TIL in 1818, an Englishman accused of murder demanded a trial by combat. Surprisingly, the law that allowed for trial by combat was still valid, and the man was acquitted when his accuser declined the offer of battle. Trial by combat was abolished the following year.
Seems like something a murderer would demand.
It may be weird, but applying the Jason Mendoza problem solving tactics could work.
Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem
I just carry a few half-empty bottles of vodka, rags, and a few kilos of baking soda everywhere. There’s no problem I can’t solve with this kit.
Well if you know your choices are “definitely go to prison for something you didn’t do and either die in prison or come out a completely different person, out of time.” or “trial by combat, maybe death, maybe freedom” I know which one I would choose.
Especially if I know my accuser knows they’re lying and it’s not just a misunderstanding.
Reading the article, it looks like the accused was originally acquitted in a jury trial, but the victim’s brother appealed and so they were going to try him again. At that point he asked for the trial by combat. I’m glad they just dropped it, sounds like the case was pretty flimsy.
The US also has a right to face one’s accuser. Just not in a gladiatorial arena sadly.
Who does he combat? The dead man or the judge or the prosecution or the bereaved?
Judges hate this one simple trick!
