When Accius prosecuted A. Cluentius Habitus in 66 BC (Alexander 2002, 173–88), who was charged with having poisoned his stepfather Oppianicus, the accused was defended by Cicero (Cic. Clu.; T 1; TLRR 198). Both speak-
F 2 Cic. Clu. 62, 65, 84, 156, 160
quaero enim de te, T. Atti,1 relictis iam ceteris argumentis omnibus, num Fabricios quoque innocentis condemnatos existimes, num etiam illa iudicia pecunia corrupta esse dicas, quibus in iudiciis alter a Staieno solo absolutus est, alter etiam ipse se condemnavit....  ... te, Oppianice, appello, te, T. Atti, quorum alter eloquentia damnationem illam, alter tacita pietate deplorat; audete negare ab Oppianico Staieno iudici pecuniam datam, negate, negate,2 inquam, meo loco. quid tacetis? an negare non potestis quod repetistis, quod confessi estis, quod abstulistis? quo tandem igitur ore mentionem corrupti iudicii facitis, cum ab ista parte iudici pecuniam ante iudicium datam, post iudicium ereptam esse fateamini? ...  at enim pecuniam Staieno dedit Oppianicus non ad corrumpendum iudicium sed ad conciliationem gratiae. tene hoc, Atti,
ers made reference to the earlier trial, in 74 BC, when Cluentius prosecuted Oppianicus for having attempted to poison him (TLRR 149). Cicero engages with the arguments of the opponent in his own speech.
F 2 Cicero, Pro Cluentio
Now putting aside all other arguments [proving that the accuser would not have used bribery at the earlier trial], I ask you, T. Attius [Accius], whether you think that the Fabricii [accomplices of Oppianicus], too, were convicted when innocent, whether you say that at their trials also the court was bribed with money, trials in which the one was acquitted by Staienus [C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (107A), allegedly bribed judge] alone [cf. 143 + 144 F1], and the other [of the Fabricii] even convicted himself....  ... I challenge you, Oppianicus [Statius Albius Oppianicus, the son], and you, T. Attius, who both deplore that conviction [of Oppianicus, the father], one with eloquence, the other with mute dutifulness. Deny if you dare that money was given by Oppianicus to Staienus, the judge, deny it, deny it, I say, in my place. Why are you silent? Or are you not able to deny what you sought to recover, what you acknowledged, what you carried off? With what kind of face then are you making mention of a corrupt court when it was from your side, as you acknowledge, that money was given to a judge before the trial and wrested from him after the trial? ...  But Oppianicus gave Staienus the money, not to bribe the court, but to effect a reconciliation [alleged statement of prosecutor]. To think that you, Attius,