In this trial, Odysseus was on trial for premeditated murder of several suitors. The prosecution argued that Odysseus was fully aware of his actions when committing the murder and that he had a plan, which is why he disguised as a beggar. On the other hand, the defense argued that Odysseus was mentally unstable and manipulated by the gods when committing the murder, and he had no time to plan the murder because he was a sex slave for several years. Although both sides presented interesting arguments, I voted for prosecution because they had stronger arguments, well thought out rebuttals, and better evidence than the defense.Throughout the trial, I kept track of the general pros and cons for each side. I found that the prosecution’s evidence was more compelling in comparison to the evidence the defense presented. This is because the evidence the defense presented had more holes, and did not flow as well as the prosecution’s. However, the defense had better witnesses to support their argument. The use of the prosecution’s witnesses could have been better, and in the defense’s closing statement, they stated that the prosecution witnesses could be “potentially biased due to personal grudges against Odysseus”. Both the prosecution and the defense made several objections during the cross-examination of witnesses, but I noticed that the prosecution’s objections were sustained more, meaning they were more valid.Overall, there were several interesting points made by both sides during the trial, making it a hard decision for me initially to pick a side. The defense made a good point by saying that Odysseus was “mentally unstable after watching his crew suffer death and seeing his ship be destroyed by Zeus”. However, this point was disproven by the prosecution because they argued that Odysseus would have shown symptoms of mental instability if he was really mentally ill, and he would not have been able to shoot an arrow through 12 axes. This was a very good rebuttal made by the prosecution, but the turning point in the trial that convinced me Odysseus was guilty was when the prosecution stated that Odysseus “had asked for his bow to shoot through twelve axes, showing that he had a deliberate plan in mind and was clear-headed”. Heading into the jury deliberation, I had made up my mind and wanted to vote for the prosecution. Not all the other jurors were fully convinced however. The first thing we did in our deliberation was go around and state which side we were leaning towards, in order to get an idea of where everyone was. It turned out, several people were in the middle and were not fully convinced by either side. In order to get everyone on the same page, the other jurors and I made a pro and con list for both the defense and prosecution. The other jurors brought up new points that had swayed my opinion, and made me second guess my choice about Odysseus being guilty. For example, they brought up the idea of hospitality, which was a major point presented by both the prosecution and the defenseIn this case, the court abided by ancient Athenian law. The concept of hospitality was a large part of the book in addition to the trial. There were several instances, such as in book one with Telemachus and Athena or in book nine with Polyphemus, where hospitality was concerned. (Homer, 1, 145). Hospitality could have been both wanted and unwanted, and there were definitely places where the line of hospitality could have been crossed. It was also important to recognize the way hospitality is given, either willingly or unwillingly. In the trial, the focus point was hospitality given to the suitors by Penelope and Telemachus. Three of the five witnesses on the defense side included hospitality in their witness statements. First, Odysseus stated that the suitors “took advantage of Penelope’s generosity, and stayed in her home for four years”. Then, Eurycleia said that the suitors “crossed the line of hospitality by feasting on livestock, and sleeping with the maids”. Finally, Athena said that Odysseus only killed the suitors because of their “disrespect towards Penelope’s kindness, and rudeness despite the hospitality provided”. Another point made by the defense was that the gods were manipulating Odysseus. This was not a huge highlight in the trial, but it was one of the few points that the prosecution did not rebut. Zeus, did in fact interfere with Odysseus’ journey by “punishing his crew and destroying his ship”, as stated by a defense witness. This is a valid example that was brought up during our deliberation, however, was not as strong of an argument as the overall prosecution’s because there was only one piece of supporting evidence.The big point about hospitality, as well as the smaller point about the gods manipulating Odysseus, made me second guess my thoughts and started swaying me towards voting for the defense. However, according to ancient Athenian law, even if the rules of hospitality were broken, that still gives no right to premeditated murder. This eliminated my second guesses, and I decided once and for all to vote for the prosecution. After the overall jury discussion and deliberation, the rest of the jurors also voted for prosecution, making it a unanimous decision. The jury sided with the prosecution because they had more coercive arguments and direct evidence from the witnesses. All components for first degree murder were proved by the prosecution, including premeditation, malintentions and malicious afterthought. Odysseus had a specific plan in mind when asking for his bow and arrow, he had an intent of murdering the suitors while disguised as a beggar, and he had time to plan the murder because he was aware of the suitors 7-9 years before he came home. The defense did not have significant evidence that Odysseus was mentally unstable, because as depicted by the prosecution, he did not show symptoms of any traumatic disorder or mental illness. The prosecution had an overall strong and persuasive argument, which is why the jury charged Odysseus as guilty for premeditated murder.