Welcome to Gaia! ::

See, the prosecution is charging King Charles V under ICC law, not Cortez himself. And we almost went with the "Old Kingy had no idea what was going on across the ocean" defense (Because he didn't, really. Cortez's letters home basically said that everything was rainbows and lollipops and unicorns in South America), but there were a couple of major flaws in that defense. (For instance, the king rewards the guy for what he's done.)
So we decide to go for "morals and ethics were different back then, everybody was doing this" instead. And the other defense lawyer with me, despite having ample experience with mock trials, (which is something I do not possess) is saying that we should talk about Aztec Slavery to prove our point that everybody was in on this back in the day. (One of the charges is on enslavement of the Aztec people.) Problem being, out of every culture in history that did slavery, the Aztecs treated theirs the best. I mean, you could basically sue your owner for beating you, and be set free. Hell, if you tried to aid the master in the recapture of an escaping slave, you'd be recruited as a slave as well, so they basically encouraged running away. It may be my first time as a lawyer, but if there's anything I know it's that you don't hand the prosecution a thousand weapons on a silver platter and ask them to only hit you lightly and above the waist.
Wall o' text.
Oh, and I have to read all the witness statements and all thirty billion pieces of evidence. AUGH.

Sounds like something you should take up with your partner.

I've tried! He just goes, "Well, then we address it in the direct examination so we have time to explain, and if they bring it up during the cross examination, we can just say that slavery is still slavery."
Not here, it isn't buddy! There's nothing to explain, as there's no way we can put a spin in our favor on those facts without not explaining it at all!

See, your problem is that you aren't Phoenix Wright.

OR MATLOCK!