Mistrial (Part 1)

 

Mistrial

(Part I)

Mistrial (Part 1) - Audio/Visual

So the soldiers, their commanding officer, and the Temple guards arrested Jesus and tied him up. First they took him to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest at that time. Caiaphas was the one who had told the other Jewish leaders, “It’s better that one man should die for the people.” (John 18:12-14)

In a small, Midwestern town, owners of a new tavern started construction on a building to open up their business. In response, the local Baptist church started a campaign with petitions and prayers to prevent the bar from opening. Work progressed, however, right up until the week before opening when a lightning strike hit the bar and it burned to the ground. The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the destruction of his building, either through direct or indirect actions, or means. The church vehemently denied all responsibility, or any connection to the building's destruction in its answer to the court. As the case made its way to trial, the judge looked over the pleadings of the parties and commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this. But as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner that believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not."

Although likely the stuff of urban legend, if this had been a real lawsuit, it could very well have ended in a mistrial which is defined as “A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial. A mistrial may result from a fundamental error so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury, such as improper remarks made during the prosecution's summation. Furthermore, a mistrial in a criminal prosecution may prevent retrial of the accused under the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, unless required by the interests of justice and dependent upon which party moved for the mistrial.

It was nightfall at the time of Jesus’ arrest, and the crowds that had swarmed Jerusalem earlier that day in celebration of Passover had left the streets. In other words, Jesus was a sitting duck and they expected him to be on the lamb. So much so that they came with lanterns, torches and weapons, bringing along with them a “band” of soldiers that numbered anywhere from 600 to 1,000 men. In other words, they came prepared for a fight. But Jesus didn’t run; he went out to meet them instead. Peter, of course, gets a little crazy and cuts off the right ear of a servant of the high priest. But Jesus, always compassionate, restored the young man’s ear and asks the soldiers to let his disciples go. By this time, the Romans are tired of watching Peyton Place and bind Jesus over for arrest. Now “binding,” at least the Roman way, was not just throwing a couple of ropes around the accused’s wrists and asking him come along. Soldiering school in Rome had a slightly different protocol: twist the arm behind the accused so that his knuckles touched between his shoulder blades while, at the same time, jamming a heel down on the prisoner’s right instep. The other arm was then tied with a loose noose around the neck. And just like that, Jesus was now the property of the State.

The Jewish people at that time were ruled by the Roman Empire. The Romans, in turn, were ruled by a god on earth, Caesar. Tiberius was the Caesar at this particular time, and he ruled Palestine with an iron fist. He was a sadistic, anti-Semitic Gentile. As a means of enforcing the Pax Romana, capital punishment had been eliminated as an option for the Jewish people. If capital punishment had been an option at the time, however, the religious leaders would have stoned Jesus because that was their method of enforcing the death penalty. But, as they say, “When in Rome ….” So, capital punishment was left to the Roman authorities who chose crucifixion to punish their most violent offenders.

Under Jewish law, they could bring a man to trial but only so far – to their council called the Sanhedrin. The greater Sanhedrin was a body comprised of 70 to 73 men, and they could pass judgment on capital crimes. The lesser Sanhedrin had only twenty-three men (kind of an executive committee), but they couldn’t pass judgment on capital offenses. In other words, Jesus – under Jewish law – had to stand trial before the greater Sanhedrin, and only when they came to an accusation could that accusation be taken to the Roman government for enforcement, whose chief enforcer at the time was Pilate. And only when Pilate agreed could the accused then be put to death. And that's why Jesus was crucified for treason, rather than stoned for blasphemy. You see, the Sanhedrin did not try Jesus for treason; they found him guilty of blasphemy. But they twisted the accusation into treason when they got to Pilate because blasphemy was not a crime under the Roman statutes, but death was instantaneous for those guilty of treason.

In Jewish criminal procedure, a number of statues applied. For instance: (1) if a man was arrested for a capital crime, he could never be arrested at night. It had to be in broad daylight. Jesus' arrest likely took place between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning; (2) If a man was arrested for a capital crime, no one cooperating in the arrest could be connected in any way whatsoever to the accused. Furthermore, no arrest for a capital crime could be made based upon information given by a follower or a colleague of the accused since it was thought that if the accused were guilty, his followers were probably guilty, too. Of course, here, the entire plot surrounding Jesus’ arrest revolved around Judas, one of Jesus’ followers; (3) A Jewish trial could never be held at night. The law stated that it must be held in the daytime. “The members of the court may not alertly and intelligently hear the testimony against the accused during the hours of darkness.” (Talmud) If you check the record in this case, Jesus was tried during darkness before both Annas and Caiaphas.

