[Private] H&H indictment

Now, you see, if we had a civil code we could have just charged H&H with disorderly conduct. :P

In all reality, the evidence presented by the prosecution is somewhat thin in technical terms. My gut instinct and belief is that H&H fully intended to usurp the Delegacy, and endo-tarted to that effect, but that is just my gut instinct and belief which doesn't constitute 'beyond a reasonable doubt' based upon the evidence presented.

However, I do think that we haven't heard the last of H&H in some incarnation or other.

That leads me towards considering the possibility of a dismissal without prejudice for any number of reasons.
 
I'm tending to lean towards that (dismissal). We really should have a decision by tomorrow. Can we agree on dismissing the charges over the identity issue?
 
I would go for dismissal, but more along the lines of insufficient evidence to prove the charges as per the indictment.
 
Romanoffia:
I would go for dismissal, but more along the lines of insufficient evidence to prove the charges as per the indictment.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. SillyString? And Roman, do you want to write the verdict as Chief Justice?
 
Not really. :P :lol:

Heh - it would be the simplest decision in TNP history. Mainly because it dismisses the case without prejudice based upon insufficient evidence. Why don't you write it up and we can take a look at it.
 
I'm happy to keep it short. How does this look?

Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows:

The charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct against Haafingar and Hjaalmarch are dismissed without prejudice.

Reasoning:

Due to insufficient evidence against Haafingar and Hjaalmarch to prove the charges as per the indictment, the Court cannot render a Guilty verdict in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Erm, I don't think that's the right call.

For one thing, the trial has been conducted and finished. Dismissal should have happened at an earlier stage if it was warranted.

For another thing, saying there isn't the evidence to prove guilt is finding not guilty. To allow charges to be brought again in the future would be a direct violation of H&H's protection against double jeopardy.

I think we are obligated to find him Not Guilty, despite the reluctance to do so because of our OOC certainty that he is. I'm happy for the ruling to be based on either insufficient evidence of identity or insufficient evidence for the charges themselves, but I think the former is a lot more solid of a reasoning - if we had an IP match, for example, that proved that this person was H&H, I would have no hesitation finding them guilty of conspiracy/etc. It's only the proof of identity that's lacking, so I think we should go with that as our reasoning.

But no, no, no, we can't dismiss now.
 
SillyString:
Erm, I don't think that's the right call.

For one thing, the trial has been conducted and finished. Dismissal should have happened at an earlier stage if it was warranted.

For another thing, saying there isn't the evidence to prove guilt is finding not guilty. To allow charges to be brought again in the future would be a direct violation of H&H's protection against double jeopardy.

I think we are obligated to find him Not Guilty, despite the reluctance to do so because of our OOC certainty that he is. I'm happy for the ruling to be based on either insufficient evidence of identity or insufficient evidence for the charges themselves, but I think the former is a lot more solid of a reasoning - if we had an IP match, for example, that proved that this person was H&H, I would have no hesitation finding them guilty of conspiracy/etc. It's only the proof of identity that's lacking, so I think we should go with that as our reasoning.

But no, no, no, we can't dismiss now.
Click to expand...
I was a little concerned about a dismissal being a double jeopardy issue as well. And I'm fine with a not guilty verdict. Roman?


EDIT: I've prepared a not guilty verdict as well, if we decide to go that route:

Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows:

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch is found Not Guilty on the charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

Due to insufficient reasonably certain evidence against Haafingar and Hjaalmarch to prove the charges as per the indictment, the Court cannot render a Guilty verdict in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, that would be better so as not to have this come up again or have a double jeopardy issue come up.
 
Okie doke.

Might we want to add a bit more in there? Specify that we are not convinced that the defendant is the party responsible for the offense?
 
SillyString:
Okie doke.

Might we want to add a bit more in there? Specify that we are not convinced that the defendant is the party responsible for the offense?
Click to expand...
Could you add the language to the last draft of the verdict, and we can consider it? I'd like to get the opinion out soon though, counsel are getting impatient.
 
How's this look?

Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows:

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch is found Not Guilty on the charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

Due to insufficient reasonably certain evidence establishing Haafingar and Hjaalmarch as the party responsible for committing the alleged crimes, the Court cannot render a Guilty verdict in this case.
Click to expand...
 
SillyString:
How's this look?

Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows:

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch is found Not Guilty on the charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

Due to insufficient reasonably certain evidence establishing Haafingar and Hjaalmarch as the party responsible for committing the alleged crimes, the Court cannot render a Guilty verdict in this case.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm fine with this. Roman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top