Geoffrey Robertson’s, The Tyrannicide Brief is a very compelling story of a lawyer who can be attributed to shaping some very important precedents to modern laws. Robertson guides readers through the career of John Cooke. John Cooke is an attorney that is given the task of bringing charges to one of the most powerful men in the country, The King. John Cooke takes on the role of an attorney who must prove that his lord and commander is guilty of treason. John Cooke takes the opposite route in comparison to his colleagues. Rather than shy away from the duty of laying charges to Charles I, Cooke embraces this opportunity. The Tyrannicide Brief at surface appears to be about charging and eventually executing Charles I, but with the turn of each …show more content…
John Cooke himself would use this right to his advantage in his own trial later. Before John Cooke would get his chance to remain silent there were others such as a royalist officer by the name of Holder. John Cooke’s questions would have placed Holder in a position that would have incriminated himself. To save himself Holder pleaded with the court to grant him his right to silence. Fortunately for Holder his right to silence was granted as anything he said would have been considered self-accusatory. The right to silence was previously established by Judge and President of the High Court of Justice John Bradshawe and John Cooke in the case of John Lilburne. When it came time for his own trial John Cooke would exercise the right to silence. He refused to answer any questions that would incriminate him and declined to sign the record of his examination. Robertson explains self-incrimination as the process in which someone says something that would accuse or cause themselves to be held accountable for negative actions. In the case of Holder, he knew of some of the King’s incitement of warcrimes. However, the fact that he would be incriminating himself by revealing conversations with the King protected him from having to