Interim Court Rules for Dummies!

[mr_sniffles]

Intro

When we already have such an astonishingly long Constitution and even more complicated Legal Code, why on earth is there another document filled with mind-numbing legalese? Well when you have a region as diverse as ours, a region with so many differing opinions, and rancorously divided citizens as ours; we need a system of uniformity. This way every opinion no matter how loud or despised can be dealt in a fair and equitable manner.

These Interim Court rules are a guideline on how the Court will act when a complaint or petition is brought in as vested by the Constitution:

Art. 5.1d
D - The Court has power to adopt rules and regulations for the procedure of trials, hearings, and its internal operations, including rules of evidence and the random selection of trial and grand juries, not inconsistent with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code.

Now what's the difference between a rule and a law? Well breaking the law will result in punishment, breaking a rule will not. The following is an outline of how the Court would act, not should but kinda could. But as always, no legal rule or act may conflict with the Constitution, so far I've spotted three discrepancies. First to find all three wins a prize of unspeakable horror !! With that out of the way, lets rock and roll!

Case Assignment Procedures
Rule 101. Case Assignment Procedures.
A - The judicial authority of the Regional Government is vested in The Court of The North Pacific, which is composed of the Chief Justice and at least two Associate Justices, with such an additional number as may be ascertained by law. Constitution, Article V, Section 1.
B - Trials and Hearings in civil, criminal and impeachment cases shall be before a single judicial officer. Constitution, Article V, Section 1.
C - Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings shall be to the Court en banc before the Chief Justice and all of the Associate Justices. Constitution, Article V, Section 1.
D - The fallowing mechanism will be applied at the beginning of the term of office of the Court (February and August) to be used throughout that term of office or until there is a change in the identity of the Justices of the Court by resignation, expiration of the term of office, appointment of a replacement or additional Justice, or some other cause.

a) Interpretation of the law (judicial authority) can only be decided by the Court made up of the three judges we've all come to know, love, and loathe.
b) As stated in Art 5.1, all stated types of cases will be heard by only one judge.
c) Decisions on appeals can only be heard on the bench before the judges.
d) Fallowing Mechanism: Where the Minister of Justice and judges involved in the case continue their roles in the trial despite their terms having been completed. (art 5.6)
As this rule states, a judge can not leave the case even if they chose not to run for re-election but may leave if they must as soon as a replacement is found. Washroom breaks however, do not count.

1E - Each case, whether involving one or more parties as plaintiff, or one or more parties as defendant, shall be assigned to one of the Justices of the Court in strict rotation on the rotating assignment list.

The rotation list in the Court page? Nope not a swingers list, but the order in which a judge is chosen for upcoming cases.

F - In the event of a situation which bars any of the Justices from hearing a civil proceeding, the Chief Justice will designate a referee to hear the case.
G - The Chief Justice is authorized in the event of an emergency or expedited proceeding, to assign such case directly to himself or any available Associate Justice.
H - If for any reason, the Chief Justice is unavailable, and time is of the essence, then the Associate Justice with seniority in office shall make the assignment of an emergency or expedited case.

f) If the judges choose to not hear the case for whatever reason but feel the case should proceed, the Chief can choose someone to "referee" in their place. Now if only politicians did that...
g) In times of need or if the judge is passed out in Mexico thinking he was watching the Superbowl, the Chief has the power to designate a new judge to immediately hear the case.
h) If the Chief is passed out drunk too, then the next judge with seniority can appoint someone to hear the case, which given the process of elimination is the only judge not to be passed out in Mexico.

1I - For purposes of this Rule, the Associate Justices will be ranked in order of seniority in office as determined by the date and time stamp of the posting of their oath of office (as required by TNP Law 1); and in the event two Justices post their oaths simultaneously, then the Associate Justice who has the longer continuous tenure as a Registered Voter shall have seniority for purposes of this Rule.

Seniority for judges will be decided by when they became citizens, if both joined at the same time then the one who has been active the longest without or with the least breaks in between, claims the prize.

