[Chambers] Request for Review: Sentencing and Double Jeopardy in The North Pacific v Whole India

I have made this thread for the panel that is assigned to deal with Deropia's request for review relating to the matter of The North Pacific v Whole India.

The request is here. The trial thread for Whole India is here.

Deliberations should be recorded in this thread. If discord or some other medium is used, logs of discussions in those media should be posted in this thread.

SillyString:

Chapter 2: Requests for Review

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.
2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.
3. During the five days after a request for review has been accepted, anyone may offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule in the form of a brief.
4. The period for submitting briefs may be altered at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.
5. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.

Click to expand...

Posting this right now for quick reference.

@Dreadton and @SillyString (once your oath has been taken) let me know when you are ready to proceed.

@Artemis
I am ready to proceed.

As to the R4R before us, I believe that the plaintiff has the standing to bring this case before the court. The plaintiff was a defendant in the case that originated the cause of action and is directly affected by the outcome of the R4R. From a quick reading of past cases, I believe the standing requirement has been met.

Second, if the information in the R4R is accepted prima facie, then the plaintiff has a valid cause of action to bring before the court.

I am inclined to accept this request. Although I would like to wait till @bootsie Silly String is sworn in before formally accepting.

Who would want to be the Moderating Justice?

I think that you meant Silly String and not bootsie.

I am willing to be the Moderating Justice.

Yep corrected that

I say give SillyString 24 hours before starting this.

I have accepted that R4R and the period for briefs will close in five days at (time=1580085000).

Apologies for my delay! I have taken the oath now.

I concur with Artemis' acceptance of the R4R.

I also concur with the finding of standing. Whole India, as the defendant in the trial, has obvious and unassailable standing to raise concerns about impropriety in their own sentencing. And because this concerns a criminal matter, I think it is also logical and reasonable that WI's duly selected defense counsel has the capacity to request a review of any such concerns on their client's behalf, just as they would have had the power to raise such issues while the trial was ongoing.

As for preliminary thoughts, I think the petitioner has a strong argument. While it may have been possible for the prosecution to prove, during the course of a trial, that the defendant was fabricating evidence, the trial was short-circuited by the defendant's guilty plea. And even though it may be logical to assume that if the defendant is pleading guilty to fraudulently claiming someone is threatening them then all the evidence they had of such a claim is similarly fraudulent, assumptions are not sufficient for proof of guilt.

Granted, the court didn't use them to determine guilt but rather to determine severity of sentence, so arguments made in briefs may change my mind on this.

I have read Zyv's post and will post my thoughts on it tomorrow. Right now, I would like to hear from the AG on 1) Why the image was not included in his filing only referenced 2) Why when WI introduced the image he did not use that opportunity to counterclaim it as further evidence of WI wrong doing.

Zyv does point out correctly that the AG made reference to the image and it being a possible fake. He did not include a link to said image in his supporting evidence. WI attempted to introduce the image as support for his defense. The AG objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was fake. The court recognized the objection. However it did not rule on it. Red Black was under depo. Nether the court,the AG, or the defense took the opportunity to ask Red Black about the image. The Image was introduced on December 17, Red Blacks depo closed on Dec 19.

Which goes to this point.

Rule 3.4 requires screenshots to be authenticated through witness testimony. We have a witness that could authenticate or debunk the image. This was not done by any party involved. Which would lend itself to the position that the image was not proper evidence before the court. But the court did rule on it as if it was properly submitted.


I have further thoughts, but Real life is calling and I need to post before it gets lost in the nether.

Zyvet raises some good points, I think, though I'm not wholly swayed. To summarize as best I can, he is arguing that because the falsified images are referenced in the original indictment, by pleading guilty to the charges Whole India is by necessity pleading guilty to creating such falsifications.

However, the original indictment does not actually include any doctored images in its evidence - it makes reference to such an image, and the AG's office makes a statement of belief that the image was edited, but the image itself was only produced during the trial by the defendant - not by prosecution. Additionally, it was introduced without witness testimony to authenticate it (or even expert testimony called to discredit it), and so could not properly be considered by the court one way or the other.

