...To be fair they did let her go even though she had done some crimes. Different crimes, but still crimes.

.........it's confusing that the prosecutor is just admitting that she and Alicia weren't involved in spreading it around. Maybe he knows they'd be able to prove they weren't.

Okay now it makes sense why they’re so afraid of her. That second speech on freedom she gave when they cornered her into finally saying it. Did she just put that together on the spot? Gods, ‘laugh in the face of Asmodeus, because He has nothing to offer but threats’, is this girl entirely sure she’s a cleric of Iomedae and not Milani?

Why did he let himself get talked out of preparing the rescue spells? 

"In what manner were the scribes to whom you gave that copy of your speech employed? Were they in service to other delegates, or servants of the state assigned to the convention, or was there some other arrangement?"

("Some of them are half won-over, Archduchess. Not most, but... she's a fantastic speaker, even afraid and despairing.")

("Keep her alive another week and she'll be one of the best Good has.")

"I don't know, your honor. I had watched how other delegates gave speeches and I had seen how they would give the scribes a copy to work from, so the scribes didn't have to write it down as they spoke and then make copies for everyone who wanted copies, but I don't know if the Archmage Cotonnet hired those scribes, or if any delegate did." Why does that matter?

"Did you give any instruction to the scribes?"

"....no." Why would she have done that. That would have been terribly rude. "I just said, here's the text of the speech, but I'm giving it from memory so it might be wrong in bits, sorry."

"I have no more questions at this time. The bailiff will now cast a truth spell on you. Do not resist it, and then assert that you have told no lies and made no attempt to mislead the court." The best feature of the new regime is that sometimes they have bailiffs that can do that. He doesn't usually need them but for a case like this it's nice to be sure.

(The bailiff casts an Abadar's Truthtelling.)

"I have told no lies and made no attempt to mislead the court."

"Prosecutor, do you have anything more?"

They should have done that for the lying Evil nobles!!!!

It is hard to guess what standard the magistrate is trying to apply to the 'did she publish the speech' question, but he's not going to win that by argument. He is pretty sure that Wain just agreed openly that she tried to convince everyone to overthrow their Evil rulers even if she didn't expect it to happen this quickly. But of course, the defense hasn't spoken yet and the Queen wants her innocent.

"Nothing more."

"The advocate for the accused may now present her case."

It's actually sort of hard to hate her.

She'll be fine. If Iomedae hasn't abandoned her - and he sees a little more, now, how that can be compatible with not wanting him dead - then she'll wake up in Axis, at the worst, and that isn't so bad.

Too much poking around about whether she really meant to do it, not enough lions.

If the old queen was running this, right around now would be the part where the Iomedaean begs for death, the cleric casts malediction, and the Iomedaean realizes dying isn’t going to make it stop. That’s always the high point of the show. 

But no, it’s just going to be lawyers poking at each other the whole time. Praise Iomedae and her Lawful Boring majesty the queen. 

Well, the Queen wanted a contested trial and the Queen appears to have gotten one. 

Carlota would feel fairly sure that 'confessing you meant to cause people to overthrow the Evil nobles' was sufficient for an incitement to murder charge, but on the other hand the country is presently ruled by mad Galtans and they seem to have rather inadequate standards for what constitutes incitement.

A person cannot be threatened, if they have decided already that the worst that can be done to them does not frighten them.

Anna wonders if Valia realizes she would have been a fine Hellknight, if she'd tried that before Iomedae picked her. That there is more than one way to teach her lesson, and that discipline, real discipline, not the shoddy rule by fear of the regular army, is meant to do the same, among perhaps four other equally-necessary lessons.

When he heard the queen's speech his first thought was that she had somehow managed to turn her offer of a fair trial into an excuse to mind-control people. But... apart from that the trial in fact seems to be fair? Which doesn't mean it is, just that if it's a show-trial the queen's doing a good job, which he knew already...

