Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, deliberately convicted the innocent Joan of Arc of heresy and consigned her to be burned to death, a judicial murder. Twenty-five years later (1455–1456), her trial was declared null and void: there were violations of due process at every turn, Joan was found to be blameless, and her honor restored, though without fanfare. The trial was an awkwardly conceived lawsuit, abstracted at first from the political and military circumstances of her case, and having aspects of a comedy of errors in constantly declaring dummy defendants in contempt of court for non-appearance. Joan’s honor was fully restored when the acts of her trials were published in the 1840s. The full scope of her personal holiness was judicially tried and vindicated at the turn of the twentieth century, resulting in her canonization. In general, the above verdict against Cauchon has been accepted by modern historians, but occasionally revisionists offer excuses for him, whether in justifying Cauchon’s procedures in various ways or in finding Joan guilty of heresy of some sort, which can be seen as further attacks on her honor. It is hoped that this study will serve as a defense against all such efforts.