J - If another list needs to be generated within the same term of office, then the Chief Justice or the Associate Justice with seniority in office will generate a new assignment list.
K - The current case assignment list shall be posted by the Court in its forum.

j) when a new list needs to be made the Chief or the highest in seniority makes the list.
k) The order is listed here: http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=114

Rule 201. Jury Selection Procedures.
A - The following mechanism will be applied at the beginning of the term of office of the Court (February and August) to be used throughout that term of office until the list has been exhausted. If another list needs to be generated within the same term of office, then the Court will generate a new drawing list following the procedures in this Rule.

Every new term for Justices will also bring in a new juror list, if the list is exhausted the court will pump some Gatorade through its veins and make a new list.

B - The Chief Justice, or an Associate Justice, will obtain a current alphabetized list of registered voters from the Ministry of Immigration and Internal Affairs.

The Court and MoIIA will work together to make the list.

C - A list of numbers, equal to the number of registered voters then shown on that list, will be generated through use of a random sequence generator located at the Random.org website with the following URL: http://random.org./sform.html . As an example, if there are 50 registered voters, then a random list will be generated of numbers ranging from 1 to 50.

The list will be made through the website stated through a random number sequencer.

D - The numbers as shown in the generated list will be assigned to the list of voters in the same order in which the names and number appear on the generated number list and the alphabetical list. For example, if the ninth number on the list is 15, then the ninth name on the alphabetical list of voters will be placed in the fifteenth position.

The original numbers will be shown to prove that its random.

E- The Justice conducting the jury drawing will then cause a second random list of numbers to be generated by the random sequence generator located at the Random.org website with the following URL: http://random.org./sform.html . As an example, if there are 50 registered voters, then a random list will be generated of numbers ranging from 1 to 50. The second random drawing is used to place the names in a random order for jury selection purposes.

The list will then be randomized again.

F - The randomized list of registered voters will then be arranged in the order of their drawing numbers as it appears in the second random sequence generator list. This will be the order in which registered voters will be selected for a trial jury or grand jury for the that list. Thus a voter who was placed fifteenth in the first randomized list will be placed in the position of the number that is fifteenth on the second random list, such as 44. In this instance, such registered voter will have a position of 44th on the final jury drawing list.

Example: if the number given to you is 16, then you put your left in and you take your right foot out and after being shook all about... you're placed on the thirty second spot then you're number is still 16 but if thirty one all fall sick of food poisoning then congratulations! You're a juror!

G - Five jurors will be randomly selected for a trial by the presiding officer from a pool of registered voters. Registered voters who have an expressed bias or whom who have served on a jury in the past three months will be automatically excluded. If either counsel believes one of the selected jurors is unfit to serve for reasons of bias or a conflict of interest, the presiding officer will review the charge and if he/she finds it valid, the next available juror will be chosen from the random drawing list. If selected, a juror may decline to serve before the trial begins. Once the trial is started, the juror is required to complete their obligation. (Source: TNP Law 4.)

5 jurors will be picked by the judge in the order of the list, if either counsel (lawyer) decides that any one of them should not serve then it's up to the judge to either keep or excuse them. A juror also has the power to decline to serve however they can't back out in the middle of a trial.

H - A panel of five registered voters who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. (Source: TNP Constitution Article V, Section 7.)

The five jurors (who cannot hold a Cabinet-level position) will then review the evidence provided. If the Chief is the defendant then the PM will assume the Chief's duties. Once again being biased could ruin your chances of being on the jury.

I - If the registered voter is a witness in the case, a Justice of the Court, the Attorney General, the Deputy Minister of Justice, or the prosecuting nation, the defendant nation, or a representative at the trial of the prosecutor or of the defendant, that registered voter will not be selected for the trial jury or grand jury being selected.

Jurors can't be a judge, have a job at the Justice office, or be involved in the case as a complainant or witness, or currently be sleeping with any of judges and lawyers.

J - If the records of prior or current trials demonstrate that a registered voter has actually served or is currently serving on a jury during the three months preceding the date of the jury selection procedure for a particular trial, that registered voter will not be selected for the jury, unless all eligible jurors on the list have served on a jury within the preceding three months. In this event, a new random drawing list must be generated to replaced the exhausted random drawing list.

Jurors can't have served on more than one case every three months, however if there are no jurors left and we've become just a little too sue-happy then they will be allowed to serve again.

