Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Since this issue seems to come up with every trial both under the current Constitution, and under its predecessors, it seems fitting to have a open discussion on the topic in advance of a plan to present proposed rules of evidence to the Court for adoption even as the Regional Assembly has legislation pending to address the difficulty in constructing a fair procedure for trial in the absence of the binding framework within which the Court can operate.
With the exception of what guidance the Court has from the Bill of Rights the Constitution, and the Legal Code, the current judicial system has struggled mighily to find ways to set up a fair, speedy, impartial and open trial process as specifically called for in the Bill of Rights.
Concepts are wonderful things. But even if the terms had an accepted definition, there would remain practical difficulties in fixing a certain way to conduct trials that met these ambiguous terms. Of necessity and with a lack of agreement of what makes a trial fair, speedy, impartial, and open, each Justice that has presided over a judicial proceeding has had different notions of what is involved to meet these goals. Things have to be re0invented for each trial because there is so little prior experience to go on. THe Interim Court Rules were not designed under the current Constitution; but under the previous Constitution, which provided far more guidance within which those draft rules were developed with the intention that they would be tested and adjusted so that at some point they were to be formally adopted. The repeal of that Constitution and many of the laws from that era reduces whatever value those draft rule has to a level approximately a nullity, with the probably exception of the Rules' provisions concerning evidence. (and the actually adopted rule on the appointment of temporary hearing officers.)
I had previously stated my intention to ask the Court to review just the draft rules on evidence with a view towards their formal adoption. But for the most recent rouge delegacy, and the distraction that caused, that could have already taken place.
Sometime in the next fortnight I will ask my fellow Justice to review, with the intent of adoption, the ICR draft as they related to evidence, and evidentary procedure.
It would be helpful in my view if the legislation pending in the RA, or something like it were to be enacted. It would provide more of a framework within which the Court can adopt useful procedures for trial proceedings. (I will note that my personal view is that some of the provisions in that one bill has some features of dubious constitutionality; but I'm open to refinement of those concerns and there are various means by which we three Justices as a Court can work with the RA and the Delegate to find solution to those concerns, as well as others that may come to light as the process works itself out.
So if we need to have a discussion before those efforts work themselves out, I'm perfectly willing to have a open forum discussion within the public area of the Court's forums to facilitate that discussion.
With the exception of what guidance the Court has from the Bill of Rights the Constitution, and the Legal Code, the current judicial system has struggled mighily to find ways to set up a fair, speedy, impartial and open trial process as specifically called for in the Bill of Rights.
Concepts are wonderful things. But even if the terms had an accepted definition, there would remain practical difficulties in fixing a certain way to conduct trials that met these ambiguous terms. Of necessity and with a lack of agreement of what makes a trial fair, speedy, impartial, and open, each Justice that has presided over a judicial proceeding has had different notions of what is involved to meet these goals. Things have to be re0invented for each trial because there is so little prior experience to go on. THe Interim Court Rules were not designed under the current Constitution; but under the previous Constitution, which provided far more guidance within which those draft rules were developed with the intention that they would be tested and adjusted so that at some point they were to be formally adopted. The repeal of that Constitution and many of the laws from that era reduces whatever value those draft rule has to a level approximately a nullity, with the probably exception of the Rules' provisions concerning evidence. (and the actually adopted rule on the appointment of temporary hearing officers.)
I had previously stated my intention to ask the Court to review just the draft rules on evidence with a view towards their formal adoption. But for the most recent rouge delegacy, and the distraction that caused, that could have already taken place.
Sometime in the next fortnight I will ask my fellow Justice to review, with the intent of adoption, the ICR draft as they related to evidence, and evidentary procedure.
It would be helpful in my view if the legislation pending in the RA, or something like it were to be enacted. It would provide more of a framework within which the Court can adopt useful procedures for trial proceedings. (I will note that my personal view is that some of the provisions in that one bill has some features of dubious constitutionality; but I'm open to refinement of those concerns and there are various means by which we three Justices as a Court can work with the RA and the Delegate to find solution to those concerns, as well as others that may come to light as the process works itself out.
So if we need to have a discussion before those efforts work themselves out, I'm perfectly willing to have a open forum discussion within the public area of the Court's forums to facilitate that discussion.
