[Chambers] On the Improper Acceptance of Evidence in Criminal Trials

The next question before us is whether or not to accept the request for review. I have no time to give this further consideration today, but will comment tomorrow morning.
 
Eluvatar:
The next question before us is whether or not to accept the request for review. I have no time to give this further consideration today, but will comment tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to see what you have to say on this before submitting my own comments
 
Skimming the Judicial Review Archive it appears that past requests for review have been denied for one of two reasons:
A) The petitioner lacked standing.
B) The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the question.

This request meets neither criteria.

The question remains, is this a matter worth considering in a full request for review? Absent any standards for deciding when a case is "obvious" or not worth considering, I think we should consider it. I can forsee that the court could adopt precedent or procedure establishing a standard, but seeing none I think that as we would wish to give such a question due consideration, we may as well accept the request for review. That would allow us to invite the submission of briefs.

I don't think it makes sense for us to ask for briefs on whether we should be looking at this request at all. I think that is a question better addressed by court procedures. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't even be looking at it should however be welcome to opine on that in briefs.

I suggest we accept the request for review and ask for briefs on the substance and on whether such questions should be reviewable in this manner.
 
Eluvatar:
Skimming the Judicial Review Archive it appears that past requests for review have been denied for one of two reasons:
A) The petitioner lacked standing.
B) The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the question.

This request meets neither criteria.

The question remains, is this a matter worth considering in a full request for review? Absent any standards for deciding when a case is "obvious" or not worth considering, I think we should consider it. I can forsee that the court could adopt precedent or procedure establishing a standard, but seeing none I think that as we would wish to give such a question due consideration, we may as well accept the request for review. That would allow us to invite the submission of briefs.

I don't think it makes sense for us to ask for briefs on whether we should be looking at this request at all. I think that is a question better addressed by court procedures. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't even be looking at it should however be welcome to opine on that in briefs.

I suggest we accept the request for review and ask for briefs on the substance and on whether such questions should be reviewable in this manner.
Click to expand...
I'm largely in accord with this. That said, I think such a standard must be created as a matter of urgency and that the line needs to either be drawn in the opinion (by granting the request for review and then establishing such a standard in the opinion) or in a procedures amendment pretty soon afterwards.
 
I believe a procedures amendment would likely to be clearer than to rely on a precedent, but since we don't have a precedent at present, and we have to make a decision now, I support Elu and Wym's position.
 
All right, we are now deliberating. I invite everyone to read all the briefs.

First, I want to express my irritation with Dreadton's refusal to give the additional arguments he initially promised in his initial brief. I'm also slightly irked by the notion that we have no authority to "add a question" - this is a question that we found important in considering the question presented.

That being said, his original request for review presents the basic argument: the Moderating Justice stated the court was in Arguments, then backtracked to take care of the duties that justice had as part of the Evidence Submission phase. He's also correct, to our embarrassment, that the Deliberation phase in the rules makes reference to objections and motions from Arguments, also. Though it's not exactly clear that that means motions can be submitted during arguments. Further, he claims that introducing any limitation on requests for review during a trial would violate the right to redress of grievances in the bill of rights.

I found Vivanco's brief very interesting (although difficult to read in some parts). The argument that the Court should either go back to Evidence Submission or refuse to, but not both, is logical. Further, the suggested remedy of returning to Evidence Submission and then evaluating the motions on that basis is difficult to dismiss.

In Attempted Socialism's brief, he presents his side of the story, including how he perceived the Defense to be playing silly buggers by asking him to state that they were in Arguments... so as to make the motion they made about how the Court had failed to follow the proper procedures before entering the Arguments phase. I sympathize: I think dishonesty of any kind by attorneys, whether prosecuting or defending, is destructive of our justice system and should not be encouraged. Attempted Socialism is also absolutely correct that they did not harm the fair-trial rights of the defendant substantively. He also speaks to reviewability, and suggests that some questions should be decided after a trial instead of derailing the trial.

