How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times? I wonder whether Jesus was given enough opportunities to defend himself, whether his trial was fair and whether the investigation was thorough.  I want to know how it compares with typical criminal, political or treason trials of the time, both in Roman empire and worldwide, and also in comparison with the modern times.
No, no and no. But it doesn't matter.


He was guilty of what he was charged of. Blasphemy. Claiming to be God.
The thing he was guilty of did carry a death penalty under Jewish law.
The Jews couldn't actually administer the death penalty, they had to get something to take to the Romans to get clearance.
The Roman governor (Pontus Pilate) operated the trial as a political maneuver to stop a Jewish uprising (of the people that wanted to kill Jesus more so than of Jesus himself). He kept the peace by doing what the mob and religious leaders wanted. No claim was ever made of it being a fair trial.
Nobody stopped to consider the fact that his claim was actually true. The final proof of that was in the pudding, and that wouldn't be served up for three more days.


Nobody has ever claimed the trial was fair or investigation thorough. But nobody cared then and I'm not sure why anybody would care now.