The trial feels so obviously a sham used to scapegoat a rookie for the sake of saving face.
Like it should incredibly obvious that the person who takes responsibility is the veteran in this situation as the highest-ranking member of the party. He was even the teacher for the excursion and that definitely means he's responsible for the failure to properly analyze the dungeon.
Like they even somehow imply that a rookie for who this was his first dungeon, somehow has expert knowledge on how dungeons work and how to rate them, just because an "expert" said this guy who was just recruited and who is known for being incredibly weak, somehow is also an expert on dungeons. It makes no logical sense to do any of it unless it was specifically intended to pin the blame on someone. Even then, they should've put more effort into properly validating that he was the culprit and not just take a single witness testimony from someone who clearly would be the only other suspect and thus would lie to save himself