[R4R] On the Improper Acceptance of Evidence in Criminal Trials

[Dreadton]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

I am requesting review of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss and the motion for mistrial in the Criminal Case TNP v Kekiston et al. The ruling can be found here : https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197453/#post-10614109


2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

The following has been violated by the actions of the court in this matter:

TNP Constitution Article 4 Section 5

5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

TNP Bill of Rights Section 7 and Section 11

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific and its territories 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.

11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

TNP Legal Code Section 3.4.17 Criminal Trial Procedure

17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

The active and binding Court Ruling On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials

Court Procedures Section 2 Subsection 3, Evidence Submission, Argumentation, Deliberation

Court Procedures Section 3, Subsections 4,5, and 8

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

The active and binding Court Ruling On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

In On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials the court has held that defense counsel has standing to bring forth Requests for Reviews on matters related to the trial of the defendants they represent. The court stated “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.” As this matter relates to the active trial in which I represent the defendants and is related to and part of the trial in dispute, I hold standing under this ruling.


5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

The fair and impartial trial requires that the court follow its own procedures and rulings. When an error is made, the proper course of action is to address the error in accordance with the law. When the court compounds its error with incorrect information and admonishes the defendant’s counsel for acting in the best interest of their clients, it jeopardizes the region’s ability to conduct trials in a manner that is fair to its citizenry.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

The court’s ruling on the motion was not only unlawful but also based on erroneous reasoning. The motion by the Defense and the Prosecution's motion relied on the same set of facts and case law showing a fundamental agreement in principle on the matter of law. We agreed that the court had erred by not recording the deposition and the RMB post into evidence as required by binding precedent and tradition. The sole disagreement between the two sides is on how the matter should be addressed, with dismissal or mistrial. In that matter, the law is unsettled.

The court decided to take a third route and based it on a erroneous understanding of its own rules and precedence. The court relied on faulty logic when it stated “The proper time for submitting motions was, as per the Rules and Procedures, during the Evidence Submission phase.” The Court's own rules disprove this argument. In Section 2.3 of the courts rules, each subsequent section has the following phrase “ When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled.” This phrase shows twice in the courts rules, first as a requirement in the Argumentation subsection in order to close the Evidence Phase and again in the Deliberation section in order to close the Argument phase. If the court’s logic is correct, then there would have been no need for the rules to state that the Argumentation phase can only end when all motions and objections have been settled. This clearly establishes that there can be objections and motions during the Argument phase.

The second leap in logic the court makes in this ruling is “we still have an unresolved motion and thus we are still in the evidence submission phase.” Again the court's own words disprove this statement. The court stated in this post on the record that the case was in the Argument phase. We asked the court to confirm that the evidence submission period was closed. The court confirmed in this post that the case had moved from the evidence phase to argument. For the court to now backtrack in order to justify its ruling is improper and has no bases in law.

We seek the court to review this matter to correct this miscarriage of justice, and will submit further briefing, should this request be accepted.

We request the recusal of Attempted Socialism, as it is their ruling which is being challenged

We request the recusal of Wymondham and Eluvatar, as they are currently on the bench and likely participated in the close door discussions on this matter before a ruling was made.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

I recuse myself.

 

[Eluvatar]

I disagree with the requestor that speaking about a matter makes one have "a vested interest" or be "otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner."

I will ask @Wymondham and @Simone (our Standby Hearing Officer) to vote on whether I should be recused or not, unless @Wymondham chooses to recuse himself.

 

[Wymondham]

I will not be recusing myself, I do not believe that speaking about something creates a vested interest or would prevent me from ruling in a fair and unbiased manner.

 

[Dreadton]

Under 3.2.10 of the legal code, i request a formal vote on the recusal of @Eluvatar and @Wymondham

 

[Eluvatar]

I already understood you to have asked that, and we have started that process.

 

[Eluvatar]

The panel has voted 2:0 (myself not voting) that I need not recuse myself. The panel has voted 2:0 (Wymondham not voting) that Wymondham need not recuse himself.

 

[Eluvatar]

The court is accepting this request for review, and I will serve as the moderating justice. The court recognizes @Attempted Socialism as the respondent.

The court invites briefs from interested parties, on the questions posed by @Dreadton about @Attempted Socialism's actions and application of the court procedures and on the question of when decisions by a moderating justice should be immediately reviewable versus when they should wait for the conclusion of any trial.

Please register any interest in offering a brief promptly, as in the interests of time I would like to end the brief submission period early if practicable. (The standard period is five days, but if everyone who's planning to submit a brief has done so before that, I will exercise my discretion to adjust it).

