Few people realize that Jesus actually had not one trial but two. The first one, at the High Priest's palace, was after his arrest and began around 2 a.m. Although it was held only with judges who were his enemies, enough of them attended to officially arrive at a verdict and declare a sentence. Many of the details of the first trial of Jesus, and their illegal actions, were recorded by the gospel authors.
Because Jewish law demanded two sessions of the Sanhedrin hear and try a defendant, a second trial was held around 5 a.m. Very little is written about this proceeding, which was likely nothing more than a "rubber stamp" or automatic approval of the decision against Jesus reached earlier.
One of the major circumventions of law was that the court did not first initiate an investigation to determine the merits of any accusations against Jesus.
If a false witness rises up purposing to do harm against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who are disagreeing shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry . . . (Deuteronomy 19:16 - 18, HBFV throughout).
Hebrew law provided no lawyers to defend or prosecute during a trial. The judges were the defenders and the witnesses the prosecutors. The court was supposed to seek for evidence only on behalf of the accused, which in this case was Jesus.
Trial Was Too Short
Both the first and second hearing was completed in the total time of less than five hours. Jewish law states that if a death sentence is pronounced that proceedings cannot conclude until the next day or else its illegal (Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1).
Additionally, there are at least two major reasons why the first trial was conducted around 2 a.m. and lasted about three hours. It gave the court the excuse that certain council members who might have been an advocate for Jesus the accused (e.g. Joseph of Arimathea) could not have been notified in time to appear. It also rendered it nearly impossible that any witnesses of the defense could be notified to arrive in time in order to offer their testimony.
No Impartial Judges
The judges who presiding over Jesus' trials hated him and actively wanted him dead.
After these things, Jesus was sojourning in Galilee, for He did not desire to travel in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him (John 7:1).
Then the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people assembled together in the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; And they took counsel together for the purpose of seizing Jesus by treachery, and killing Him (Matthew 26:3 - 4).
Jewish law expressly forbids a person from judging a case if they are already negatively biased either against the accused or the accuser (Mendelsohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, page 108).
False Witnesses
The ninth commandment states that we should not bear false witness against another person (Exodus 20:16). This foundational principle was totally ignored during the trial of Jesus as known false witnesses were used in order that a conviction could be achieved. This alone would render the verdicts reached illegal.
And the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were trying to find testimony against Jesus, to put Him to death; but they did not find any. For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. And some rose up and bore false witness against Him . . . (Mark 14:55 - 57).
Lying against someone, especially in court, is something God says He hates (Proverbs 6:16 - 19). The Biblical penalty for being a false witness was fair but severe (Deuteronomy 19:16 - 19, 21). These principles meant that those who lied in court deserved the death penalty for which they were giving testimony! Jewish law also did not permit false testimony (Walter Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, Volume 1, page 140).
Self-incrimination
Jesus did not defend himself, during his trials, against charges made by any of the false witnesses. According to Jewish law, a person could not be condemned based on their own testimony (self-incrimination).
"We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself" (Maimonides, Sanhedrin, 4:2, see also Mendelsohn)
Additionally, the indictment used to justify the death penalty against Jesus was illegal because the judges themselves originated the charges. Based on the Bible, a charge against someone was to be brought up by at least two or three witnesses of the alleged crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). The Sanhedrin could not originate charges but only investigate those brought before it (Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, book 3, chapter 2).
No Credible Witnesses
All those during Jesus' first trial who gathered to hear and judge the case called for the death penalty.
"You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death (Mark 14:64).
It was illegal in Jewish law to unanimously condemn a person to death if no one testified as a witness for the defense (Jesus the Christ: A study of the Messiah and His mission, James Edward Talmage, page 647, quote from Rabbi Wise, page 74).
Illegal Change of Charges
The court carrying out Jesus' first trial declared that the charge against him was a perceived threat that he would destroy Jerusalem's temple.
Now the chief priests and the elders and the whole Sanhedrin sought false evidence against Jesus . . . But they did not find any. Although many false witnesses came forward, they did not find any evidence.
Then at the last, two false witnesses came forward and said, "This Man said, 'I have the power to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" (Matthew 26:59 - 61).
The court changed its mind, however, and charged the Lord with blasphemy.
Again the high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I AM. And you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest ripped his own garments and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death (Mark 14:61 - 64).
After the second trial, the Sanhedrin yet again changed the charges against Jesus before they were to present their case in front of the Roman authorities. Jewish religious leaders told Pontius Pilate that Christ was charged not with blasphemy but with treason. They presented this illegal charge because treason was a Roman crime.
And when the entire assembly of them arose, they led Him to Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this man subverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, claiming that He Himself is Christ, a King." (Luke 23:1 - 2).
Because of this saying, Pilate sought to release Him (Jesus); but the Jews cried out, saying, "If you release this Man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." (John 19:12).
Illegally accusing our Savior of breaking Roman law, after his trial was completed, greatly increased the chances that they would not have to consider carrying out the death penalty themselves.
Conclusion
The illegal trial of Jesus and his execution was the greatest travesty of justice the world will ever see. According to Walter Chandler, who wrote from the perspective of a lawyer, there exists no stronger case of judicial murder in history "for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled underfoot in the proceedings instituted against Him" (page 216).