Request for Review: Trial Scheduling and Last-minute Motions

Gaspo

Gaspo

TNPer
This request for review concerns the scheduling orders issued in TNP v. Eluvatar, which have resulted in a significant substantive reduction in the Defendant's right to a fair trial. While I do not believe that the Moderating Justice has necessarily committed clear errors in accordance with the black letter of the applicable Rules, it is my belief that there exist substantive rights implied by the Bill of Rights, which have not thus far been enumerated in law and therefore are easily overlooked.

In particular, the Defense feels that the closing of the Pre-trial motions phase mere minutes after the submission of the Prosecution's only motions, thus depriving the Defense of any ability to respond to those motions and present a competent defense. While from a purely mathematical standpoint, the timing may be procedurally correct, the denial of Defendant's ability to answer substantive motions (in a reasonable fashion, time-wise) substatively limits the Defendant's guaranteed right to a fair trial, as specified by the Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

The trial procedure decisions as they stand now establish a precedent that allows the Prosecution to wait until the last possible moment to submit motions or evidence in any phase, depriving the opposing party of any time to refute, investigate, or respond to such filings. While the Court must work on some form of schedule, the right to a fair trial implies a right to respond to motions targeted at a defendant. I propose, therefore, that the Court state quite clearly that a right to respond within a reasonable time period (say, a 36 to 48 hour extension) exists when motions are filed. I would suggest that such a right might cover one response to each motion, with no rebuttal from the filing party. At worst, such a standard would extend any given phase for 48 hours while completely protecting the rights of the accused, and the right of the State to adequately prosecute all matters. I request that the Court apply this interpretation to TNP v. Eluvatar and all forward-looking cases, preserving all defendants' right to a fair trial and ensuring that the integrity of this Court continues to be beyond reproach.

On a separate procedural issue, relevant only if the Court disagrees with my proposal as stated above, I would submit that, as Pleas were never entered on the charges subject to the Motion to Dismiss, by either the Defendant or the Court, the period for pre-trial motions on those charges had not yet begun. As such, it could not have ended without first having started. If the Motions to dismiss were not filed at an appropriate time, they should have been denied on procedural grounds, and Counsel should have been instructed to re-file them at an appropriate time. Without pleas being entered, as per the court rules, the pre-trial motion period had not yet started, and therefore should not have been closed without giving the Defense some opportunity to respond to the final-moments motions of the Prosecution.

Given the conflicts of interest in this case, I presume that Sanctaria, Abbey, and Todd will be reviewing this matter. While this matter is reviewed, I ask that TNP v. Eluvatar be placed in recess, as this ruling substantially affects my client's procedural rights and the path of the defense as it addresses this case going forward.
 
Request noted.

Due to the nature of this request, I will be extending the adjournment on TNP v. Eluvatar until we come to a decision.
 
First, I would object to anyone other than Abbey, Todd, and Sanctaria ruling on this. I also would like the court to please advise if they are making a ruling for this case alone or within the larger TNP context. If the latter, it's a little murky if a temporary justice has that authority.


Overall...
I agree with Gaspo's take here...and I'll post what he said and make some changes for effect:

The trial procedure decisions as they stand now establish a precedent that allows the Prosecution to wait until the last possible moment to submit motions or evidence in any phase, depriving the opposing party of any time to refute, investigate, or respond to such filings.

The trial procedure decisions as they stand now establish a precedent that allows the Defendant to wait until the last possible moment to submit motions or evidence in any phase, depriving the opposing party of any time to refute, investigate, or respond to such filings.
Click to expand...

As you can see, regardless if it is the Defense or Prosecution, the party responding to the motion should have sufficient time to respond and the court should have clear directions for how it will handle responses.

I have made motions on this matter that the court is now considering, Gaspo's appeal somewhat circumvent's that but that is due to Sanctaria ruling that the pre-trial period had ended. Here's my thought process on how things could work:

Method 1
Motion
Response
Reply

Method 2
Motion
Response
Reply
Final Rebuttal

Either method is fine for me and I'd also be fine with Gaspo's proposal, but it needs to be consistent for whomever is submitting the motion and clear to both parties. Obviously, time frames could and should be attached to each response, but I agree with Gaspo that if a party enters a motion or response for that matter, at a late hour such that the other party is unable to respond, it does injure the other party.