 

[TlomzKrano]

I will be submitting a brief and have recognized your desire to have an expedited process, therefore I will have it submitted as soon as I can.

 

[Eluvatar]

I anticipate @Dreadton and @TlomzKrano will be submitting briefs. May I anticipate @Attempted Socialism will too?

 

[Attempted Socialism]

Yes, I intend to submit a brief.

 

[Dreadton]

On the improper acceptance of evidence

I will add no further briefing. It is clear that no further briefing will contribute in a meaningful way in front of this elected court if submitted by myself.

On the review time frame of moderating justices.

The court, on its on accord, introduced a question not related to the subject of the filing. The request submitted is on the decision of the moderating justice and on the phases of the trial, not on the timing of the Request for Review. The court has no authority or legal grounds to sua sponte add a questions not related to the subject of the filing.

The court cannot regulate the timing on when a party can file a request for review. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to redress grievances. If the court seeks to limit that right via when a Request for Review can be filed related to a criminal case, the court must bring the matter to the Regional Assembly. The court cannot introduce a rule to limit a right that the citizen has, to do so would be unconstitutional. Article 6.17 of the Constitution prevents such an action, as the Bill of Rights are codified within Article 1.

Preventing a Request for Review from being filed when the error or issue occurs would be a further miscarriage of justice. For example, delaying this request until the end of trail would 1) waste the court and the parties time as every decision since the originating issue can be rendered moot, 2) should the decision be material to the conduct of the trial and require the trail to be dismissed, a nominal error can force the indictment to be refiled triggering double jeopardy protections. Judaical economy and the Rule of Law, requires the issues to be address upon the filing of a proper request for review and such request cannot be delayed to the end of trial by court rule.

 

[Vivanco]

On Evidence, Case-Law and its Consequences.
A legal brief by Vivanco, a concerned resident.
​

According to the Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure of The North Pacific's Legal Code (fowards TNPLC), the standard procedure for all criminals will be established by a majority agreement of the Court. It is this legal status that the Court proceeded to create a set of procedures to follow in the case of a Penal / Criminal case.

Such developement of TNPLC is met in the Court Rules and Procedures (fowards CRP), and in Section 2.3 we find the set timeline to follow on trial. It consists of five stages: Plea Submissions, Evidence Submissions, Argumentations, Deliberations and Sentencing.

Within each stage, the Court has set when every stage starts and when it ends. When it comes to Pleas, being set at the top, it begins when the Trial begins, up until either the defendant submits a plea or the set period of time by the Court at the establisment of a Trial runs out, automatically submitting a Not Guilty plea.

Evidence Submission, which is the matter at hand starts right after the end of Plea Submission, and ends, as the next phase' start states, "when all outstanding motions and objections have been settled".

On how Evidence is handled is stated in the following section of the CRP, Section 3, and being the disputed fact a Witness Testimony, we should see Section 3.6 and 3.7, as the object at hand is not a statement, but a Deposition.

The procedure for depositions is a simple one. A separate threat, a moderating justice, how each party can object to the questions... And then, close to the end, we find the following.

"At the completion of a deposition, the Moderating Justice will publish an official record version of the deposition in the trial thread, with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.I"
This is clear enough, but a human mistake happened by the Court, as they declared the end of Evidence Submission before such a deposition could be closed on proper by the CRP.

One could suggest that no clarification of when this should be posted appears, but in Section 3.8, we find that the statements must be sent before the End of Submission and that it would be posted in the trial thread, and all of the writing suggests that this is done in the timetable of Evidence Submissions. So, we have found our source of the problem. Now, we can see how it was attempted to be fixed by the Court.

The Court, after declaring the Evidence Submission phase over, seemingly "re-opened" such a period just in time to post the witness' testimony, and just to deny both the prosecution and the defense's motions under the pretense that the phase to submit motions is over. What happened here?

Here we find a grand display of disdain for the procedure on the Trial. Either the phase is over for all, or it's still open. The court accepted that they can fix their mistake out of the determined law and phase, while at the same time denying the Defense and the Prosecution under the pretense that at first glance, would have impeded the Court to publish such deposition.

What does Court and the law supposedly stand for? Justice, impartiaity, and most importantly, being fair. Does bypassing by one side the procedure while denying others such bypass seem fair? Does the Court enjoy the priviledges of bypassing the law while punishing other sides for it?

To bypass procedures is a dangerous gate, a gate to abuse of power.

No nation, no citizen, and no Court is above the law. And the Court should know that.

And this is where case law comes in handy. When a Trial has caused procedural damage, such as this is the case, the case is taken back to the situation previous to the case. In the case of Whole India (On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials), this led to the sentence being vacated and given back to the Court for resentencing, as this was the phase at hand.