Further, (4) the members of the Jewish court, after hearing the testimony of true witnesses in a capital crime (none of which were ever produced in Jesus’ trial), could not immediately act and judge. They were to go home and remain alone and separate from one another for one to two days for purposes of thinking about the testimony that they had heard. Only then could they render a vote. But they didn't do that in Jesus’ case. In fact, the Jewish court never even left Caiaphas’ house; (5) even the method of voting was specified. Their vote was supposed to be taken from the youngest to the oldest, so that the youngest members of the Sanhedrin wouldn't be intimidated or influenced by the older members’ votes. This, of course, never happened; and (6) a trial could never be held in front of only one judge, and never without a defense attorney. All of that was openly, willfully ignored and disobeyed. Even though they were people of the book, i.e., the Talmud, the religious leaders didn't even follow their own rules. In the history of jurisprudence, there’s never been a more fallacious series of trials.

The first man before whom Jesus stood was a crook. His name was Annas. (John 18:13) Why Annas? I’m not sure because Annas wasn't even the High Priest at the time; he was retired and was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the then-acting High Priest. So, what's the father-in-law doing seeing an accused man at 2 o'clock in the morning when he’s no longer in charge? That was Caiaphas's job. Well, a funny thing happened on the way to temple. Do you remember that time when Jesus put together some leather thongs, made a whip and went into the temple and drove the moneychangers out of the temple? (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15) Well, the man in charge of the bazaar was none other than Annas, the High Priest at that time. In fact, he’d been the High Priest for seventeen years. He was, essentially, the Mafia Don, and the Mafia was in charge of two things at Passover: currency exchange and sacrificial animals, both of which proved to be a very lucrative business.

First, you couldn’t use currency at the temple other than the temple currency. As a result, you would have to exchange your out-of-town currency for the temple’s currency at rates that would make even the Fed blush. And when it came to sacrificial animals, prices were like the price of Bitcoin these days. So, a lot of worshippers would simply choose to bring their own animals. The only problem was that the animals would have to pass the Mafia’s inspection, and these home-grown animals seldom, if ever, passed inspection. So, what’s a worshipper to do? Right  – buy the temple animal at an exorbitant price (because yours was useless) using the temple currency that you exchanged at ridiculous rates. Oh, and the profits from these schemes? You guessed it – right into Annas' pocket. And that’s why Jesus was upset, I believe, because this scheme had kept the ordinary man and woman from worshipping.

Eventually, Annas passed the throne to his son-in-law who was nothing more than a puppet of the Roman government, and a pawn in the hand of his father-in-law. And Annas never forgot the time that Jesus drove them out of the temple and he lost all that money. So maybe he thought, “One of these days, buddy, I'm gonna get you,” and now’s his chance. So here’s Jesus, hands tied behind his back, standing in front of Annas. Everything about the trial is illegal. He has no business standing before someone who is not on the council. There are no witnesses. As a matter of fact, Jesus wasn't even required to answer the accusations because no Jewish person could be compelled to make his own statement. Kind of like taking the 5^th. The accused could remain silent from beginning to end if he wanted to, while statements would be made against the accused upon which the council would then decide upon a verdict. But that's not the way they did it.

Now, there are two things that Annas probed. Annas wanted to know about the disciples, and then he wanted to know about Jesus’ teaching. (John 18:19) Jesus didn’t answer the first question (he was protecting his boys), but regarding his teaching Jesus said that he had spoken openly in the synagogues and the temple. Nothing he said had been in secret so why, Jesus asks, are you asking me this question? Why don’t you ask the people who heard me; they know what I said. Well, Annas took offense to Jesus’ remarks and was promptly cuffed by the bailiff. Interestingly, brutality was never allowed in the court either. Under the rules of trial procedure, Jesus knew that it was against the law to solicit the testimony of any person, except witnesses and/or collaborators. Besides, under the law, no prisoner had to undergo a preliminary examination. So, Jesus simply reminded Annas of the law and told him to ask those who had heard him teach. For that, Jesus was assaulted.