In a general sense, I think the court should rule on that - not necessarily relevant to this case - but in a more general context. I ask that Abbey, Sanctaria, and Todd not include Hileville or Gaspo in any of their deliberations on this matter.
 
Neither Hileville or Gaspo will be participating in this review as it directly relates to the case.

As for whether or not it will apply to solely this case, or to TNP as a whole, obviously whatever this court's decision is would set a precedent. As for hearing officer's having the power, they do; Hileville, myself ,and Abbey as a THO recently ruled on a review filed by Gaspo.

Due to the relative time-sensitive nature of the review, in the context of the trial itself, I'm allowing a 24 hour period from the time of this posting for briefs.
 
PunkD, part of legal reasoning is anticipating the arguments against your claims and accounting for them in your initial filing. I can't say that I see the need, necessarily, for the filing party to have a right to a response, particularly in your first proposed model. It draws out the process unnecessarily. File good motions, make your arguments and anticipate your opponent's arguments, and see where things end up, would be my preference, particularly for last-minute motions.
 
Like I said - I'm fine with your proposal. My main concern is that it is fair and that it is clear to both parties.

If it's motion-response-ruling, that's ok with me.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on whether current trial procedures concerning time limits on replies, specifically those utilised in TNP v. Eluvatar, currently infringe on a Defendant's right to a fair trial

Opinion drafted by Sanctaria, joined by Abbey Anumia and Jamie​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Gaspo.

The Court took into consideration Article 7 of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The issue the Court has before it is whether or not the the scheduling of trials, as they currently stand, infringes on one's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In particular, the Court is asked whether or not the denying the Defence's right to respond to motions due to those time limits, specifically in the case of The North Pacific v. Eluvatar, limited that Defendant's right to a fair trial.

It is the opinion of the Court that the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed to those charged with criminal acts by the Bill of Rights, includes an inherent right of response to the Defendant and/or his/her team. It is the Court's opinion that denying the Defence an opportunity to respond to the Prosecution, in both a pre-trial period and beyond, would pose a danger to a Defendant's enumerated right, especially in a situation where an over-zealous Prosecution intentionally waited until immediately prior to the end of specific phase to make a motion, thereby depriving the Defence of any opportunity to respond.

This Court believes that in order to protect the constitutional rights of the Defendant, should the Prosecution file any motion(s) in the 12 hour period immediately prior to the ending of a phase, the Defence be granted an automatic time extension to respond to that motion(s) if they fail to do so in that 12 hour period before the phase ends. This Court tasks the Court will updating its ruleset to reflect this opinion and to clarify the automatic extension as outlined.

Further, the Court does not recognise that the aforementioned right to respond should apply to the Prosecution also, as although the Bill of Rights guarantees equality for each nation in the operations of governmental authorities, the right to a fair trial (from which this right to respond is found) is explicitly given by the Bill of Rights only to those charged with a criminal offence.

It is also the considered opinion of the Court that this right of response is just and only that; a right to respond to motions made, and not extra time to file motions of their own.

With specific attention to the case of The North Pacific v. Eluvatar, the Court acknowledges its own erring and agrees with the Defence that pre-trial motions should not have begun as pleas for all charges were not filed; motions to dismiss belong only in the pre-trial period and should not have been accepted as it had not yet begun. It is the belief of this Court that the trial in question should return to the plea phase.
 
My thanks to the Court for its prompt attention to this matter, and for its well-reasoned and fair response.
 
Sanctaria - when I've oft spoken of different rules for defense and prosecution this ruling is exactly what I'm talking about.

Further, the Court does not recognise that the aforementioned right to respond should apply to the Prosecution also, as although the Bill of Rights guarantees equality for each nation in the operations of governmental authorities, the right to a fair trial (from which this right to respond is found) is explicitly given by the Bill of Rights only to those charged with a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

So a defense can make a motion at 5 minutes prior to pretrial and the Prosecution won't be able to respond except within those last 5 minutes.