I am saddened that TlomzKrano promised a brief but did not submit one. I'm sure it would have provided some good insights.

Having considered all the briefs, my current opinion is that we should take up Vivanco's suggestion of ordering the Court to return to Evidence Submission and complete that phase properly, examining the motions it received as received during Evidence Submission and allowing both sides a reasonable amount of time to make any motions they need to make, or to waive that opportunity. We should say in our ruling that having no standard for declining a request for review regarding a trial that has standing and we have jurisdiction we accepted the review, and we find that future such requests (regarding a trial, with standing and jurisdiction) should also be accepted unless the requestor is under sanctions for contempt of court or the court adopts procedures or a law is established that sets a standard for delayed review (appeal after trial).

We probably don't need to opine on when contempt sanctions are appropriate.

@Wymondham @Simone thoughts?
 
Eluvatar:
All right, we are now deliberating. I invite everyone to read all the briefs.

First, I want to express my irritation with Dreadton's refusal to give the additional arguments he initially promised in his initial brief. I'm also slightly irked by the notion that we have no authority to "add a question" - this is a question that we found important in considering the question presented.

That being said, his original request for review presents the basic argument: the Moderating Justice stated the court was in Arguments, then backtracked to take care of the duties that justice had as part of the Evidence Submission phase. He's also correct, to our embarrassment, that the Deliberation phase in the rules makes reference to objections and motions from Arguments, also. Though it's not exactly clear that that means motions can be submitted during arguments. Further, he claims that introducing any limitation on requests for review during a trial would violate the right to redress of grievances in the bill of rights.

I found Vivanco's brief very interesting (although difficult to read in some parts). The argument that the Court should either go back to Evidence Submission or refuse to, but not both, is logical. Further, the suggested remedy of returning to Evidence Submission and then evaluating the motions on that basis is difficult to dismiss.

In Attempted Socialism's brief, he presents his side of the story, including how he perceived the Defense to be playing silly buggers by asking him to state that they were in Arguments... so as to make the motion they made about how the Court had failed to follow the proper procedures before entering the Arguments phase. I sympathize: I think dishonesty of any kind by attorneys, whether prosecuting or defending, is destructive of our justice system and should not be encouraged. Attempted Socialism is also absolutely correct that they did not harm the fair-trial rights of the defendant substantively. He also speaks to reviewability, and suggests that some questions should be decided after a trial instead of derailing the trial.

I am saddened that TlomzKrano promised a brief but did not submit one. I'm sure it would have provided some good insights.

Having considered all the briefs, my current opinion is that we should take up Vivanco's suggestion of ordering the Court to return to Evidence Submission and complete that phase properly, examining the motions it received as received during Evidence Submission and allowing both sides a reasonable amount of time to make any motions they need to make, or to waive that opportunity. We should say in our ruling that having no standard for declining a request for review regarding a trial that has standing and we have jurisdiction we accepted the review, and we find that future such requests (regarding a trial, with standing and jurisdiction) should also be accepted unless the requestor is under sanctions for contempt of court or the court adopts procedures or a law is established that sets a standard for delayed review (appeal after trial).

We probably don't need to opine on when contempt sanctions are appropriate.

@Wymondham @Simone thoughts?
Click to expand...
I am largely in accord with you here Elu, Vivanco presents the neatest solution to this problem and makes a fair case that the court cannot be in Schrodinger's evidence submission. . While I agree that this isn't the time to address contempt sanctions (though I very much think that such a conversation may need to be had there), I do think that we should make it clear in our opinion that the manner in which Dreadton conducted himself was unacceptable.
 
I am unconvinced by Dreadton's arguments. Procedural matters are important but in the absence of say a flow chart or a check list for established procedures, Dreadton's submission introduces unnecessary complexity. I tend to dislike pointless procedural arguments as I generally that a stalling tactic and derive no benefits other than increases in billable hours, or, in our case, just plain wasted time.