He feels sorry for the victims of the mobs, especially the ones who weren't or couldn't be raised. He feels sorry for everyone in the city, really, living a lifetime under Asmodean rule, and growing accustomed to Asmodean rule, and then the moment they were free of that having a bunch of insane political freedoms that nobody asked for forced upon them. It's not really surprising that they would turn overeagerly to violence, the first time they were told that violence would win their salvation.

He adds a paragraph to his draft speech on treason to account for Valia's most recent argument. She's not wrong, about the virtue of freedom, and she has already acknowledged that she was wrong to reach for it first, but that can't be the final word on the topic.

The prosecution's case seems damning. Valia intended to distribute the speech, and thought it would be the parent of rebellion--wise, just, timely rebellion--but she misjudged Westcrown. Even if she thought better of it before the riots, the arrow was already loosed. If anything, it was worse for the Friend of the People's mangled version to get out, instead of her original speech.

The defense may yet have some ace up its sleeve.

Thea notes to herself that, if she is ever on trial, not to decide she’s guilty in advance. (Probably against her lawyer’s advice?)  You would think that would be obvious?  Thea takes a moment to try to reconcile this defeated depressed Valia with the Valia she’s seen before.

Thea realizes the inference.  The prosecution probably worked Valia over with loads of enchantment magic and technically-not-torture to disorient her and make her believe falsely in a way that passes a truth spell.  So, once you’re arrested, just assume any doubt of your own innocence was planted by the prosecution via magic and ignore any feeling otherwise as the feeling is probably the result of enchantment.  As to the technically not torture… food and sleep deprivation  maybe?  

Using that as a presumption, after a day of interrogation by government prosecutors, one could probably pass a truthspell arguing one’s own innocence, because after all, one’s memory can no longer be trusted.  Thea can’t replicate memory alteration magic, but Nuria Tosta is second circle so she can test some of this idea…

As to the Queen’s opening trial statements… well, maybe she wants a closely contested trial?  Or has somehow failed to actually fully reform the prosecutor’s procedures?  Oh wait, she claimed she enchanted the judge herself, maybe she thinks thoroughly enchanting people is normal and acceptable Lawful Good behavior?  It is, admittedly, a different way of doing things than the Thrunes preferred.

Ah, the good part is about to begin. It shifts reassuringly; its pet Evil wizardemployer is exhibiting strange physiological signs. It's unclear what reassuring shifting of a disassembled archon under a cloak might entail, or whether these physiological signs are normal for this species, but an attempt is made.

Now is not the time for terror. Now there is only Law.

"The Court is already in Possession of the chief Elements of my Case which I restate for Clarity."

"Firstly, the Decrees of her Majesty the Queen setting forth what the Law is."

"Secondly, a true and faithful Transcript of the Speech of Valia Wain."

"And, thirdly, a copy of the Pamphlet of Bernat Vidal-Espinosa."

"These three are Sufficient for Acquittal under the Law. The first two on their own are in fact Sufficient for Acquittal under the Law; the third merely relevantly Explains the Deaths at Issue. I heard the Speech given, and have Reviewed it since, and am familiar with the Decrees. No Proscription List under the Decree of 29 Desnus is present, cutting down the charges of Wrongful Death under said Decree at their very Root. I have said earlier before the Court and the Public and her Majesty the very Queen that Bernat Vidal-Espinosa is guilty of Incitement. Behold how I am not Arrested, and shall not be; the Decree of 29 Desnus is not a Decree to Prohibit All Mention Of Crime. Behold how Factual News Sheets are Published in the City, reporting on those Judgments which are Public, and enjoy the Happy Tolerance of her Lawful Majesty."

"My learned Colleague has presented the Testimony of many Witnesses, that the Terror of 3 Sarenith was a Lawless, Evil Terror indeed. Were I not Opposing Counsel I could perhaps have given like Testimony. I was Bodily Seized, accusations of Diabolism on the Lips of the Malfeasors, and Hurled as I have said into the River. Behold how I once again Lawfully make Mention of Crime, much as those Witnesses for the Prosecution did. Behold how they each left the Stand not in Chains but Free as they Ought be."