K - The selected trial jury or grand jury in a given proceeding will consist of the first five remaining and available registered voter names on the list.
L - An existing jury selection list will be exhausted by the Court before a new randomized list is drawn.
M - The current random selection jury list shall be posted by the Court in its forum.

k) Jurors must be selected from the first five of the randomized Juror list.
l) No new list can be made unless the old one is exhausted.
m) The list is seen here: http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=112

 

[mr_sniffles]

Rule 301. Rules of Evidence
A - These Rules govern matters of evidence in proceedings in the Court of The North Pacific.
B - These Rules will be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.

a) These rules should only be used in Court.
b) These were designed so that evidence at all cases will be dealt with in a uniform fashion, swiftly due to routine, and above all to help us get to the truth of the matter.

Rule 302. Preliminary Determinations Prior to Trial or Hearing.
A - Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence will be determined by the Court.

Whether or not evidence should be heard or is worth being called evidence will decided by the Court.

B - In making a determination, it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.
C - When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the Court will admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

b) Deciding whether aspects of the case can be determined evidence, the judgement itself cannot be evidence except when dealing with privileges.
c) The court will decide what conditions evidence would need to fulfill to be evidence and if the conditions have been met.

D - A defendant in a criminal proceeding does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, become subject to cross-examination as to other issues in the case. This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce evidence before the jury that is relevant to weight or credibility.

When questioning a defendant on evidence, the questions have to be about the one specific piece of evidence in question. In other words, if I'm the defendant and the evidence is a ten inch dildo; the questions have to be about the ten inch dildo not the dead hooker in the trunk or the bloody knife under my bed. This rule however doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to introduce further questions on whether the ten inch dildo had anything to do with the crime.

Rule 303. Pretrial discovery of evidence and compilation of testimony.
A - Once a plea is entered in a criminal or impeachment proceeding, or a response to a complaint is filed in a civil proceeding, a period of time for the discovery of evidence and the compilation of witness testimony will commence.

Once the defendant declares to the court whether s/he is guilty or innocence, the period for finding evidence and witnesses begin.

B - This period will be no less than 24 hours, unless extended upon a request made for good cause shown, by the presiding judge.
C - In no case will the period of discovery and compilation exceed 14 days.
D - No witness will be interviewed by the prosecution or the defendant, or a representative of either side, for purposes of recording for use as trial testimony unless all parties have the opportunity to be present and to participate in the interview.

b) the period cannot be any less than a day unless the judge oks it.
c) the period cannot be more than two weeks.
d) the testimony of a witness is only recorded in Court during a trial, meaning what a witness tells you personally during an evidence finding period can be different from s/he would tell you in court. However pre-trial testimony can be allowed should all parties (both lawyers, people accusing or accused, and the judge) are present to question the witness.

E - A record of the unedited interview will be made and filed with the presiding judge by private message, along with the objections raised by any of the parties and any comments that concern the objections.

The testimony cannot be edited or ad libbed, sent for an ok by the judge in any manner but a private message, and not have the comments or objections from any party.

F - Any objections to a question or an answer will be preserved as part of the record; the presiding judge will edit out the objections and any portions of the testimony that are found to be inappropriate for evidentiary purposes prior to use at trial.

The lawyers are allowed to object but it is up to the judge to confirm or deny the objection. Only the objections that the judge find valid will be included as evidence to be seen by the jury.

Rule 304. Judicial Notice.
A - The Court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not, of a judicially noticed fact where it is one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either generally known within the jurisdiction of the Court or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Judicial Notice: To note that certain evidence has declared a fact by the judges and has a source in which the accuracy is absolute.

Rule 305. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible.
A - All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of The North Pacific or the North Pacific Legal Code. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

a) Evidence declared admissible means it can be used in the case. Guess what Not Admissible means? However the means to gather evidence must be ok by the current laws in place. In other words, beating a confession out of someone would make it inadmissible.

B - ‘‘Relevant evidence’’ means evidence that is material to the issues of the case, that is, the evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the ultimate action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

b) Relevant Evidence - does it make it more or less likely that the person accused is guilty of the crime?

