Gaspo
TNPer
Under the terrestrial law of Real Life (tm) there generally exists a duty on the part of the prosecution of a criminal matter, to disclose any evidence of an exculpatory nature which is relevant to a case. This duty manifests after a plea has been entered. No such duty is explicitly defined within The North Pacific, but it is my belief that such a duty may be implied to exist through an analysis of three specific sections of the Bill of Rights, quoted singularly below:
Taken together, these segments establish that the Attorney General (or any member of his office, hereafter collectively refered to as the AG), as a government official, has a duty not to deny any nation due process, and a duty to ensure that said AG protects the citizens he/she represents against abuses of those powers. The law requires the AG to adhere to the law as written. Said law guarantees a right to a fair trial. Simply by withholding exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor knowingly creates an unfair trial environment, and accordingly violates all three of the above items - the first, by abusing his or her powers to violate the right to a fair trial, the second by violating the right to a fair trial, and the third by taking action to deny a Nation its due process of law, as well as to deny that Nation equal and fair treatment under the constitution.
It logically follows, therefore, that any action taken by an AG who is in possession of exculpatory evidence, or evidence that is damaging to the fairness of the proceedings at hand, must be obligated to disclose immediately such evidence. If he or she fails to do so, no matter the reason (with the possible exception of a privilege situation), that AG has immediately violated the above-stated constitutional rights of the accused.
I would argue, therefore, that even in the absence of a specifically enumerated duty to disclose, an implied duty to disclose any evidence of an exculpatory nature, or any evidence which impacts the fairness of the proceedings, as soon as possible upon receipt of such evidence, is created by virtue of every other possible action resulting in a breach of the law. If the only way to stay within the law is to conduct oneself in a particular fashion, there is a de facto duty created by the law, implied but not explicitly stated, which requires the individual to act in that particular fashion in order to remain in accordance with the law.
I would ask that the court review the above-submitted statements and cited elements, in conjunction with the entire body of regional law and any briefs submitted by interested parties, in order to arrive at a determination as to whether or not a duty resides with the AG's office to disclose any and all information of an exculpatory nature, as well as all evidence which casts doubt on the fairness of any proceedings, to the defense counsel in the relevant case, as soon as is possible upon receipt of such evidence.
I am available to answer any questions the court my have on this matter.
Respectfully Submitted this, the Third day of December, Two Thousand Twelve.
Edit: Edited for punctuation.
Taken together, these segments establish that the Attorney General (or any member of his office, hereafter collectively refered to as the AG), as a government official, has a duty not to deny any nation due process, and a duty to ensure that said AG protects the citizens he/she represents against abuses of those powers. The law requires the AG to adhere to the law as written. Said law guarantees a right to a fair trial. Simply by withholding exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor knowingly creates an unfair trial environment, and accordingly violates all three of the above items - the first, by abusing his or her powers to violate the right to a fair trial, the second by violating the right to a fair trial, and the third by taking action to deny a Nation its due process of law, as well as to deny that Nation equal and fair treatment under the constitution.
It logically follows, therefore, that any action taken by an AG who is in possession of exculpatory evidence, or evidence that is damaging to the fairness of the proceedings at hand, must be obligated to disclose immediately such evidence. If he or she fails to do so, no matter the reason (with the possible exception of a privilege situation), that AG has immediately violated the above-stated constitutional rights of the accused.
I would argue, therefore, that even in the absence of a specifically enumerated duty to disclose, an implied duty to disclose any evidence of an exculpatory nature, or any evidence which impacts the fairness of the proceedings, as soon as possible upon receipt of such evidence, is created by virtue of every other possible action resulting in a breach of the law. If the only way to stay within the law is to conduct oneself in a particular fashion, there is a de facto duty created by the law, implied but not explicitly stated, which requires the individual to act in that particular fashion in order to remain in accordance with the law.
I would ask that the court review the above-submitted statements and cited elements, in conjunction with the entire body of regional law and any briefs submitted by interested parties, in order to arrive at a determination as to whether or not a duty resides with the AG's office to disclose any and all information of an exculpatory nature, as well as all evidence which casts doubt on the fairness of any proceedings, to the defense counsel in the relevant case, as soon as is possible upon receipt of such evidence.
I am available to answer any questions the court my have on this matter.
Respectfully Submitted this, the Third day of December, Two Thousand Twelve.
Edit: Edited for punctuation.