In this case, the case should be taken back into Evidence Submission, where the flaws of the trial can be amended and, in its case, the motions from the Defense and Prosecution should be examined by the Court.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

I will start this brief by clearing up a two things. First, did I make a mistake? Yes, obviously. I should have clearly accepted the evidence as presented by the Prosecution, given that the Defence made no attempt to contest the posts, and the posts were preserved in their original place and a transcript provided. It was an unfortunate and unforced error. I also should have promptly posted the transcript of the deposition upon the closing of the deposition.

The mistake was solely mine, and not a proud moment for me. The Prosecution could, rightly, see it as the Court messing up their case before the Court got to deliberate on a verdict. The issue comes when the Defence tries to use an error by the Court to torpedo the Prosecution’s case. The Court is not an enemy of the Defence, but a neutral arbiter of evidence and argument. Yet, in an effort to get the case dismissed with prejudice, rather than arguing the case, the Defence made a mockery of the trial and abused the Court’s trust.
To show why, I will pull back the curtain a bit, and lay out the chronology. Quotes below are from the conversation on Discord which included the Prosecution, TlomzKrano, both Defence Attorneys, Dreadton and Robespierre, and myself. It has been used for scheduling and notifying other parties.
On October 6th, the deposition of St George ended. That was the same day I asked Prosecution and Defence whether they were both ready to move on:

Are we ready to get into your arguments?

Now, the reply to such a question, had the Defence realised the issue of posting the transcript or clearly accepting the evidence, should have included a reminder to the Court to get the paperwork in order. Instead, the Defence waited three days to ask a clarifying question. At that point, I now suspect, the Defence had already planned to use my mistake in an effort to get the case dismissed. Otherwise, the following events make little sense. I respond to the Defence on the 9th, but on the 11th the Defence once again broaches the topic in our common conversation on Discord:

Dreadton: @Kim Philby both sides have no objectios to moving into the next phase
i want to have this in the courts hands before end of the month so i can SG for z day

To this I reply:

Yeah, I'm sorry I have been less responsive. Starting work alongside my health issues means that my time and energy are under more pressure than usual. But I don't believe I need to restate that we are in arguments phase; unless it was unclear with my previous post and clarification. I'm happy to do it if it was unclear, though.
And I saw that Tlomz will post arguments this week. We are pretty far behind deadline, so I can only appeal to you to get it posted as soon as possible. There's a Judicial election coming up which puts something of a hard deadline on the current Court's ability to oversee the trial.
So if at all possible I would want the Court to be able to begin deliberation before the 23rd.

At this point, the Defence chooses deception rather than allowing the case to proceed:

Dreadton: i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court

This argument did not make sense to me at the time, but I also did not foresee the derailment. Should I have done so? Again, yes, and it is my mistake that I didn’t. The Defence, however, came back within 51 minutes (The time between my post and the Defence’s motion) with a motion for mistrial.
This brazen disregard for the Court should not be rewarded. The Defence had a point, in the very technical sense, that I should have accepted the evidence and posted the transcript, but given that the Defence’s motion hinged on being in the argumentation phase, they found themself in a catch-22. The Court Rules and Procedures do not allow for submission of motions during the Argumentation phase:

Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.

Thus, I had two broad options. Either I could go back to the Evidence phase and rectify my mistake by accepting the evidence and posting the transcript, which would imply denying both the Defence’s and the Prosecution’s motions – for dismissal with prejudice due to lack of evidence and mistrial due to the Court’s error respectively – or, alternatively, I could accept the logic of the Defence’s motion, but I would then have to decline to even receive the motions given that they were inappropriately submitted.
I chose the former option. I moved back to Evidence, accepted the evidence, posted the transcript, and denied the two outstanding motions. I then moved forward into the Argumentation phase.

It was at this point the Defence chose to stop participation in the trial and submitted this request for review instead.

With the events leading up to the review being accepted now clear, I can move on to rather crucial aspects, namely, whether the Defendants were harmed by the way I rectified my mistake, whether Constitutional protections or laws were violated, and end with a short comment on the timing of the immediate review.

Were the Defendants Harmed?
The answer is no. The Prosecution was not put in a privileged position by the Court in any way. The evidence had been submitted and the deposition had been performed correctly and timely. The exact same evidence would exist if the Court had granted a mistrial.
I chose to rectify a mistake that I had made that put the Defence in a very privileged position and denied the Prosecution their evidence. That, however, is not harm to the defendant. The rectification put Prosecution and Defence on equal footing, insofar that they had both had the chance to timely submit evidence for their respective cases, pose questions to the witness during the deposition, and now would have the opportunity to use the timely submitted evidence and the deposition during the trial. The Defence may be angry at me that I did not grant them a free win in defending their clients, but that does not translate into a material harm to their case.

