In the court reform thread, Bel noted:

Article 7.2 could probably do with something along the line of factual error/new evidence included.

The relevant article:

(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)

(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018, 11:17 AM by Amerion.)

Reply

What exactly are "process violations"?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

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

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels 
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

So ... something like "... or upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion"?

Reply

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

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels 
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply