Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Flemingovia on the conduct of the trial of Flemingovia v. Grosseschnauzer
Opinion drafted by Crushing Our Enemies, joined by Romanoffia & SillyString
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Flemingovia, as well has his subsequent clarification here.
The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Flemingovia.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of the North Pacific:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
…
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
…
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
…
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Adopted Court Rules December 2012 (in effect during the trial of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer):
Article 1: Trial Procedures
In accordance with the Legal Code of the North Pacific the Court establishes the following rules for Trial Proceedings:
- All charges that are brought in front of the Court of the North Pacific shall be filed in the form of an Indictment.
- After an Indictment is filed any Justice of the Court may approve the Indictment and within 24 hours a Trial thread will be opened by the Chief Justice or the Justice appointed as Trial Moderator. Indictments seeking an ejection or banning, or expulsion from the RA due to oath violation, the procedures as set by the Legal Code will be followed exactly as stated. After the acceptance of an Indictment and before the trial thread is opened the Defendant will be notified by a Court Justice of the pending proceedings.
- An Indictment may be declined by the Court if said indictment lacks substantial evidence to merit a trial.
- The Defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea. If no plea is entered a default plea of Not Guilty will be entered.
- Once a plea is entered the period for pretrial motions will begin and last for 72 hours. After the conclusion of the pretrial motion phase a period lasting for 4 days will begin for evidence discovery and witness testimony. An extension of up to 72 hours may be granted upon the request of either the Attorney General or the Defense.
- Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin. This period will normally be 5 days unless otherwise stated by the Trial Moderator.
- During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
- Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.
- This timetable may be altered by the Moderating Justice as required.
The Court took into consideration the trial of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer: HERE.
The Court opines the following:
On January 15th, 2013, the civil trial of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer began. Within 48 hours of the trial opening, it was postponed because the defendant was unable to appear in court. On February 26th, the court ruled in favor of Flemingovia, citing Grosseschauzer's failure to respond to the charges as the only reason for ruling as they did. No further action was taken by the court.
The court rules in effect for the duration of the incident did not distinguish between procedures for civil trials and criminal trials, as the adopted court rules do at present. There is nothing in the rules at the time that specified that they were inapplicable to civil trials. Thus, it is the judgment of this court that those procedures
did apply to civil trials and that they ought to have been followed in the matter of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer.
Decision
The discretion of the moderating justice only extends to modifying the length of the various stages. It does not allow them to skip stages or proceed through them out of order.
The court turns now to the question of whether Grosseschnauzer's right to due process was violated. The court finds that in order to satisfy the right to due process, all adopted court rules must be followed, and those rules must be legal, constitutional, and free of Bill of Rights violations. Thus, the court violated Grosseschnauzer's right to due process by failing to follow its adopted rules. Even if those rules were interpreted as inapplicable to civil trials, that interpretation denied Grosseschnauzer his right to be heard and defend himself. The trial was declared postponed within 48 hours of opening, and did not go into session again until the ruling was delivered. Thus, Grosseschnauzer was not even given a full opportunity to enter a plea.
Decision
The court must follow its adopted rules with regard to trial proceedings to avoid violating the defendant's right to due process. Additionally, those rules must be legal, constitutional, and free of Bill of Rights violations.
With regard to the double jeopardy question, the court does not agree with the premise that Grosseschnauzer was ever in jeopardy to begin with. Jeopardy can only apply to matters where there has been a trial and a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. Given the opinion of the court that in the absence of a trial there was never any legal verdict, jeopardy has not attached. Accordingly, the plaintiff is free to refile charges.
Decision
Jeopardy only attaches to a case when an official and binding verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty has been delivered. Verdicts of the court are only official and binding when the trial has been conducted in a legal and constitutional way, without violating any of the defendant's rights.
The court realizes the difficulty of moderating a trial in which the defendant does not participate, but it is not appropriate to issue a default ruling in favor of the plaintiff when that occurs. In cases where the defendant is unable to participate in trial proceedings, or even select their defense attorney, it would be appropriate for the court to delay the trial until the defendant is able to appear. However, if it can be demonstrated to the court that the defendant is able to participate, but chooses not to do so, it would be appropriate for the court to appoint a defense attorney and continue the trial in their absence. There may be other legal and constitutional ways to handle an absentee defendant.
The court apologizes to Grosseschnauzer for violating his rights in the matter of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer, and to Flemingovia for mishandling his charges.