I'm also troubled by the lack of real explanation for the sentence decision, in terms of why the court found it necessary to significantly exceed the joint recommendation presented by defense and prosecution. We aren't reviewing on those grounds so we can't really make a ruling, but it does make me wonder if the court would have found the same sentence appropriate without any fake evidence.

What's getting me hung up is, like.... it's a really bad fake? 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.

(Of course, the Court also does have the power to hold someone in contempt - and there's certainly an argument that if a defendant in a trial produced numerous false pieces of evidence, the Court might be justified in holding them in contempt for the rest of the trial.)

Edit: Touching more on authentication, had the trial gone on longer, I think the correct evidentiary procedure would have been for Whole India to "authenticate" the picture in sworn testimony, and for both WI and RB to be questioned about the discrepancies in their evidence and testimony, and for the prosecution to call an outside witness to testify about the normal appearance of telegrams in NS. At that point, the Court could have properly found that WI's evidence could not be admitted and RB's could, and (depending on how things had developed) it could find WI in contempt at that point. But we didn't get to all that because of the plea deal.

Unless there is a last-minute brief that brings a new insight or material to our attention, this is my position on the matter.

The questions before us are:

1. Was the allegedly doctored image properly before the court?
2. Was Whole India aware that his guilty plea included the allegedly doctored image, and that it would be used against him at sentencing?
3. Was the court's error material to his sentence?
4. How do we resolve these issues?

1. Was the alleged doctored image properly before the court?

The alleged doctored image was not properly before the court. Section 3 of the court's procedures require the moderating judge to verify the authenticity of the evidence presented to the court in a matter. If the material is authenticated under the rules, then it can be introduced as evidence. If it is not, then the court must reject the evidence.

In this matter, the prosecution made mention of the existence of a doctored image. The prosecution did not introduce the doctored image into evidence. Under the evidentiary rules, the doctored image is not before the court.

In this matter, the defendant introduced an image. The prosecution objected to the introduction of the image on the grounds that they believed it was doctored. The court began to resolve the objection by questioning Whole India on the image. Whole India presented a response that was not sufficient for the court. The court asked a follow-up question on the matter. Before Whole India responded, he accepted council and pled guilty. The court did not rule on the objection, nor made a determination on the image while court was in session. The court, nor the prosecution, questioned Red Black. The image was purportedly from Red Black. Red Black was under oath and being deposed before the court. The court and the prosecution did not question Red Black about the image, nor did the defendant. Without determining the authenticity of the image, the court is unable to consider the image as evidence.

2. Was Whole India aware that his quilty plea included the allegedly doctor image, and that it would be used against him at sentencing?

Guilty pleas must be entered by the defendant only if the plea is voluntary and knowing. Voluntary means that the Defendant enters the plea of his own free will, without being under duress or threat. Nothing was introduced to the record in this appeal that establishes the defendant acted under duress. The plea passes the voluntary test. A defendant can enter a guilty plea only if they are fully aware of what they are pleading guilty to, and the consequences thereof. Whole India knew that he was pleading guilty to one count of fraud and that he would be sentenced as such. The prosecution does not mention the image as an aggravating factor, the court had not ruled on the image and the only mention of the allegedly false image was in the original indictment. This appeal helps further establish that the defendant was not aware that his plea included admittance of guilt on the allegedly false image. Whole India's plea does not meet the knowing test.

3. Was the court's error material to his sentence?

In order to determine if the court's error is material to his sentence, we have only the court's sentence and the filing by the Cheif Justice. The Cheif Justice states that if there was an error, it would have had only a minor impact, if any, on the defendants sentence and that the court was within its discretion to issue its sentence. Any impact, however minor, is still an impact, thus the court's error was material to the sentence.

4. How do we resolve these issues?

The proper remedy in this situation is to vacate the sentence and remand this case for resentencing, with the restriction that the court cannot exceed its original sentence and that the image cannot be a factor. The court established in its filing and in the original sentence, the maximum sentence after considering all factors and circumstances of this specific case with the image as an aggravating factor. Thus, any sentence higher with that aggravating factor removed would be unfair and unsupported by the court's original opinion. Any increase would signal to the defendant and the general public that the court will punish those who seek to correct the court's error.

__________________________________________

SillyString:

What's getting me hung up is, like.... it's a really bad fake? 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.

