[Private] March term admin

Attempted Socialism

Attempted Socialism

Registered
Pronouns
He/Him
We have a few items that must be taken care of, and a few items I think we should take up.

First, the selection of Chief Justice. @Vivanco was CJ last term and I would suggest we continue with that if Vivanco wants to remain in the position.
The Justice Bar Commissioner is currently me, with the term ending in August.

On items we should take up, different court reforms have been brought up by Vivanco, @Picairn, Nutmeg, and myself over the special election and this one. That's not to suggest we all automatically agree on the issues or solutions, but I think we agree that this is a topic of importance. The actual discussion is better left to a dedicated thread but that's only useful if we agree that it is worth looking into.
The THO list does not seem to have been updated since I made it. Does it need updating?
What's the status of the Court Clerk program? As far as I understand it has been inactive for a while now. Are there any clerks still associated with it?
 
Re: Chief Justice, I am fine with Vivanco continuing, or you stepping up if she doesn't.

As an advocate for Court reform, I would welcome any suggestion or discussion to reform the Court, of course.

The THO list should probably be updated, in case we ever encounter a case where one or some of us are unavailable or have to recuse ourselves.

As far as I know, the current Court clerks (barring Justices) are:
- AraFuttio (but he's probably no longer involved since his TNP nation CTE'd)
- Kasch
- Nutmeg
- Jinkies

The group chat has been dead since last term. I can add you to it if you want, once you accept my friend request.
 
Sounds like we are in agreement on you continuing as CJ, Vivanco.

Re. THO it's important to note that we don't need to follow the list. It's just to make it easier for us and better/more transparent for the Court as an institution.
 
I will get the announcement going. And AS's point is to be kept in mind.

I'd like to put forward a quesiton for us to think; Would it be too mind-breaking to perhaps suggest merging the figures of the Court Clerk and the THO? Since the latter are supposed to keep a Justice's seat, having it be "in check" and in preparation, would be a good move, I believe.
 
I'm not sure that'd be a good thing since THOs are selected to replace an absent/recused Justice based on their relevant experience, while Court clerks are inexperienced people in legal training. THOs may not be willing to enter our fictional law school program to learn what they already have studied via experience, if the current list of THOs is any indication.
 
I would like to raise additional ideas for Court reform that were included in my election platform. Reforms to criminal trial procedures are @Attempted Socialism's area so I'll defer to him on that. My proposals are more centred around our clerk program and a potential law guide.

Regarding our clerk program, it has been dormant since October last year and the main cause of that is because no one attended to the clerks or gave them tasks to work on. That is regrettable, and I believe we can revitalise activity by restarting the writing of hypothetical briefs for hypothetical cases, or keep the clerks engaged with legal questions of the week, basically weekly thought exercises that would ask them what they think or what they would do in a certain criminal case or R4R as a sitting Justice.

Another is my proposed law guide for all citizens and residents. The basic structure of this guide should explain the rights of citizens & residents and our government system in simple terms. This is a task that I think the entire Court, including our clerks, can work on to educate people about our Constibilicode. We can start with the Bill of Rights, which only contains 11 articles and each covers fundamental rights that every resident and citizen in our region should know.

Your thoughts or comments on this would be appreciated.
 
Just copy-pasting my concrete suggestions to changes for criminal trial procedure. I know I have my notes on the reasoning behind each change somewhere, but I can't find them right now.
Changes to the Court Rules and Procedures:



Voluntary recusal:​

Chapter 7:

Renamed to ’Recusal of Justices’

Add point 2:

”A Justice can voluntarily recuse themself in general or in a particular case due to personal constraints by public notice. A Temporary Hearing Officer will be appointed in their place. A self-recused Justice may return whenever their constraints have eased.”



Prosecutor Discretion:​

Chapter 1, section 1:

Add point 9-11:

“The Prosecutor appointed to a case may, at their own discretion, choose to remove or substitute lesser charges in the filed indictment, if the evidence cannot support all the initial charges, or fits a different charge better. The Prosecutor may only add additional charges with the acceptance of the Moderating Justice.
The Prosecutor appointed to a case may, if the evidence cannot support any charge, ask for the charges to be dropped and remove themself from the case. This is equivalent to being unable to see the prosecution to completion. The original appointer may then either appoint a second Prosecutor or drop the charges. If the second Prosecutor also asks for the charges to be dropped and removes themself from the case, the charges are dropped.

If a case is dropped by the Prosecutor citing lack of evidence, the Court shall treat the indictment as rejected.”



Plea of No Contest:​

Chapter 1, section 2, point 3:

“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.”

Is changed to:

“Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. The Defendant may always plea Guilty or Not Guilty. If charged with a crime that does not require a criminal intent, the Defendant may plea No Contest as part of a plea agreement with the Prosecutor. A Defendant may only plea No Contest in response to a written document that elaborates the Prosecution’s factual claims and how those are linked to the specific crimes charged. 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.”

Is changed to:

”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. If the Defendant has plead No Contest, the document of facts shall be submitted as evidence for the Prosecution.”



“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.”

Is changed to:

”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. If the Defendant has plead No Contest, the Court shall give due deference to the sentencing recommendation agreed to in the plea agreement, but is not bound to it.”



New point 8:
“Proposed pleas of No Contest in response to a plea agreement must be reviewed and accepted by the Moderating Justice prior to the Defendant pleading No Contest. The Moderating Justice shall review the written statement of facts and how those are linked to specific crimes, and ascertain that it is in the interest of both the public and the Defendant. The Moderating Justice must likewise ensure that the Defendant is fully informed and able to consent to the plea without duress.”
Click to expand...
 
Re. law guides I am in favour, with one caveat. The guide has to make it clear that the guide itself does not carry the force of law. Someone who reads the guide should be informed on their rights and obligations, certainly, but that document is not the source of their rights and obligations. If a mistake creeps into the law guide that mistake can't be cited as a contradiction of the Bill of Rights, for instance, and in court cases the guide should be an instrument to ease entry, not replace a careful read of the Legal Code.
Furthermore, several cases have interpreted the Bill of Rights in specific instances or general edge cases. That case law is some of the most difficult aspect of our legal system, and any guide should take those cases into account.

Involving the law clerks in drafting a law guide is a good idea. They could function as a readability check and as a source of frequently asked questions in addition to writing parts themselves if they feel up for it. Who are better at knowing what part of our legal system needs explained than people who are interested but inexperienced? As (relative) newcomers to the TNP law field they are pretty much ideal.
 
I have checked personally with all clerks (except Ara because his TNP nation CTE'd) and all of them are willing to continue with the program. All that's left is a plan to keep them engaged.
 
Picairn:
Regarding our clerk program, it has been dormant since October last year and the main cause of that is because no one attended to the clerks or gave them tasks to work on. That is regrettable, and I believe we can revitalise activity by restarting the writing of hypothetical briefs for hypothetical cases, or keep the clerks engaged with legal questions of the week, basically weekly thought exercises that would ask them what they think or what they would do in a certain criminal case or R4R as a sitting Justice.
Click to expand...
Could we, perhaps, get the members of the bar engaged in this alognside the Bar Comissioners? They could always suggest legal questions of the week or hypothetical cases.
 
I don't see why not, more legal professionals to suggest ideas and raise debates will be good for the clerks' legal education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top