"On the matter of wrongful deaths under the decree of the twenty-ninth of Desnus, I find the accused innocent. The accused's speech on the floor of the Constitutional Convention did not constitute a proscription list under that decree. If it were to constitute such a list, it would be a list with only a single entry. I am disinclined to believe that such constitutes a 'list,' and observe that if that were the intention of the law the queen would have forbidden any denunciations of our fellow citizens rather than narrowly forbidding lists of such denunciations. Furthermore, I observe that the decree of the twenty-ninth does not prohibit speech. Though it may seem like a minor matter, I judge that it was unambiguously legal - at least so far as the decree of the twenty-ninth is concerned - for the accused to speak before the Convention.

On the matter of incitement to murder I find less clarity. It is true that the accused intended that men die, or at least be threatened with death if they did not comply with her other demands. It is true that she spoke words to that effect, before a crowded room. And it is true that some of the people whose deaths she intended were killed as a result. However, it is also true that the she did not intend any of the people who heard the speech to conduct the violence, that she did not intend her speech to be spread to the people who later did the violence, and that, in fact, it was not her speech that moved the doers to the deed. In spite of those considerations, I find that a plain reading of the law supports a conviction here. I find the accused to be guilty of incitement to twelve murders and five attempted murders, and sentence her to be ripped apart by lions. Her crime being one of imprudent speech, and this being an omake, she will be permitted to speak to the assembled crowd until the lions arrive."