Suffice it to say that when Annas was finished with Jesus, Annas had no answer. Annas was silenced. Annas had been judged, not Christ. And so they carted him off to Caiaphas. So Caiaphas got together a group of men at about 3:30 in the morning. (Mark 14:53) Remember now, this is an illegal trial because it's dark; it's an illegal proceeding because it's a preliminary hearing; it's procedurally illegal because they're in the wrong place, i.e., Caiaphas' house, not in the council chamber. And the judge, jury and executioner is the same guy who had earlier said in our passage that, “It’s better that one man should die for the people.” Can you spell “B-I-A-S”? In other words, it’s a regular kangaroo court.

But witnesses were presented nonetheless. Problem is, none of the witnesses’ testimonies matched. (Mark 14:56-59) And even the two who’d said they’d heard Jesus say that he would “… destroy this temple that is made with hands (referring to his body), and within three days will build another without hands,” didn’t agree. In short, no two witnesses’ testimony agreed. But they didn’t let the facts get in the way. Furthermore, Caiaphas had to get the case to Pilate later that morning because his father-in-law had put a contract out on Jesus, and it had to be done prior to Passover. Problem is, Caiaphas knows he has no witnesses. So, what’s he going to do? Easy. Try another illegal tactic. This time, talk to the accused. (Mark 14:60) “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” "I am," Jesus said.

Now, why does Jesus answer this time and not before? Well, another passage holds the answer. (Matt. 26:3) You see, just before Caiaphas asked his question, he’d said to Jesus, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." When charged with that kind of admonition, a Jewish person was obliged to answer. He was under oath and he couldn’t take the 5^th.. He had to answer. And look at the answer: “I am, and you’ll see me coming in the clouds of heaven sitting on the right hand of God.” (Mark 14:62) That sounds an awful lot like he's saying he is the Son of God. Well, he is and Jesus was simply laying a prophesy on Caiaphas that he couldn't handle. So, in rather melodramatic fashion, Caiaphas grabs the collar of his own robe and gives it a yank because the Talmud required that when a moderator heard blasphemous words he was to publicly disagree by tearing his garments. Unfortunately, Levitical law taught that no official was to tear his garments. Regardless, the religious leaders were driven by the Talmud – well, at least the parts they liked. The other parts they just kind of left out, forgot or simply ignored. Go figure.

To give further dramatic effect, Caiaphas said, “Why do we need other witnesses?” (Mark 14:63) That's a nice out, isn't it? Who needs witnesses when you don't have them anyway? By the way, it's not allowed for the moderator to make that decision. The entire council had to make that decision. He didn't say, “Let's take a vote in the order prescribed by law.” No. Instead, he says, “What’s your verdict?” (vs. 64), and they all condemned him. Then, to round out these austere proceedings, they spit on Jesus, covered his face and beat him with their fists, and then they mocked him. By the time the first two trials are over, Jesus was bleeding and bruised and there’s still no official verdict. That’s because everything that had transpired so far had occurred during the darkness. As a result, nothing could be officially recognized by the Roman authorities until Jesus had had his audience before the Sanhedrin.

So, about 6 o'clock in the morning (Luke 22:66; Mark 15:1) the Sanhedrin meets. Now the Sanhedrin is the supreme court of the Jewish people. What they discovered and declared became law. There was no such thing as going to a higher court. The buck stopped at the Sanhedrin.

Therefore, when the Sanhedrin met and passed final judgment, it was like the law of the Medes and the Persians in the book of Ruth: it couldn’t be reversed. So, they asked Jesus if he was the Christ. In response, Jesus said that if he told them they wouldn’t believe him anyway. But they persisted, “Are you the Son of God?” And Jesus said to them, “You say that I am.” At that, the Sanhedrin becomes unhinged and says, “Why do we need other witnesses?” (Luke 22:66-71) Sound familiar? That’s because witnesses would just get in the way of the results they sought. In other words, it was a results-oriented decision – not based on either the facts or evidence, but on the outcome. And this third trial was the shortest of all of the trials. Jesus, in their mind, was already guilty, and besides Nicodemus, who likely clammed up, they voted unanimously to take him to Pilate. The charge, of course, was blasphemy. But there was just one problem with that charge: it wouldn’t stand up in a Roman courtroom.

To be continued ….

Grace,

Randy