[Private] Court Rules Overhaul

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I want to make sure we do this right. To that end, this process will take several phases.

Phase 1: Brainstorming/Defining Objectives
2013-11-20 through 2013-11-24
This phase is for the three of us to settle on why we're doing this, and set goals. By the 24th, I would like each of us to state in this thread what we hope to accomplish by revising the rules. For example, we all want trials to take less time - but how short is short enough, and how short is too short? Ultimately, this stage is about creating a vision - not about exactly how the rules will look, or what rules we want to add/subtract. This is about the standards and objectives that we want the finished product to meet. I think this stage will help guide the actual revision process, and get to a draft that satisfies us with a lot less bloodshed.

Phase 2: Review of Current Rules
2013-11-25 through 2013-11-30
This phase will take place on google docs. I'll post the current court rules in their entirety, and we will each comb through, line by line, and add comments (a google docs feature that lets you comment on portions of the text without actually changing the document). This is your chance to say "this rule needs to be deleted," or "I like this bit, but we need to cut the time for it in half," or "I think we should add a bit here that says..." We will also be able to respond to each other's comments in little miniature threads. These comments will become the basis for the new draft.

At this point, I will need to take a break to focus on the last week of classes, and exams. The overhaul will resume after my exams are over.

Phase 3: Drafting
2013-12-12 through 2013-12-19
This will also take place on google docs. Using the comments that we all made in phase 2, I will post a new draft of the court rules which I think will satisfy everyone, and which will inevitably not satisfy everyone. We'll use the same process of commenting and responding to comments to tweak and revise the new draft until it meets with the satisfaction of a majority of the justices.

Phase 4: Circulation/Fine Tuning
2013-12-20 through 2013-12-29
Once we have a draft that we've agreed on, we will circulate the draft to TNP legal experts, and run it by the Attorney General's office. We will invite them to comment on it, and suggest revisions. Then, as a court, we will consider their revisions and decide which to keep and which to ignore.

Phase 5: Finalization
2013-12-30 through 2014-12-30
After implementing the suggestions of legal experts and the AG (or at least those which we agree with) will vote on the final draft and post the new rules.

This process will hopefully yield a new set of rules by the beginning of the New Year. We will begin the brainstorming step immediately - tell me your objections, your vision, and your hopes for the new rules. Don't get into specifics - that'll come next. For now, keep it focused on why we need changes, and what we want to accomplish with those changes.

 

[Romanoffia]

I'll give the current rules a thorough going-over and come up with a few ideas to trim the procedure so that trials can move a little faster.

 

[Flemingovia]

I do not think the current rules need trimming and review. I think they need replacement.

I do not want to see them move a "little" faster. I want to see them move a lot faster.

If I were to do some work on a wholesale new set of rules and procedures, replacing those which we have now, would I be wasting my time or would there be a fair chance that they would be accepted by the two of you?

 

[Romanoffia]

^^ Well, that was what I was saying, but in a more politic fashion.

By all means, please construct a replacement set of rules for all of us to consider.

I'd personally like to see something as simple as the prosecution submit their case and evidence, the defense comes in with a defense and then the whole packet goes to the Court without any need for bickering between the parties, and then the Court conducts questioning of any witnesses or evidence without any undue convolutions, and then hand down a decision ASAP.

I'd rather see decisions made on a moral and ethical basis based upon principle of law than a system (like we have now) which involves contortions and legal beaglism, if you catch my drift.

But I am all ears for any ideas that make the process move faster.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Guys...legal code:

7. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
8. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
9. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
10. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
11. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
12. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
13. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.

There's only so much we can change. [EDIT: it looks like the above quote might only apply when the delegate wants to eject or ban someone pending charges...]

Personally, my vision for the judicial system involves a few goals:

• No trial lasts more than a month.
• Evidence is used as a tool to present facts, not as a way to confuse the issue, or prolong a trial to the point that everyone gives up.
• The rules make sense to the average reader, and don't look like something out a law school textbook.
• Guilty people get convicted, and innocent people don't.

I think that putting evidence and argument in the same step is a recipe for disaster, because we, as justices, won't be able to distinguish between fact (evidence) and rhetoric. In the evidence step, if someone gives us some bullshit, we can say "We don't accept that evidence" and then they can't include that in their argument. That makes it a lot easier for us when we're going through the arguments and deciding who won, cause they can't include any evidence in their argument that we rejected in the evidence step.

If those two steps get smooshed together, then they can include any evidence they want in their argument, cause they'll probably be doing it all in one post. That's gonna give us a headache when we're reading through the monstrosity, have to mentally disregard all the parts that are bullshit.

 

[Romanoffia]

Take a look at the trial I am presiding over at this time. The whole of the events leading up to the indictment is essentially a comedy of errors and legalististic finagling (or however it is spelled).

