had taken place in another diocese (Pernoud 108). After this problem had been resolved, he then claimed that he had doubts and did not want to jeopardize the proceedings. Although he continually argued against being a judge, he could not avoid it, and ended up being paid generously for his involvement (Michelet 73). The trial proceeded even though an ecclesiastical body in Poitiers had already examined Joan. The result of that interrogation had been to approve Joan and support her mission. That assembly of Church officials had accepted her voices and visions as coming from God. Unfortunately, the transcripts of the proceeding conveniently disappeared, and could not help Joan during her trial for heresy (Pernoud 30). Heresy could not necessarily be proven by facts. It was considered to be an “intellectual “ crime. The judges were required to examine the heart and intent of the accused in order to decide whether there was an error in understanding, or that the heresy was deliberate and knowing. For this reason, the accused person was considered to be guilty until a determination otherwise was reached (Lucie-Smith 231-232). Cauchon began by presenting information he had been collecting about Joan to the judges in a closed session. Unfortunately, the investigation of her habits and morality near and around her home, did not produce the compelling evidence needed to try her for heresy. The judges could not find anything to accuse her on (Pernoud 107-108). In spite of this, they proceeded with the public phase of the trial. On February 21, 1431, Joan was brought before a room full of intimidating figures, with Cauchon presiding, to be tried on charges of heresy and witchcraft. Although Cauchon had brought together an impressive group of judges, most of them were Frenchmen, many from the University of Paris (Lucie-Smith 232). There were forty-four people, including nine doctors of theology and four doctors of canon law in attendanc...
