Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Deropia on behalf of Whole India on the sentence issued by the Court in the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India
Opinion drafted by Artemis, joined by SillyString and Dreadton
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Deropia.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Vivanco.
The Court took into consideration the indictment filed here by Dinoium.
The Court took into consideration the verdict issued in The North Pacific v. Whole India, found here.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 1.3: Fraud
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Chapter 2: Penal Code
1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures found here:
Section 3: Evidence
- The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
- Objections to evidence by either the Prosecution or the Defense must clearly explain why, in accordance with the Court Rules and general legal principles, the evidence in question should not be admitted into the court record.
- Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
- Documentary evidence, which includes forum posts or threads, off-site chat logs, screenshots and other evidence of a similar nature, must be authenticated according to the criteria below:
- Content which does not appear in its original form and location, such as off-site chat logs, screenshots, transcripts, or quotes, must be authenticated through witness testimony regardless of how public it is when it is presented as evidence.
- Forum posts and threads may be accepted without authentication, as long as the Moderating Justice is provided with a direct link to the posts and threads entered into evidence and is able to view them in their original locations. The Moderating Justice must confirm that the evidence submitted does not contain any content that does not appear in the original location before accepting it without authentication.
- Witness testimony is always an acceptable way to authenticate evidence.
- The Moderating Justice may, when appropriate, waive authentication requirements for individual pieces of evidence. They must provide an explanation for doing so.
The Court opines the following:
On Standing in this Inquiry
The Court has determined that Deropia does have the standing to bring this request for review on behalf of Whole India. Whole India, as the defendant whose sentence is being challenged, has obvious and unassailable standing to raise concerns about impropriety in their own sentencing. Criminal defendants have the right to be represented by counsel during their trial, and that right to representation must necessarily extend to other issues raised with the court pertaining to that trial, even if they do not occur during the official trial process.
On the Authentication of Images Provided by Whole India
In the indictment of Whole India, the Deputy Attorney General stated a belief that the defendant had altered a message from Red Back, but did not include a copy of this image in their filing. However, the Deputy Attorney General did include several other pieces of evidence in the indictment, and one was stated to be a screenshot of the complete, unaltered telegram history between the two parties. During the course of the trial, Whole India introduced a separate piece of evidence in their defense - stated to be a screenshot of another telegram with Red Back, one not included by the prosecution.
Under Court Rules and Procedures, both images were required to be authenticated by witness testimony in order to be admitted to the court record. Red Back was deposed and asked to authenticate the prosecution’s image, which he did. He was also asked by the prosecution to authenticate one of the two images provided by the defendant, which he did not do. During the time when Red Back’s deposition was occurring, the Moderating Justice asked several questions of the defendant, apparently in an effort to understand the discrepancies between Red Back’s testimony and Whole India’s image.
However, questions by the Moderating Justice are not an acceptable way of authenticating, or failing to authenticate, any piece of evidence. The Court Rules and Procedures require that witness testimony occur via deposition or statement, and that both must be preceded by an oath from the witness. Moreover, statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice, while depositions must occur in a separate thread from the main trial and be conducted via questioning by both the defense and the prosecution. The Moderating Justice is certainly not prevented from asking questions of either party during a trial - however, such questions do not replace the formal process for authenticating evidence as laid out by the Court.
Whole India then pled guilty to the charge of Fraud laid out in the initial indictment, before any further authentication efforts could be undertaken, and before either they or Red Back could be properly questioned about discrepancies. Because Whole India’s images remained unauthenticated at this time, the only conclusion that this Court can draw is that they were never admitted into the trial record. In other words, for the purposes of the Court, the images must be treated as if they do not exist.
On the Materiality of the Unauthenticated Image
In his brief to the Court, Zyvetskistaahn notes, correctly, that the Court is granted wide leeway to determine an appropriate sentence in a criminal conviction. He also argues that although the unauthenticated images were taken into account when making such determination, they were only one factor and, by implication, made only a small contribution to the ultimate severity of the sentence.
However, as the Court has found that the images in question were not properly introduced as evidence and must be treated as nonexistent, it was incorrect for them to have been considered it at all when determining sentencing. Such an error is certainly material to the defendant, who must serve out any extra length on their sentence.
On Indictments and Guilty Pleas
Zyvetskistaahn argues that by pleading guilty, a defendant is granting that the charge laid out against them is true as stated. He goes on to say that when a defendant is accused of committing fraud by lying about receiving threats from another nation, it is illogical for the Court, or any party, to accept that the defendant is guilty of lying
and also that such threats are real. The conclusion he draws is that by pleading guilty in this case, Whole India is necessarily admitting that the images introduced as evidence are false.
The Court agrees with Zyvetskistaahn’s arguments, but not with his conclusion. The charge that the defendant pled guilty to ("intentionally deceiving the public into believing a foreign dignitary warned them to suspend their campaign for the upcoming election in January") made no reference to the method in which such deception was attempted, and the evidence introduced by the Deputy Attorney General, as referenced above, likewise did not include any allegedly doctored images.
The Court concludes that while it is reasonable to find the defendant guilty of the acts alleged in the opening indictment, it is not reasonable to extrapolate more information, or more criminality, from a guilty plea than is actually being alleged. If there is any confusion about what acts, specifically, the defendant is confessing to committing, the Court should ask the defendant to clarify.
Conclusion
Due to the issues noted above,
the sentence handed down to Whole India is vacated. We remand it back to the adjudicating Court for resentencing, with the stipulation that the Court is barred from exceeding the original sentence given to the defendant. The Court may not consider the veracity of any images that Whole India attempted to present in their defense when determining the defendant’s sentence.
At what point is something obviously enough fake that the court can dismiss it out of hand? At what point is someone's presentation of fake evidence egregious enough that the court should take it into account in sentencing, without holding a second trial on the matter? I don't have a great answer here, though I don't think Whole India's behavior reaches that level of egregious. But we should be mindful in our ruling, I think, not to hamstring the court by forcing it to treat obvious fabrications as possible.
