this court hereby sentence you to death by sword for your crimes against the realm. Sentence to be rendered immediately. May the old gods and the new have mercy on your soul.

Vote tally:

Count 1: 26 guilty, 7 not guilty, 0 dismissed

Count 2: 24 guilty, 8 not guilty, 1 dismissed

Count 3: 5 guilty, 25 not guilty, 3 dismissed

Count 4: 24 guilty, 8 not guilty, 1 dismissed

Count 5: 3 guilty, 20 not guilty, 10 dismissed

Count 6: 7 guilty, 20 not guilty 6 dismissed

This court is now adjourned.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Is it just me or was this a lot more decisive than most?

[Mr Hodor]

Count 1. Usurping - Guilty. Send to the wall. Stannis was the rightful king.

Count 2. Rebellion- Guilty. As above.

Count 3. Abuse of power- Not Guilty, He was the lord of storm's end and had the right to call the banners

Count 4. High Treson- Guilty - Send to the wall.

Count 5. Murder- Not Guilty

Count 6. Harrassment/Intimidation- Not Guilty

[Daario's*before*Snows]

Is it just me or was this a lot more decisive than most?

I think its because of Stannis worshipping bias.

Its like he is Oprah or something.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Let's do Stannis next! It'll be fun! :leaving:

[W.Kane]

Count 1. Guilty

Count 2. Guilty

Count 3. not Guilty

Count 4. Guilty

Count 5. not Guilty

Count 6. Guilty

give that bastard to the flames .... kidding.... , execution : death by sword.

[Pod The Impaler]

This court call upon the defendant Renly Baratheon, Lord of Storm’s End, Master of Laws and charge him with:

Count 1. Usurping- Lord Renly unlawfully disregarded the line of succession and ignored his elder brother Stannis Baratheon’s rightful claim to the Iron Throne.

Count 2. Rebellion- Lord Renly called his banners with the intent to participate in open war with against The King Joffrey Baratheon and legal claimant to the throne Stannis Baratheon.

Count 3. Abuse of power- Lord Renly used his position and title as Lord of Storm’s End to illegally gain support of the lesser lords of Storm’s End to assist in his illegal endeavor.

Count 4. High Treson- Lord Renly knowing he was not the rightful claimant to the throne indulged in acts that push the realm to the brink of chaos. When given the opportunity to stand down lord Renly insisted on war.

Count 5. Murder- Because of his illegal acts Lord Renly is charged with the deaths of the men and lords that followed him and died as a result. Those men would still be alive had it not been for Renly’s selfish acts.

Count 6. Harrassment/Intimidation- Lord Renly sort to use acts of war to intimidate Lady Catelyn Stark of Winterfell and her son King in the North Robb Stark. At an agreed parlay by both parties, Lord Renly sort to used his impending battle against his brother Stannis Baratheon as an example of “what happens to traitors.” His remarks are testament to his illegal and malicious intent.

Judges remember your oaths to be impartial and unprejudiced. Present your cases!

ONCE AGAIN - I AM VOTING JUST FOR FUN, BECAUSE I MISSED THE VOTE EARLIER:

Count 1 - Usurpation:

GUILTY. Renly did knowingly usurp his brother lawful position as trueborn heir to Robert Baratheon.

Count 2 - Rebellion:

NOT GUILTY in regards to Joffrey who was false called "Baratheon", and an unlawful usurper himself. However, GUILTY in regards to marshalling his forces in usurpation of his brother Stannis' claim See count #1).

Count 3 - Abuse of Power:

DISMISSED as this simply duplicates charge #1, or rather is an explanation of its method.

Count 4 - Treason:

GUILTY - At parley, the defendant was given the chance to swear allegiance and bend the knee to his brother Stannis, and this wipe clean the matters of counts 1 and 2. The defendant persisted in claiming kingship, forsaking bonds of kinship and reconcilation with the lawful heir of his house, and proclaimed his intention to usurp his brother's position by wager of battle.

Count 5 - Murder:

NOT GUILTY - Though regrettable, this loss of life is not an act of murder. All his bannermen also had the choice to make - lawful or unlawful action in support of one side or the other - and made theirs.

Count 6 - Uttering Threats:

NOT GUILTY - Though unwise, the defendant did believe himself a king, making statements as one. Although his claim to sovereignty over the north was dubious, there was no specific threat of death, merely assertion of what he (wrongly) believed his royal authority.

SENTENCE: As the defendant was guilty of usurpation, rebellion, and treason against his brother Stannis Baratheon, let the defendant choose:

If he publicly renounces all titles and honours, he shall receive exile to the Wall. If he persists in naming himself king, let him feed the fires of Rhillor with the power of his "king's blood".