So for my medieval history class, we're supposed to do a mock trial deciding the fate of Joan of Arc. Since it is a history class, we are expected to use the arguments of the time. There's just one problem with this; those arguments are complete crap.
Basically it goes like this:
Defense: Joan of Arc is a messenger from god. She hears the voices of people who have been dead for years, which of course means that she isn't crazy.
Prosecution: Joan of Arc is a sorceress who uses her magic to beguile the citizens of France and trick them into committing acts of violence. Also, she goes against god, which is totally not cool. Lets kill her.
Luckily, I have been chosen to represent the only sane witness, Philip Duke of Burgundy. Albeit this witness was incredibly corrupt and greedy. But he at least made sense.
The strangest lesson I have taken away from this is that I think Joan of Arc was technically guilty.