Were Constitutional Protections or Laws Violated?
The Defence claims that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, our Legal Code, and the Court Rules and Procedures were all violated. This is untrue. The opinion cited by the Defence concerns images, which were not submitted and thus did not need verification as the evidence was readily accessible in its original location on the RMB. Therefore Article 4 Section 5 of the Constitution has not been violated. It may be that the Defence merely cites the opinion to show they have standing, in which case I agree, but I would then have to point out that no attempt has been made by me – or to my knowledge anyone else – to deny them standing in this review.
The Defence claims that both Section 7 and 11 of the Bill of Rights were violated. 7 guarantees a fair, impartial, and public trial, the presumption of innocence, free choice of representation, and a sentence proportional to the crime. The Defence tried to leverage my mistake into forcing the Court to give the Defendants a far more lenient trial than any other defendant, namely, one where the Prosecution is denied any evidence to support their case. By denying the Defence that leverage, I upheld the guarantee of a fair trial.
Section 11 prohibits government authorities from suspending or disregarding the Constitution or Legal Code. I did no such thing.
The Legal Code requires that a standard procedure for all criminal trials be established. Unless the Defence is claiming that I somehow disestablished the Court Rules and Procedures, I fail to see how I broke that clause of the Legal Code.

Where the Defence has a point, again in the most technical sense, is that I made a mistake by not clearly accepting the evidence submitted, and that I did not post the transcript. The Defence could have reminded me to do so, in which case we would have been without this review, but chose to try for this derailment of the trial instead. The question for the panel, as far as I see it, is whether the way I rectified my mistake was in order. As I stated above, the way I chose to rectify my mistake was to post the transcript, according to the Court Rules and Procedures Chapter 1, Section 3, clause 7. The documentary evidence was in its original form and location, namely, the posts on the RMB, and the submission included a link to that original form and location alongside a transcript. Thus, per Chapter 1, Section 3, clause 5, there was no need for independent authentication. My rectification followed Chapter 1, Section 3, clause 4, in accepting the submitted evidence.

The Defence points to Chapter 1, Section 3, clause 8. This clause concerns witness statements, which were not included in the trial. I humbly suggest that the Defence has mistaken witness statements and witness depositions; depositions are ruled by clause 7, not clause 8.

I made a mistake by not accepting the evidence submitted, and by not promptly posting the deposition transcript. The Defence knew that, and as I have laid out above, sought to use that error for a material advantage in a brazen disregard for the Court. The corrective to my mistake would have been a reminder to file the paperwork, so we could have been without this entire review.


Immediate Review:
I will make clear that I do not think a decision on immediate review of decisions by moderating justices during trials should be made in a Court opinion. It is more properly a topic for the Court Rules and Procedures, which can elaborate on the procedure of motions. If the opinion on the possibility of immediate review is contained within the larger decision on this review, that knowledge will be cordoned off for all but the most avid Court watchers. It will also cease to be within the Court’s power to adapt the procedures to the times, as the Court cannot review its own decisions sua sponte.
However, it is apparent to me that this review is intended to be a spanner in the works of a particular trial. The Court should consider whether it will accept that any and all reviews concerning a pending trial be considered privileged, or whether it can postpone some reviews to the conclusion of the case, to make sure that the trial itself is not unduly interrupted. The obvious trade-off is that, if a mistake is made during a trial, it may be easy to rectify the mistake forthrightly – as happened here – rather than seeing the trial to conclusion and only then rectify a mistake, at which point the verdict or entire trial may have to be vacated.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

An earlier version had an error in the penultimate section, where I had inadvertently written 'witness', but it should say 'Defence'. I have edited my brief to correct the error, and preserved the original below.

I made a mistake by not accepting the evidence submitted, and by not promptly posting the deposition transcript. The witness knew that, and as I have laid out above, sought to use that error for a material advantage in a brazen disregard for the Court. The corrective to my mistake would have been a reminder to file the paperwork, so we could have been without this entire review.

 

[Dreadton]

Supplemental Brief in Response

Ignoring the fraudulent statements on the Defenses intent from @Attempted Socialism, I submit the following to once again restate the glaring flaw in the Justice's argument.

He states the following in his brief:

This brazen disregard for the Court should not be rewarded. The Defence had a point, in the very technical sense, that I should have accepted the evidence and posted the transcript, but given that the Defence’s motion hinged on being in the argumentation phase, they found themself in a catch-22. The Court Rules and Procedures do not allow for submission of motions during the Argumentation phase:

Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.