"And of Delegate Ibarra whose Deeds alone were put to a Name, why, his own Words were but Repeated. Behold that he sits in the Gallery—you may Know him by his Outlandish Mask—not Guilty of Proscription against his own Self."

"To Incitement I now turn. It is clear Incitement is not Present by the plain Text already in Evidence, not calling for Crimes, calling at worst, though even this is Debatable, for Expulsion of Delegates which is a matter not of Law but of the Workings of the Convention and reserved to President Cotonnet to Judge. Those doubts my Colleague has raised, having the Unenviable Task of drawing as it were Blood from a Stone without the stone to flesh of Favorable Fact, regard the State of Mind of Select Wain. I shall show by Reliable Testimony that it was not the Mind of an Inciter. I shall show her Plain Horror at the prospect of such Riots as occurred."

"It is also already Known to the Court through Testimony that Select Wain did not Distribute or cause to be Distributed copies of her Speech outside the Hall. I shall Show and Clarify this matter further. Such is a necessary Element of Incitement, that the Purported Inciteful Words be Communicated to the Incited."

"Acquittal is thus well Established on Facts and Law in Record. Yet I the Ally of Justice have a Duty to, and shall, Establish it Further that all Doubts may be forever Quelled in Open Court."

It's not risking her soul to continue. Her soul is lost already.

"Why then are there Doubts, if the Case for Acquittal is so Clear as I say? Doubts arise chiefly from one Blazing Question that must be put to Rest before the Acquittal which Law demands."

"Why does her Majesty the Queen publish Decrees of Law, Promulgating them to All, making them Easy to Obtain and Read?"

"Select Wain knew the Answer in her Heart by Instinct; perhaps this is why hers is a Heart pleasing to Iomedae. I came to it through Mental Labor but know it also."

"Her Majesty the Queen wills that all shall Read the Decrees, and Comprehend them, and Obey them, and in this Obedience be Innocent before the Law of All Crime. She has said as much just now before the Court; I quote her own Words: 'A speech was given, and this court is tasked with determining whether that speech obeyed the law, nothing more and nothing less.'"

"Perhaps this is Novel to all of us, accustomed to those Laws preferred by the Archdevil of Contracts, great Labyrinths of Words which no Mortal may Navigate. Perhaps it is also Novel to all of us, accustomed to a Tyrant Crown which might Brush Aside all Law at its Will. But we are now by the Grace of her Majesty in an Empire where all Law is Written, and Written in order to be Read, Comprehended, and Obeyed. What Select Wain did by Noble Instinct we may all do Deliberately."

Both feet must be forcibly wrenched out of the world where the Queen is Mephistopheles, or she can't give her all to the case.

"And therefore to Proceed with the Quelling of All Doubts I will present Testimony. The Archduke Blanxart of the Heartlands has already given his; I therefore proceed to the Archduchess of Ravounel, Jilia Bainilus de Kintargo."

Showtime.

She walks up to the stage and witness stand, with as much stateliness as she can project.

None of that sounds like an ace, to him.

If Bernat and Valia had been working together, both of them would still hang for this riot; blame is not conserved, when the law is concerned, and the public is unlikely to be much more forgiving. That their partnership was unplanned and at arms length is a mitigating factor, but Valia needed the blame to land solely on Bernat, instead of being shared. And even if half the floor marched through the witness stand and declared they were not incited by the speech or did not expect a reasonable person to be incited by the speech, it remains that some thought it would lead others to violence, and some is enough to establish incitement. The lawyer is focusing on the addenda to the decree, and is perhaps forgetting its main body:

The people of Westcrown are further reminded that incitement to the murder of their fellow citizens is forbidden, as is the practice of violence against their fellow citizens. This remains true even when the citizens in question are accused of a crime or other evil deed.

That said, she is right that he would like to see that foul Ibarra brought in on incitement; his taunting crosses the line.