[Private] TNP v tSRoNK Pierconium Witness Statement Appeal

[Eluvatar]

Spoiler: struck

Your honour,

As the timetable for evidence submission has been truncated, I would like to provide a brief evidence statement to validate the evidence already submitted by the Attorney General's Office in their indictment.

I affirm the validity of the telegrams and messages that I provided to the Security Council and the Attorney General's Office. They were received by me from the defendant nation. When I requested that nation contact me here to validate the authenticity of the message, they promptly did so. I have no doubts that the defendant is the nation that contacted me.

Thank you,
Ivan Moldavi
Leader of Pierconium

cc. Sillystring

dangers of posting at 3am. I see now why you allowed what you did. Please disregard the above long post in favour of this one:

Your honour, in the interests of securing my client the fair trial guaranteed him by the Bill of Rights, I must protest at the way the depositions of Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw has been allowed to take place.

There are two reasons for my objection.
The first is that we note that Pierconium’s submission does not contain the oath required by court rules:

5.Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.

6All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." (bolding mine)

Your honour for this reason we object to the testimony and ask that it be struck.

Now I understand your desire to make sure the prosecutor has something to base their case on. But court rules should not be flouted or evaded so readily.

My other objection is also to afford my client a fair trial. Both Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw were called as defence witnesses. Pierconium, to his credit, tried to schedule deposition but we were all thwarted by Guy’s disappearance. So be it.

But Lord Ravenclaw was contacted at your honour suggested by PM to give his availability on a doodle poll. This took place on 18th October. He ignored totally our approach.
Your honour, the simple principle of a fair trial demands that a witness called by both sides in a trial should not be allowed to appear for the prosecution but ignore the defence with no opportunity for examination or cross examination.
Your honour, we do not seek preferential treatment – just a level playing field. If the witness will not appear for the defence, he should not appear for the prosecution. Fair’s fair. Therfore we, once again, object.


We do NOT want an extension, on principle. Counsels of both parties should abide by the timetable set by the court, with REASONABLE flexibility. If they cannot, they should run with what they have managed in the time allowed AS THE DEFENCE WILL BE DOING.

Pierconium's witness statement is struck as it lacked the oath.

Pierconium's witness statement is struck as it lacked the oath.

I object to the striking of the witness statement.

Pierconium took his witness oath in the deposition thread at 3:14 PM, US Eastern.

Recognizing that evidence submission was nearing an end, he then sent a PM containing his statement at 3:42 PM, US Eastern.

The requirement that he take his oath was met at the time the statement was made.

I considered this.

Do you wish to appeal to the full court?

Yes.

[bgcolor=black][...][/bgcolor]

My argument to the full court is that the Adopted Court Rules state:

5. Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
6. All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
7. Witness depositions may be taken over instant messenger or in a forum thread separate from the trial thread. A deposition may only be conducted in a forum thread if a deposition over instant messenger is not feasible.
...
11. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of Evidence Submission. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.

Bolding is mine.

At no point do the rules state that the witness must swear more than one oath, or that they must swear an oath for every different type of testimony they present. Rather, the rules state explicitly that the witness must swear their oath before they present any testimony at all, regardless of what kind of testimony they present, and then goes on to elaborate the forms that their testimony can take and any additional requirements specific to each kind.

As soon as Pierconium swore his oath, all his testimony was bound under that oath. Because he did so before sending his statement to the moderating justice, the requirements of evidence submission were met and his statement should stand. Similarly, if an oath were first sworn in a PM making a witness statement, no additional oath would be required during a deposition under the law.

 

[Kialga]

I would say to grant this appeal. The oath was made prior to any statement, and as pointed out from the Adopted Court Rules, there is nothing that explicitly states anything about a second oath and/or multiple oaths.

 

[Altmoras]

I would say to grant this appeal. The oath was made prior to any statement, and as pointed out from the Adopted Court Rules, there is nothing that explicitly states anything about a second oath and/or multiple oaths.

^^^^^^