(Of course, the Court also does have the power to hold someone in contempt - and there's certainly an argument that if a defendant in a trial produced numerous false pieces of evidence, the Court might be justified in holding them in contempt for the rest of the trial.)

Edit: Touching more on authentication, had the trial gone on longer, I think the correct evidentiary procedure would have been for Whole India to "authenticate" the picture in sworn testimony, and for both WI and RB to be questioned about the discrepancies in their evidence and testimony, and for the prosecution to call an outside witness to testify about the normal appearance of telegrams in NS. At that point, the Court could have properly found that WI's evidence could not be admitted and RB's could, and (depending on how things had developed) it could find WI in contempt at that point. But we didn't get to all that because of the plea deal.

Click to expand...

There would have to be a second case, the court is a purely reactive body. If someone introduced evidence that was so blatantly false, then they should be tried for it. The court should only concern itself with the matter before it. The court should reject false evidence, but it is up to the prosecution to file charges and seek damages when false evidence is submitted.

I believe I generally am in agreement with you on all points.

@Artemis What are your thoughts?

I concur with SillyString on this. I am in agreement.

Are there any parts we have a disagreement on? I think we have maybe a minor disagreement on how the court should handle fake evidence in the future, but I believe that the RA's Perjury bill handled that for us.

Arty, Will we see a draft judgement this weekend if possible?

Dreadton:

Are there any parts we have a disagreement on? I think we have maybe a minor disagreement on how the court should handle fake evidence in the future, but I believe that the RA's Perjury bill handled that for us.

Arty, Will we see a draft judgement this weekend if possible?

Click to expand...

Yes, I will work on this tomorrow.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures found here:

Section 3: Evidence

1. The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
2. 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.
3. Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
4. 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.

Click to expand...

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 in the trial, has obvious and unassailable standing to raise concerns about impropriety in their won sentencing. As this is concerning a criminal matter, the Court finds that it is reasonable that Whole India's duly selected defense counsel has the ability to request a review of any such concerns on behalf of their client, just as they would have had the power to raise such issues while the trial was ongoing.

On the sentencing based on evidence that had not been authenticated

The petitioner has stated that the Court in The North Pacific v. Whole India presumed guilt in relation to doctoring evidence submitted to the Court. The petitioner further states this is due to the Defendant's guilty plea in regard to another charge and this led the Court to use this presumed guilt as an aggravating factor during sentencing, leading to a harsher sentence being imposed by the Court. The Court in their sentencing "In committing the crime, the Defendant, as well as making the false claim, also produced images purporting to show the attempted intimidation. Those images were produced by the Defendant to the Court, though the Defendant's plea was entered before they were authenticated. The conclusion the Court must draw from the Defendant's plea is that those images were doctored."

On the issue, if the alleged doctored image was properly before the court.

The alleged doctored image was not properly before the court. Section 3 of the court's procedures require the moderating judge to verify the authenticity of the evidence presented to the court in a matter. If the material is authenticated under the rules, then it can be introduced as evidence. If it is not, then the court must reject the evidence.

In this matter, the prosecution made mention of the existence of a doctored image. The prosecution did not introduce the doctored image into evidence. Under the evidentiary rules, the doctored image is not before the court.

In this matter, the defendant introduced an image. The prosecution objected to the introduction of the image on the grounds that they believed it was doctored. The court began to resolve the objection by questioning Whole India on the image. Whole India presented a response that was not sufficient for the court. The court asked a follow-up question on the matter. Before Whole India responded, he accepted counsel and pled guilty. The court did not rule on the objection, nor made a determination on the image while court was in session. The court, nor the prosecution, questioned Red Black. The image was purportedly from Red Black. Red Black was under oath and being deposed before the court. The court and the prosecution did not question Red Black about the image, nor did the defendant. Without determining the authenticity of the image, the court is unable to consider the image as evidence.

On the issue regarding the defendant's knowledge that his guilty pleas included the allegedly doctored image, and if it would be used against him at sentencing.