 

[Flemingovia]

Meh. So we get the court procedures we want then amend the legal code to permit it.

I have no truck with a "legal code won't let us" approach.

 

[Romanoffia]

I feel your pain. Believe me, I feel your pain.

I think that we can change a lot of the trial procedure in practical terms to shorten the process without coming in conflict with the legal code.

My preferred system is more akin to the Napoleonic Code used in Louisiana.

The Judge asks witnesses questions, not the prosecution, not the defense. The Prosecution has to construct their case and present it. The Court presumes innocence of the defendant who gets a rebuttal, then the Judge asks all the questions thereafter. Instead of a year of legal BS, you get a decision in one day.

 

[Flemingovia]

I feel your pain. Believe me, I feel your pain.

I think that we can change a lot of the trial procedure in practical terms to shorten the process without coming in conflict with the legal code.

My preferred system is more akin to the Napoleonic Code used in Louisiana.

The Judge asks witnesses questions, not the prosecution, not the defense. The Prosecution has to construct their case and present it. The Court presumes innocence of the defendant who gets a rebuttal, then the Judge asks all the questions thereafter. Instead of a year of legal BS, you get a decision in one day.

That sounds interesting, although I am not sure that one day would do it. It would certainly be better than the current system. Shall we have a go at writing it up?

Would the judge have the right to call witnesses, as well as the defence and prosecution having the right to put them forward?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Well, it would seem that the process I laid out in the OP does not appeal to you guys, so consider it scrapped. After my exams are over in mid-December, I'll have time to come up with a draft that meets the four objectives I laid out above. I would ask that any whole-sale revisions be held off on until I have a chance to present my draft.

 

[Romanoffia]

I feel your pain. Believe me, I feel your pain.

I think that we can change a lot of the trial procedure in practical terms to shorten the process without coming in conflict with the legal code.

My preferred system is more akin to the Napoleonic Code used in Louisiana.

The Judge asks witnesses questions, not the prosecution, not the defense. The Prosecution has to construct their case and present it. The Court presumes innocence of the defendant who gets a rebuttal, then the Judge asks all the questions thereafter. Instead of a year of legal BS, you get a decision in one day.

That sounds interesting, although I am not sure that one day would do it. It would certainly be better than the current system. Shall we have a go at writing it up?

Would the judge have the right to call witnesses, as well as the defence and prosecution having the right to put them forward?

Here's the idea that I have which is essentially how most civil cases are tried in a court of equity (for lack of a better term); and would be suitable for TNP 'criminal' cases. So, the whole process might go like this:


When allegations are made to the AG, the AG personally or via an appointed 'investigator' actually investigates the allegations to gather evidence in exactly the same way a police officer questions 'suspects', etc., and then makes a determination as to whether or not there is a reasonable belief that a law was violated. This lack of 'law enforcement' function in our legal system is where we have gone wrong in TNP.

As it is now, anyone can file a charge with the AG and it usually ends up going to trial without a properly constructed case. If the AG established a method that is tantamount to a 'constabulary' to investigate and gather information first before constructing charges, a lot of unnecessary cases would never reach the court. IOW, we cannot have an effective court system that properly enforces laws without having something in place that functions as a constabulary that investigates allegations before they are given to the AG for a proper charging of criminal actions. Then, after an indictment pending sufficient evidence to warrant it:

Charges are read.

The Prosecution presents their case. The Judge examines the prosecution's evidence. At this point, the Justice can dismiss the case based upon insufficient evidence or other principles of law and evidence.

The Defense presents their case in response.

The Justice then poses questions to the Prosecution and Defense.

The Prosecution and the Defense exchange questions in a back-and-forth fashion moderated by the Judge.

When the Judge has determined that there has been enough evidence provided, a decision can then be rendered.


So, in simple, a trial might go thus:

Charges are read: "Fred's dog was kicked by John, Fred's dog suffered a broken arse. The Prosecution will prove that John is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of inflicting grievous bodily harm to Fred's dog by inflicting a broken arse upon the dog".

The Prosecution presents it's evidence, testimony, statements of witnesses, etc. This body of evidence will have been provided in toto to the Defense prior to the trial itself. (Discovery as being automatic). The Prosecution is limited to arguing only what is presented to the Defense as a result of Discover. New evidence discovered after the fact may result in a mistrial and dismissal without prejudice and admission of such evidence into the record is at the discretion of the Judge.

The Defense presents it's evidence but the defendant is not required to provide nor divulge evidence that is incriminating (the right to not incriminate one's self). The Defense is not required to provide anything to the prosecution in 'discovery' as it would violate the defendant's right to 'remain silent' and not incriminate him or herself. (Under this arrangement, it requires the Prosecution to construct a really good case while preserving the Defense's right to not incriminate itself).

The Judge, Prosecution and Defense then exchange questions in an orderly fashion.

