Civil Suits

Can we constitutionally get away with single-justice adjudication? Would make things much more efficient.

Edit: Aside from that, I'd say similar procedure as to criminal trials - same evidentiary rules. As to burden of proof, preponderance is generally traditional for civil suits.
 
I'd go that route, then. Single justice, abbreviated discovery (no depositions, only documentary evidence and limit to 3 affidavits per side, no expert testimony allowed), and a preponderance rule rather than reasonable doubt. Can probably bang out a civil trial in a couple weeks, no problem.

As to damages, I happen to think the whole idea of TNP civil trials is stupid, but I'll do them anyways, and be impartial of course. I would suggest that we be very conservative, as a court policy, with any damage or binding orders we hand down as a result of civil trials - nominal damages at most are all I'd be inclined to give, particularly in a case where a criminal trial has failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top