We have enough programmers here to surely draw a flow chart of court procedures about at what time, what decisions are made and I think it would be beneficial to put that on the record somewhere that this is something the court should work on. This would avoid the technicality as AS pointed out that "(w)here the Defence has a point, again in the most technical sense, is that I made a mistake by not clearly accepting the evidence submitted, and that I did not post the transcript."

I agree with Wymondham that Vivanco's commentary (for lack of a better word) is somewhat rambling and confusing at times but I do broadly agree with the direction of it, or at least what I can discern of it. For me, the important is that we have a standard set of operating procedures (SOP). Running large organizations of thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees mean every step, every move is choreographed. An airplane has four million parts, and if one part goes wrong, the plane can fall off the air. SOP is important in management and governance.
 
All right. I think we have a consensus on a path forward. I'll update the R4R topic and try to draft up a ruling based on our thoughts shortly.
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific​
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Dreadton on the proper timing of the phases of a trial
Opinion drafted by Justice @Eluvatar, joined by Justice @Wymondham and Hearing Officer TBD.​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the ruling by @Attempted Socialism so appealed.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Attempted Socialism.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
...
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
...
11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure
17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
  • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
  • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
  • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
  • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
  • Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

In this case there is a balance to be struck between three needs: the need for a trial that is fair in that it does not take too long, for the opportunity to be heard at all stages of a trial, and for a trial that is fair in that both sides are treated fairly by the court.

Were the Court to exclude the evidence in the case at hand due to a procedural error by the judge, and therefore dismiss the case with prejudice, or even rule a mistrial, it would be unfair to the prosecution.

When the Court returned the case to evidence submission for the purpose of completing the judge's evidentiary duties, but then immediately proceeded to arguments, that denied both sides the opportunity to be heard.

Through this appeal to a request for review, the trial was greatly delayed, in part due to force majeure, in part inevitably due to the process of a request for review.

The Court notes that the court rules explicitly allow for the Moderating Justice to adjust the timetable to ensure a fair trial. However, the language regarding the timing of motions is ambiguous: motions are only explicitly allowed in the evidence submission stage, but both Arguments and Deliberations state a requirement to settle outstanding motions. This could mean that motions are allowed in Arguments, also, or it could mean that some motions don't count as "outstanding" as they don't need to be settled before the Arguments stage begins. It would benefit the Court to clarify.

In the interests of speedier trials, it might also benefit the Court to better regulate requests for review during a trial.

The Court finds that the case must be returned to evidence submission and both sides be permitted a brief window to make any necessary motions regarding the evidence, following its acceptance and transcription by the Court.

I want to edit this to add some comment about honesty and proper conduct by counsel. Undecided about how to fit it in.
 
Eluvatar:
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Dreadton on the proper timing of the phases of a trial
Opinion drafted by Justice @Eluvatar, joined by Justice @Wymondham and Hearing Officer TBD.​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed by @Dreadton.https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197638/post-10614259here[/url
The Court took into consideration the [url=https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197453/post-10614109]ruling by @Attempted Socialism so appealed.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Attempted Socialism.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:

The Court opines the following:

In this case there is a balance to be struck between three needs: the need for a trial that is fair in that it does not take too long, for the opportunity to be heard at all stages of a trial, and for a trial that is fair in that both sides are treated fairly by the court.

Were the Court to exclude the evidence in the case at hand due to a procedural error by the judge, and therefore dismiss the case with prejudice, or even rule a mistrial, it would be unfair to the prosecution.

When the Court returned the case to evidence submission for the purpose of completing the judge's evidentiary duties, but then immediately proceeded to arguments, that denied both sides the opportunity to be heard.

Through this appeal to a request for review, the trial was greatly delayed, in part due to force majeure, in part inevitably due to the process of a request for review.

The Court notes that the court rules explicitly allow for the Moderating Justice to adjust the timetable to ensure a fair trial. However, the language regarding the timing of motions is ambiguous: motions are only explicitly allowed in the evidence submission stage, but both Arguments and Deliberations state a requirement to settle outstanding motions. This could mean that motions are allowed in Arguments, also, or it could mean that some motions don't count as "outstanding" as they don't need to be settled before the Arguments stage begins. It would benefit the Court to clarify.

