On 21 July 1921, a man called Behbud Han Cevan?ir, was murdered in Istanbul. The identity of the shooter was unfolded as well: He was an Armenian named Misak Torlakyan . The previous relations between the shooter and his victim were easily disclosed and were clearly indicating to the city of Baku during the late months of 1918: Cevannir served there previously as the Minister of Internal Affairs of the short-lived independent Azerbaijan; Torlakyan was staying in Baku during Civanair's tenure. The trial of the Armenian youngster in Istanbul by a British military court is at the center of this paper. Within a short period of time this trial turned into a bill of charge formulated by the defense; it chose to ignore the actual act of murder and focus on the motives that it believed had brought the defendant to commit the crime. The Armenian defense lawyers used the trial to criminalize the victim due to his role as Minister of Interior Affairs at the time of the massacre which took place in Baku and lasted for three consecutive days and nights in September 1918. On the one hand, the court and the prosecution - both manned by British militaries - enabled the defense to formulate its case by raising accusations against prominent officials in addition to the victim and against wider groups. On the other hand, the prosecution wanted to emphasize the guilt of the Armenian shooter and see him as part of a wider group of Armenians who betrayed the countries in which they lived in the name of Armenian nationalism. The court was asked to decide upon central issues of citizenship versus betrayal; patriotism versus persecution of minorities. The two opposing parties perceived the trial as a major arena in which they could present their narratives in a clear and succinct manner. The various judicial strategies, the formulation of the testimonies and their presentations allow us to offer a discussion on the shaping of new identities and discourses against the background of the demise of empires and the construction of new national identities. My discussion of the trial is based on the papers of the Ottoman journalist Ahmed Cemalettin. My paper concentrates on the relation between nationalism and the judicial arena in which new terminologies and national narratives are defined, contested and defended and transformed from the realm of individual intellectuals to the much wider public arena.