When a judge can follow charges and proofs against his conscience.

What is decreed by the learned and wise is helpful, that no one should follow any thought of his own which he has brought with him from home to the judgment, but he should decide according to the charges and proofs. But this rule must obtain when a judge is led by certain frivolous arguments to think that he understands the case differently from what has been proved. For in that case he must follow the charges and proofs rather than his opinion and conscience which is formed by something in his imagination. But if the judge has an undoubted conscience concerning the matter, then he must in no way determine anything against it, on account of the charges and proofs. But even in that case, a distinction must be made. For if a judge has a conscience against the accused, and yet in the trial the accused is proved to be innocent, then he must not condemn him on the basis of his conscience, by which he knows that he is [guilty innocent], but absolve him according to what has been proved. For even ﹛ i f ﹜ he does so, it cannot be said that he has done it against his conscience, because he has absolved the accused not as an innocent man, but only on the basis of the process of judgment. But if the judge has a conscience in favour of the accused, in spite of what is charged and proved, then he must not decide against his undoubted conscience. For a judge is to be believed if he alleges conscience in support of another person, if he can prove it.

Since a judge cannot supply elements missing from the trial, he must determine how he can bring his conscience to bear in favour of the accused, in spite of the charges and proofs, in such a way that he does not impinge on those constitutions by which it is forbidden to add anything to the trial. Therefore in such a case he should declare his conscience to a superior judge by consulting with him.