In the interests of speedier trials, it might also benefit the Court to better regulate requests for review during a trial.

The Court finds that the case must be returned to evidence submission and both sides be permitted a brief window to make any necessary motions regarding the evidence, following its acceptance and transcription by the Court.

I want to edit this to add some comment about honesty and proper conduct by counsel. Undecided about how to fit it in.
Click to expand...
I would append it on the end, I'm happy to suggest some wording if you don't have any, but are we aiming that specifically at dreadton or making more generalised comments? The rest looks good to me.
 
Last edited:
Eluvatar:
@Wymondham writing now. Sorry for the delay.

Could I ask you to pursue the question of a replacement SHO while I write?
Click to expand...
Sure, I'm going to reach out to Lore as a first approach, is the accepted practice to go about it via discord DM or forum PM?
 
Last edited:
Wymondham:
Sure, I'm going to reach out to Lore as a first approach, is the accepted practice to go about it via discord DM or forum PM?
Click to expand...
I have a very slight preference for forum PM, but I'm not really sure why. I don't think there's any actual issue with contacting over Discord.
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific​
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Dreadton on the proper timing of the phases of a trial
Opinion drafted by Justice @Eluvatar, joined by Justice @Wymondham and Hearing Officer TBD.​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the ruling by @Attempted Socialism so appealed.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Attempted Socialism.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
...
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
...
11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure
17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:
Chapter 1: Criminal Trials
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
  • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
  • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
  • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
  • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
  • Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
...
Chapter 4: Decorum
Section 2: General Conduct
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

In this case there is a balance to be struck between three needs: the need for a trial that is fair in that it does not take too long, for the opportunity to be heard at all stages of a trial, and for a trial that is fair in that both sides are treated fairly by the court.

Were the Court to exclude the evidence in the case at hand due to a procedural error by the judge, and therefore dismiss the case with prejudice, or even rule a mistrial, it would be unfair to the prosecution.

When the Court returned the case to evidence submission for the purpose of completing the judge's evidentiary duties, but then immediately proceeded to arguments, that denied both sides the opportunity to be heard.

Through this appeal to a request for review, the trial was greatly delayed, in part due to force majeure, in part inevitably due to the process of a request for review.

Furthermore, the Moderating Justice presents a claim that the defense counsel was dishonest with their request that the Court state that the trial had entered the Arguments stage. For this claim the most relevant evidence would be the discord log of the defense counsel saying:
Dreadton:
i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court
Click to expand...

However, when the Moderating Justice did state the trial was in the Arguments stage, the defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial (within an hour). If this log is accurate, it suggests that the defense counsel dissimulated in the motivation they offered for the clarification. After all, "hehe you screwed up here see you in court" pretty well characterizes their motion following the restatement.

The court rules mandate that:
Court Rules and Procedures:
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
Click to expand...
The enforcement being a finding of contempt, appealable to the Regional Assembly.

Finding against a party is not a specified penalty for dishonesty. If the Court wishes to grant a Moderating Justice the power to reject motions as inappropriate due to dishonesty, it should alter the rules accordingly. As written, a Moderating Justice would have to split a post out of the trial topic as inappropriate, and not rule on it at all, not rule against it.

The Court notes that the court rules explicitly allow for the Moderating Justice to adjust the timetable to ensure a fair trial. However, the language regarding the timing of motions is ambiguous: motions are only explicitly allowed in the evidence submission stage, but both Arguments and Deliberations state a requirement to settle outstanding motions. This could mean that motions are allowed in Arguments, also, or it could mean that some motions don't count as "outstanding" as they don't need to be settled before the Arguments stage begins. It would benefit the Court to clarify.

In the interests of speedier trials, it might also benefit the Court to better regulate requests for review during a trial.

The Court finds that the case must be returned to evidence submission and both sides be permitted a brief window to make any necessary motions regarding the evidence, following its acceptance and transcription by the Court.
 