That is patently unfair. And if I were a defense attorney, I'd submit motions at a late hour just to ensure that the prosectution was unable to respond. Again, as a defense attorney you're trying to get your client off and not giving your opponent time to respond helps in that cause.

I'm sadly disappointed in this ruling.

I would also like to add that the court, in this ruling is not following the Adopted Court Rules that were established at the time of the trial commencing. Those court rules stated - quite clearly - that if a defendant did not enter a plea, a plea of not guilty would be accepted by the court. The Court, in TNP v Eluvatar, did not make mention of its acceptance or denial of the defendant's plea.

The court moved onto the pretrial stage which to any rational person would mean that the defendant's not guilty plea in absentia was accepted by the court. Once again, and I do mean once again, this Court changes the rules on the fly.

Further - by restarting the trial now, I need the court (request in another thread) to tell me if it plans to use the Adopted Court Rules in place at the time of the original trial thread or the ones enacted thereafter. I suspect, in keeping with this court's previous decisions, it will use whichever rules they deem fit.

If my tone appears sarcastic, it is. If I sound frustrated, I am. This court continues to change the rules on the fly and is not consistent. You're making life impossible for my office as we cannot follow the rules because they continue to change whenever this court sees fit.
 
punk d:
Further - by restarting the trial now, I need the court (request in another thread) to tell me if it plans to use the Adopted Court Rules in place at the time of the original trial thread or the ones enacted thereafter. I suspect, in keeping with this court's previous decisions, it will use whichever rules they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Read the trial thread. Sanc already answered this question.
 
...And read...My apologies.

I hope the court will address my other points which I maintain are quite valid.
 
The Court acknowledged its mistakes in the trial and ordered it revert back to plea stage. We don't intend to ignore the rules, and if it happens, it's usually by accident, which it was in the case in question.
 
While I mistakenly brought that point in, I'm actually talking about the quoted section of my original post. THIS is an equally serious issue.
 
punk d:
While I mistakenly brought that point in, I'm actually talking about the quoted section of my original post. THIS is an equally serious issue.
Click to expand...
No, it really isn't. The Prosecution carries all the burdens in a criminal proceeding. You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person you're accusing is actually guilty. Your job is to build a case so ironclad, with every i dotted and every t crossed, that no motion can destroy it. Defense motions aren't aggressive actions, 99.9% of the time - they're motions that point out the Prosecution's errors. Motions to exclude evidence, for example, only get sustained if either a) the evidence is unreliable (in which case the Prosecution shouldn't be relying on it), b) the evidence isn't substantiated or authenticated (in which case the Prosecution forgot to do part of its job), or c) the evidence is unduly prejudicial. A motion to exclude evidence the Prosecution is attempting to introduce doesn't need a response from the prosecution - you should have already done your job such that there was no substantive basis to exclude the evidence. If you need to fight for your evidence because it's so sketchy, perhaps that's an indicator of the strength of your case, and not of the Court's rules.

Do I think the Court's ruling here might be slightly broad? Possibly, but if it is, it's barely so. Do I think Court rules amendments can easily address any broadness? Absolutely. Do I think that the prosecution is entitled to an even-footing trial? Absolutely not. There would be no trial without the prosecution claiming to have a substantive case - if they prosecution has no such case, it should be reflected in the indictments, the court will reject them, and there will be no trial. The prosecution has the burden in criminal proceedings - the defense is here to make sure you do your job properly, and to point it out if you don't. Simple as that.
 
I'm well aware of what defense's job is.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that in a text based game such as off site forums are, in order for a 'trial' to have some semblance of fairness both sides need to be afforded the ability to respond to the others' motions.

I agreed with you regarding defense's ability to respond to the prosecution's motions. I'd also state that from my legal knowledge, as lay as it may be, motions of the kind we submit during TNP pre-trial are motions that in RL both parties are able to respond.

If defense enters a motion to dismiss 5 minutes prior to the end of pre-trial - the prosecution will have no time to respond. Period.

That is unfair and not realistic in cyber or the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top