Guilty pleas must be entered by the defendant only if the plea is voluntary and knowing. Voluntary means that the Defendant enters the plea of his own free will, without being under duress or threat. Nothing was introduced to the record in this appeal that establishes the defendant acted under duress. The plea passes the voluntary test. A defendant can enter a guilty plea only if they are fully aware of what they are pleading guilty to, and the consequences thereof. Whole India knew that he was pleading guilty to one count of fraud and that he would be sentenced as such. The prosecution does not mention the image as an aggravating factor, the court had not ruled on the image and the only mention of the allegedly false image was in the original indictment. This appeal helps further establish that the defendant was not aware that his plea included admittance of guilt on the allegedly false image. Whole India's plea does not meet the knowing test.

On the issue, if the Court's error was material to his sentence.

In order to determine if the court's error is material to his sentence, we have only the court's sentence and the filing by the Cheif Justice. The Cheif Justice states that if there was an error, it would have had only a minor impact, if any, on the defendant's sentence and that the court was within its discretion to issue its sentence. Any impact, however minor, is still an impact, thus the court's error was material to the sentence.

Therefore, this Court finds the following:

The Sentencing in the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India and be remanded back to the adjudicating court for resentencing, with the stipulation that the Court cannot exceed the original sentence and that the image cannot be a factor in deliberations. The Court established in its filing and in the original sentence, the maximum sentence after considering all factors and circumstances of this specific case with the image as an aggravating factor. Thus, any sentence higher with that aggravating factor removed would be unfair and unsupported by the court's original opinion. Any increase would signal to the defendant and the general public that the court will punish those who seek to correct the court's error.

@Dreadton and @SillyString please take a look at this and provide any feedback.

@Dreadton I used quite a bit of your previous post in building this.

I would suggest adding :

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:

Section 3: Evidence

1. The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
2. 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.
3. Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
4. 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.

Click to expand...

and in the On the sentencing based on evidence that had not been authenticated

Change "The petitioner further states this is dues to the Defendant's guilty " To The petitioner further states this is due to the Defendant's guilty"

Updated.

Approved. good job Arty

@Artemis The request you made for the court's deliberation thread would have to be under seal. The court would have to move the thread to the special chamber's forum.

I have thoughts! I was gonna quote the whole thing and do in-line changes but apparently quoted quotes still disappear so ugh.

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​

Click to expand...

Change to title of ruling to better describe the situation, also made the drafted line small in line with prior rulings.

The Court took into consideration the verdict issued in The North Pacific v. Whole India, found here.

Click to expand...

Existing wording seems awkward. Suggest adding a comma after "India" to make it read better, or possibly rephrasing.

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 in the trial whose sentence is being challenged, has obvious and unassailable standing to raise concerns about impropriety in their won own sentencing. As this is concerning a criminal matter, the Court finds that it is reasonable that Whole India's duly selected defense counsel has the ability to request a review of any such concerns on behalf of their client, just as they would have had the power to raise such issues while the trial was ongoing. 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.

Click to expand...

Changed the wording a bit - I think this makes it more clear that any defense counsel has the same right to bring questions on behalf of their client, not just this one.

The rest of it I'm rewriting a bit more heavily - the first section lacked a of finding and struck me as out of place, so I reworked it a bit. Consider most of the following to be new text, though I did draw heavily from your existing content.

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.

Click to expand...

I will make these changes this evening.

Apologies, it will be tomorrow evening before I can get to this.

Looks like Zyvet did move the deliberation thread in here. I've read the portion about sentencing and it does look like the point of falsifying evidence only came up once, and did not form a large portion of the decision. They seemed more broadly to be focused on the similarities and differences to the Madjack case.

I still think they likely went overboard on the sentence but not my call.

I am satisfied with our ruling, given the above. We could add a sentence or two starting that we reviewed the deliberations and confirmed it only played a small role there, if we wanted to.

Im going to need some time to read.

After reading the thread, it appears that the image had no major impact. But since they did mention it in their sentencing as a factor, I will hold to my original opinion.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures found here:

Section 3: Evidence

1. The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
2. 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.
3. Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
4. 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.

Click to expand...

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.

@Dreadton and @SillyString, I've posted the above with the recommended changes. I am satisfied with this ruling.

I would be willing to sign this.

Approved, with the stipulation that you add a line break between "Conclusion" and the conclusion. Y'know, to match the rest.

That’s fixed. And since we are all in agreement, I shall move forth with posting it.