The opinion looks good to me. I'd prefer a slightly more forceful condemnation of Dreadton's conduct if you're willing to give one, but that's window dressing.

Lore has accepted and I will be announcing them shortly
 
Eluvatar:
I have another task this morning: do you have time to suggest an additional or altered sentence @Wymondham?
Click to expand...
I would just add something along the lines of:
While it is not our place to find Dreadton in Contempt, the Court condemns, in the strongest possible terms, their actions in this case. Such dishonesty by a legal counsel, especially a Commissioner of the Bar, is deleterious to confidence in our legal system, and the Court hopes that such conduct will not be repeated
Click to expand...
Thoughts?
 
court_seal.png


Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Dreadton on the proper timing of the phases of a trial
Opinion drafted by Justice @Eluvatar, joined by Justice @Wymondham and Hearing Officer @Just a Lore.​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the ruling by @Attempted Socialism so appealed.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Attempted Socialism.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
...
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
...
11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure
17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:
Chapter 1: Criminal Trials
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
  • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
  • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
  • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
  • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
  • Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
...
Chapter 4: Decorum
Section 2: General Conduct
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

In this case there is a balance to be struck between three needs: the need for a trial that is fair in that it does not take too long, for the opportunity to be heard at all stages of a trial, and for a trial that is fair in that both sides are treated fairly by the court.

Were the Court to exclude the evidence in the case at hand due to a procedural error by the judge, and therefore dismiss the case with prejudice, or even rule a mistrial, it would be unfair to the prosecution.

When the Court returned the case to evidence submission for the purpose of completing the judge's evidentiary duties, but then immediately proceeded to arguments, that denied both sides the opportunity to be heard.

Through this appeal to a request for review, the trial was greatly delayed, in part due to force majeure, in part inevitably due to the process of a request for review.

Furthermore, the Moderating Justice presents a claim that the defense counsel was dishonest with their request that the Court state that the trial had entered the Arguments stage. For this claim the most relevant evidence would be the discord log of the defense counsel saying:
Dreadton:
i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court
Click to expand...

However, when the Moderating Justice did state the trial was in the Arguments stage, the defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial (within an hour). If this log is accurate, it suggests that the defense counsel dissimulated in the motivation they offered for the clarification. After all, "hehe you screwed up here see you in court" pretty well characterizes their motion following the restatement.

The court rules mandate that:
Court Rules and Procedures:
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
Click to expand...
As dishonesty by a legal counsel deleterious to confidence in our legal system and the ability for a Moderating Justice to hold a fair trial, it can easily be argued that it is not appropriate. The enforcement mechanism would be a finding of contempt, appealable to the Regional Assembly.

Finding against a party is not a specified penalty for dishonesty. If the Court wishes to grant a Moderating Justice the power to reject motions as inappropriate due to dishonesty, it should alter the rules accordingly. As written, a Moderating Justice would have to split a post out of the trial topic as inappropriate, and not rule on it at all, not rule against it.

The Court notes that the court rules explicitly allow for the Moderating Justice to adjust the timetable to ensure a fair trial. However, the language regarding the timing of motions is ambiguous: motions are only explicitly allowed in the evidence submission stage, but both Arguments and Deliberations state a requirement to settle outstanding motions. This could mean that motions are allowed in Arguments, also, or it could mean that some motions don't count as "outstanding" as they don't need to be settled before the Arguments stage begins. It would benefit the Court to clarify.

In the interests of speedier trials, it might also benefit the Court to better regulate requests for review during a trial.

The Court finds that the case must be returned to evidence submission and both sides be permitted a brief window to make any necessary motions regarding the evidence, following its acceptance and transcription by the Court.
 
Eluvatar:
As dishonesty by a legal counsel deleterious to confidence in our legal system and the ability for a Moderating Justice to hold a fair trial, it can easily be argued that it is not appropriate.
Click to expand...
This is the addition. How's this @Wymondham?

Edit: Lore isn't a fan of the added length, but is willing to ok it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top