under roman law, someone accusing another person of a crime needed\no belief that the accused was guilty.\no…

under roman law, someone accusing another person of a crime needed\no belief that the accused was guilty.\no proof that a crime had been committed.\no a lawyer willing to take the case to trial.\no a witness to vouch for the accusers character.

under roman law, someone accusing another person of a crime needed\no belief that the accused was guilty.\no proof that a crime had been committed.\no a lawyer willing to take the case to trial.\no a witness to vouch for the accusers character.

Answer

Answer:

B. proof that a crime had been committed.

Brief Explanations:

Under Roman - law, an accuser needed evidence of a crime, not just a belief. A lawyer or a character - vouching witness wasn't a prerequisite for making an accusation.