He conveniently leaves out the following bullet point from the same subsection of the court rules:

Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.

The justice's argument that there cannot be any motions in the argument phase is factually false and grossly misleading. For the court to accept that his argument is correct, would ignore the plain text reading of the Deliberation section. You must be able to submit motions and request during the Argumentation phase, otherwise why would the court need to resolve them before moving into deliberations?

 

[Eluvatar]

The five days having expired (yesterday) no further briefs will be accepted. The judicial panel will deliberate.

 

[Eluvatar]

As a progress update, the Court is moving from discussion to drafting. Expect a ruling soon

 

[TlomzKrano]

Your honor, while I in no way wish to rush the court, I want to confirm my assumption that a ruling will be issued before the conclusion of the upcoming judicial election.

I appreciate your time and look forward to the ruling.

 

[Eluvatar]

That is the intention.

The delay is solely my responsibility. I plead Z-day and other unexpected urgent matters.

 

[TLB]

Your Honor,may i ask a question

 

[Simone]

Please note that I am resigning as THO for this R4R and as SHO, as the Delegate has asked me to take up the position of Minister of World Assembly Affairs following Magecastle's resignation.

 

[Wymondham]

The court has appointed @Just a Lore as Temporary Hearing Officer in place of Simone. Lore, please take your oath.

 

[Eluvatar]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Dreadton on the proper timing of the phases of a trial
Opinion drafted by Justice @Eluvatar, joined by Justice @Wymondham and Hearing Officer @Just a Lore.​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the ruling by @Attempted Socialism so appealed.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by @Dreadton.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Attempted Socialism.

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 and its territories 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.
...
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific and its territories is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region and its territories on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region and its territories shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific and its territories the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
...
11. No governmental authority of the region and its territories has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region and its territories, with the express consent of the Nations of the region and its territories or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure
17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

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

Chapter 1: Criminal Trials
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:

• Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
• Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
• Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
• Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
• Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.

4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
...
Chapter 4: Decorum
Section 2: General Conduct
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.

The Court opines the following:

In this case there is a balance to be struck between three needs: the need for a trial that is fair in that it does not take too long, for the opportunity to be heard at all stages of a trial, and for a trial that is fair in that both sides are treated fairly by the court.

Were the Court to exclude the evidence in the case at hand due to a procedural error by the judge, and therefore dismiss the case with prejudice, or even rule a mistrial, it would be unfair to the prosecution.

When the Court returned the case to evidence submission for the purpose of completing the judge's evidentiary duties, but then immediately proceeded to arguments, that denied both sides the opportunity to be heard.

Through this appeal to a request for review, the trial was greatly delayed, in part due to force majeure, in part inevitably due to the process of a request for review.

Furthermore, the Moderating Justice presents a claim that the defense counsel was dishonest with their request that the Court state that the trial had entered the Arguments stage. For this claim the most relevant evidence would be the discord log of the defense counsel saying:

i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court

However, when the Moderating Justice did state the trial was in the Arguments stage, the defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial (within an hour). If this log is accurate, it suggests that the defense counsel dissimulated in the motivation they offered for the clarification. After all, "hehe you screwed up here see you in court" pretty well characterizes their motion following the restatement.

The court rules mandate that:

2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.

As dishonesty by a legal counsel deleterious to confidence in our legal system and the ability for a Moderating Justice to hold a fair trial, it can easily be argued that it is not appropriate. The enforcement mechanism would be a finding of contempt, appealable to the Regional Assembly.

Finding against a party is not a specified penalty for dishonesty. If the Court wishes to grant a Moderating Justice the power to reject motions as inappropriate due to dishonesty, it should alter the rules accordingly. As written, a Moderating Justice would have to split a post out of the trial topic as inappropriate, and not rule on it at all, not rule against it.

The Court notes that the court rules explicitly allow for the Moderating Justice to adjust the timetable to ensure a fair trial. However, the language regarding the timing of motions is ambiguous: motions are only explicitly allowed in the evidence submission stage, but both Arguments and Deliberations state a requirement to settle outstanding motions. This could mean that motions are allowed in Arguments, also, or it could mean that some motions don't count as "outstanding" as they don't need to be settled before the Arguments stage begins. It would benefit the Court to clarify.

In the interests of speedier trials, it might also benefit the Court to better regulate requests for review during a trial.

The Court finds that the case must be returned to evidence submission and both sides be permitted a brief window to make any necessary motions regarding the evidence, following its acceptance and transcription by the Court.