[114]
You must either find fault with this trial, the prosecution in which
appeared to rely on previous decisions, or else, if you admit that this was an honest one, you
must allow that Oppianicus was condemned without money having been paid to procure his
condemnation. Although it ought to be proof enough for any one, that no one out of so many
judges was proceeded against after Falcula had been acquitted.—For why do you bring
up men convicted of bribery under a different law, the charges being well proved, the
witnesses being numerous? when, in the first place, these very men ought to be accused of
peculation rather than of bribery. For if, in trials for bribery, this was an hindrance to
them, that they were being prosecuted under a different law, at all events it would have been
a much greater injury to them to be brought before the court according to the law properly
belonging to this offence.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.