Rule 306. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Privilege, Prejudice, or Waste of Time.
A - Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

a) Evidence can be thrown out if it's ability to back up other evidence creates unfair prejudice (like I was a Paulie Shore fan in a trial about the dead hooker), or creates a delay which would severely prolong a trial (finding and shipping a witness from the jungles of Thailand), waste our precious time, or nine pieces of evidence all saying the same thing.

B - At this time, the only privilege deemed applicable to testimony is an official privilege of government members concerning the conduct of their official duties as to matters deemed secret or confidential unless the appropriate authority in the government has determined that disclosure at trial would not cause an adverse effect on current government matters as to the defense or external relations of the region.

Privilege: the special advantage of having a Cabinet-level or any extra-ordinary level position like being part of the NPA, Security Council, or Stone Cutters and having evidence which you could not have gotten without such a position. No matter how vital the evidence may be, it cannot be included in the trial unless the proper authority oks as not being harmful to the region as a whole. ie - a security matter needs to be ok-ed by the Security Council to use as evidence.

Rule 307. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes.
A - Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving a specific act in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.

Character assasination is an unacceptible tactic.

B - Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, but may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Only evidence pertaining to this one specific crime in which a person has been charged with can be admissible. However if the original crime was commited to produce other crimes then it would be acceptable. Evidence from other crimes outlining the why and how they commited their crime is also admissible.

C - In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not, and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

Well this is a doozy, for a trait of character to be admissible as evidence:
- it must proven by testimony.
- it must be questions proven through testimony to be about the specific incident.
- it is not enough to prove that they usually do that but that they did it at that specific instance.
example: I've been known to hang with hookers frequently but did I call a hooker that night in which she was murdered?

Rule 308. Competency.
A - Every person is competent to be a witness, except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
B - A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.
C - Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.
D - This rule is subject to the requirements for opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

a) Unless stated later, everyone is competent to be a witness no matter how much they like Ashlee Simpson and think she's just omagawd so much more prettier than her sister.
b) To be a witness, it must be proven that the person has the personal knowledge to be considered evidence.
c) A witness's own testimony (but is not limited to) can prove why they alone have such personal knowledge.
d) Expert witnesses are also subject to these rules. Example; An expert on Chewbacca's heritage has no place in the murder trial of the dead Ewok hooker.

Rule 309. Judge or Juror as Witness.
A - The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness.
B - A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting.
C- No objection need be made in order to preserve either point on review.

a) Judges can't be witnesses in the case their dealing with.
b) Same goes for jurors.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Rule 310. Impeachment of Witness Credibility.
A - The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.

Any side can question the sanity of the witness, even the side that chose the witness (though if they do that, they should start by questioning their own.)

Rule 311. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation.
A - The Court will exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses by the recordation of testimony prior to trial for presentation to the jury as evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid needless consumption of time, and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

The interrogation of a witness should be done without Poltsamaa-style badgering. Better yet don't even have Polty in the room, section, country or hemisphere.

B - All testimony will be recorded by the parties prior to trial for presentation to the jury.
C - Pretrial recordation will permit the court to review any evidentiary objections and edit the transcript of testimony in accordance with the Court’s rulings prior to trial.

b) self-explanatory.
c) The record will then be edited to the objections ok-ed or limits set by the judge.

Rule 312. Examination of Witnesses.
A - Every witness shall be first examined by the party or its representative that called the witness and the witness is subject to cross-examination by all other parties or their representatives.

The side which calls the witness first gets first dibs on them.

B - Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.
C - The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

b) lawyers can only ask questions relating to the case or the credibility of the witness.
c) however if the judge allows it or past precedent has been made, then other questions may be asked.

D - Leading questions (that is, questions in which the answer is suggested by the wording of a question to a witness) should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony.

example - what shoes were you wearing when you killed him?

E - Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination.
F - When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

e) Some are ok though as long as they're not as outlandish as my example.
f) If the witness is uncooperative then a leading question may be appropriate.

Rule 313. Use of Prior Statements of Witnesses.
A - In examining a witness in a recorded interview for use at a trial or hearing, concerning a prior statement made by the witness, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time; but on request the same will be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

The witness will not be able to review their own statements while both the defense and prosecution can.