The Judge, after the prosecution and defense rest, in that order, renders a decision.

Well, it would seem that the process I laid out in the OP does not appeal to you guys, so consider it scrapped. After my exams are over in mid-December, I'll have time to come up with a draft that meets the four objectives I laid out above. I would ask that any whole-sale revisions be held off on until I have a chance to present my draft.

I am still looking at your proposition and considering elements of it. As I noted above, I think that one of the big problems is that there are too many instances of charges being filed willy-nilly without proper evidence being assembled via an investigative process prior to charges being filed in the first place.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The AG already has the power and responsibility to examine evidence before filing charges with the court. I suppose we could require the AG to submit all the prosecution's evidence in full when charges are filed, but I don't really see the point of that. Sure, it will make the trial go quicker, but it will ultimately delay the trial a long time while evidence is gathered. Ultimately, we probably won't have a verdict any earlier than we would have otherwise; the trial will just start later.

 

[Romanoffia]

Having all the evidence assembled ahead of time, before a case is filed, tends to preclude a lot of time consuming motions that delay and delay and delay until everyone dies of old age and the case is moot.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It might disadvantage the defense somewhat, because until charges or filed it's not a sure thing that the case will even go to trial. So while the prosecution can leisurely collect evidence for weeks or months, the defense might only have the discovery time we permit during the trial. That can still happen, but requiring all the evidence to be assembled before charges are filed will probably mean it happens more often.

 

[Flemingovia]

It might disadvantage the defense somewhat, because until charges or filed it's not a sure thing that the case will even go to trial. So while the prosecution can leisurely collect evidence for weeks or months, the defense might only have the discovery time we permit during the trial. That can still happen, but requiring all the evidence to be assembled before charges are filed will probably mean it happens more often.

I think a suitable (but short) recess between evidence being presented and summary arguments would go some way to negating the advantage. But this is similar to real life, where law enforcement agencies have months to investigate a case before charges are brought.

I really think we need to be stricter on allowing recesses. It is absurd the number of times that defence counsel, Attorney generals and justices have "suddenly" discovered the need for mid-term exams, papers, etc.

If a justice or a counsel - on either side - cannot appear in court they should immediately step aside and their place be taken by someone who has the time.

 

[Romanoffia]

It might disadvantage the defense somewhat, because until charges or filed it's not a sure thing that the case will even go to trial. So while the prosecution can leisurely collect evidence for weeks or months, the defense might only have the discovery time we permit during the trial. That can still happen, but requiring all the evidence to be assembled before charges are filed will probably mean it happens more often.

I think a suitable (but short) recess between evidence being presented and summary arguments would go some way to negating the advantage. But this is similar to real life, where law enforcement agencies have months to investigate a case before charges are brought.

I really think we need to be stricter on allowing recesses. It is absurd the number of times that defence counsel, Attorney generals and justices have "suddenly" discovered the need for mid-term exams, papers, etc.

If a justice or a counsel - on either side - cannot appear in court they should immediately step aside and their place be taken by someone who has the time.

I agree. I totally agree.

I think we need an 'Abandonment Clause' that states that if the AG fails to act and essentially goes AWOL without arranging a replacement, the case can be thrown out without prejudice the first time, and with prejudice the second time such inactivity occurs (the burden of proof being on the prosecution).

 

[Flemingovia]

It might disadvantage the defense somewhat, because until charges or filed it's not a sure thing that the case will even go to trial. So while the prosecution can leisurely collect evidence for weeks or months, the defense might only have the discovery time we permit during the trial. That can still happen, but requiring all the evidence to be assembled before charges are filed will probably mean it happens more often.

I think a suitable (but short) recess between evidence being presented and summary arguments would go some way to negating the advantage. But this is similar to real life, where law enforcement agencies have months to investigate a case before charges are brought.

I really think we need to be stricter on allowing recesses. It is absurd the number of times that defence counsel, Attorney generals and justices have "suddenly" discovered the need for mid-term exams, papers, etc.

If a justice or a counsel - on either side - cannot appear in court they should immediately step aside and their place be taken by someone who has the time.

I agree. I totally agree.

I think we need an 'Abandonment Clause' that states that if the AG fails to act and essentially goes AWOL without arranging a replacement, the case can be thrown out without prejudice the first time, and with prejudice the second time such inactivity occurs (the burden of proof being on the prosecution).

Not sure about this. We are here to deliver justice, and should abandon trials only as a last resort.

I think counsel, and justices, should not commit to a trial. If they are not going to be active for that trial, then they should step aside and allow someone else to pursue.

If they refuse, I like the phrase drawn from Miranda rights: if you will not appoint a counsel, one will be appointed for you.

A major ploy in tnp trials has been to spin things out so long that the trial collapses. We should not be allowing this to happen.