Just want to know more details regarding the two trials, as these two trials are predestined, so sometimes I'm wondering about it authenticity. Especially I want to know:
OK, so using the trial sources for Joan and Joan's life is a pretty complex and fraught procedure, so let's get a few things out of the way. Firstly, by the "1st and 2nd trials" I'm going to assume you mean the Trial of Condemnation (Feb - May 1431) and the Trial of Nullification (1455 - 1456). There is technically a third 'trial', that of her canonisation hearing, which took place in the early C20th, but as it's not really a 'trial' in the conventional sense (except when it is), I'm guessing it's not what you're talking about here.
Secondly, by “predestined”, I’m assuming you mean the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion – i.e. that Joan would be convicted in the Condemnation Trial, and exculpated in the Nullification Trial, regardless of the actual evidence? You’re not necessarily wrong here, but it’s worth bearing in mind that while the motivations of the trial instigators (the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and the French, respectively) had definitive outcomes that they were looking for, there were other factors at play. For instance, Pierre Cauchon was Bishop of Beauvais and one of the presiding judges at the Condemnation Trial. He was firmly partisan towards the Anglo-Burgundian party, but we can’t forget that he had his own irons in the fire. For him, as Helen Castor has suggested, the trial was a good opportunity to demonstrate his own zeal and aptitude at prosecuting heresy, and thus earn himself a promotion to archbishop. From this point of view, Joan’s ‘relapse’ into heresy and resulting execution was the less desirable outcome – it’s easy to be cynical about medieval religious figures, but we shouldn’t dismiss a genuine concern for the cure of souls. “[the trial] was a chance to save a soul and a life, as well as vindicate the kingdom to which he [Cauchon] had devoted his career.” In this rather pithy summary, Castor captures the fact that there were several rather varied agenda going on at the Condemnation Trial, and that while a ‘guilty’ verdict was never really in doubt, the exact route to get there and the form it would take were by no means predetermined.
So, on to your questions.
Testimonies in favour of Joan at the Condemnation Trial
In short, there weren't any, because there weren't any testimonies of any kind as part of the trial. Instead, the trial consisted of lengthy examinations of Joan herself by a panel of judges and theologians, who questioned her about all aspects of her life, beliefs and actions. Having said this, we can infer that the judges had done some preliminary work and questioning before the trial. As Taylor points out, they refer on several occasions to the 'Fairy Tree', a feature of Joan's childhood at Domremy, as well as other events that would require diligent questioning and exploration in order to have enough information and context to deploy in a legal setting.
Significantly, the procedures for bringing a heresy accusation to trial in the medieval period involved proof of fama publica - widespread fame and ill reputation. This was primarily a device adopted by the C12th inquisitional tribunals to prevent false and malicious accusations taking more time than necessary, but it held true through into the C15th. With this criteria in mind, it is odd that no testimonies either for or against Joan were presented. Taylor suggests two reasons for this:
1/2