+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] Factual error as reasons for appeal (/thread-6067.html)
[PASSED] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Roavin - 03-19-2018
In the court reform thread, Bel noted:
(03-06-2018, 08:41 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Article 7.2 could probably do with something along the line of factual error/new evidence included.
The relevant article:
Quote:(2) Appeals may only be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct.
So - let's have a discussion, generally. If a court case is finished, but new evidence appears later that may change the outcome of that court case, how do we want that to be handled?
(in particular, I'd love input from @Kris Kringle)
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Kris Kringle - 03-19-2018
What exactly are "process violations"?
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Roavin - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 08:29 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: What exactly are "process violations"?
Not following the process for a case as set out in the laws. For example, under the new law, not waiting the requisite 72 hours before delivering an opinion would be a process violation.
[DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - sandaoguo - 03-19-2018
This seems like a problem arising from mashing together LQs and criminal trials. For LQs, I think the current wording is fine.
For criminal trials, if new *exonerating* evidence arises, then the court should be able to hold a hearing on the validity of the evidence and if it actually exonerates the convicted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Omega - 03-19-2018
I would echo Glen's point but it should be only if it exonerates. I don't think we want to get into double jeopardy situations here.
[DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Rebeltopia - 03-20-2018
That's where "that changes the outcome of the trial" comes in. Double Jeopardy only works when the case would have no/little new evidence.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Roavin - 05-22-2018
So ... something like "... or upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion"?
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Rebeltopia - 05-22-2018
(05-22-2018, 05:45 AM)Roavin Wrote: So ... something like "... or upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion"?Define "a reasonable person"... we don't have too many people here (if at all) who would qualify.
Would the court have to discuss if the new evidence is enough to hold a new trial? Only the justice who presided over the original case? Only the others who didn't?
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Roavin - 05-22-2018
(05-22-2018, 04:16 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote:(05-22-2018, 05:45 AM)Roavin Wrote: So ... something like "... or upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion"?Define "a reasonable person"... we don't have too many people here (if at all) who would qualify.
Would the court have to discuss if the new evidence is enough to hold a new trial? Only the justice who presided over the original case? Only the others who didn't?
Well, reasonable in the context in NS (which isn't particularly reasonable)
I was referring to this, basically:
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Factual error as reasons for appeal - Roavin - 05-24-2018
After thinking about this, I realized another thing: Suppose you have a case with possible outcomes A and B. The court rules A. New evidence arrives, an appeal is made, and the court rules B. However then even more evidence arrives that discredits the original evidence. Basically, the intent of saying appeals can't be appealed is to prevent somebody just appealing ad absurdum, but it does restrict things and I can imagine several scenarios where it would be appropriate.
So, I'm wondering how to square that, or if it's even [i]necessary[i] to have it since at some point repeated appeals would just not meet requirements of justiciability anymore, I suppose. Thoughts?