Justices,

Kris Kringle and Professor Henn have brought assault charges against Salaxalans. We need to decide if there is enough evidence for a trail.  A while back, Belschaft wrote legislation for Criminal Case Procedures, and I believe this is a good opportunity for us to give them a test run before I eventually present them to the Assembly. Please look them over, get familiar, and tell me what you think about the case procedures/the charges.

Quote:

Criminal Cases Procedures

Article 1: Complaint Procedure and Pre-Trial
Section 1: Complaint Procedure

1. Any resident of The South Pacific may lodge a criminal complaint against an individual residing within the jurisdiction of The South Pacific, or have such done on their behalf by a representative. An individual doing such will be referred to as “The Complainant” and their representative as “Complainants Counsel” during the pre-trial period. An individual who has had a criminal complaint lodged against them will be referred to as “The Accused” and their representative as “Accused’s Counsel” during the pre-trial period.
   
2. The Complainant or Complainants Counsel must create a thread identifying the Accused party or parties, the criminal offence they believe the Accused has perpetrated, and presenting sufficient preliminary evidence to warrant a trial.
   
3. The Chief Justice will publicly acknowledge receipt of this complaint within 72 hours, and the High Court Justices will collectively determine whether sufficient preliminary evidence has been presented to warrant trial.
   
4. Should the evidence presented be deemed insufficient then the complaint will be rejected until such time that further evidence is presented.
   
5. Should the evidence presented be deemed sufficient then they will publicly state such, and further inform both the Complainant and the Accused or their representatives via personal message. At this point a case number will be assigned and a new thread created for the Pre-Trial stage and all subsequent stages.
   

Section 2: Pre-Trial

1. Once the case enters the pre-trial stage the Complainant, the Accused, and their respective representatives will be referred to as “The Prosecution” and “The Defence”. The Complainant remains referred to as such, whilst the Accused will be referred to as “The Defendant”.
   
2. The Defence has 72 hours to respond to the complaint once the pre-trial stage is entered. Should they not respond to the complaint then The High Court will proceed to formal trial, with a plea of not guilty automatically entered. In these circumstances The High Court will appoint a representative for the Defendant to act as the Defence in their stead.
   
3. In responding to the complaint the Defence must first enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. Should the Defence enter a guilty plea then The High Court will move immediately to sentencing. A not guilty plea can be changed to a guilty plea at any point in time following this stage.
   
4. Subsequent to this both the Defence and the Prosecution may submit pre-trial motions, including but not limited to motions to dismiss the charges, alter the charges and for one or more Court Justices to recuse themselves. Such motions should provide evidentiary reason to justify them, and will be considered by the Court Justices collectively. Such motions may be considered later at the discretion of the Court Justices, but will not be granted short of extraordinary circumstances outside of the pre-trial stage. Dismissal of charges does not result in jeopardy attaching to the complaint.
   
5. Once all pre-trial motions have been addressed the Defence and the Prosecution will have a period of at least 72 hours to submit lists of intended witness and all other forms of evidence to the Chief Justice for review and approval. The Court Justices will collectively approve or deny each proposed witness and piece of evidence, and provide the approved lists to both the Defence and the Prosecution.
   
6. The Defence and the Prosecution will then have a further 72 hours to review the approved lists and lodge any objections to the others list. Objections will be considered at the discretion of the Chief Justice. The Defence and the Prosecution both have the right to cross-examine the others witnesses, and should state such intention at this point. A subsequent request to cross examine a witness after seeing their testimony may be considered at the discretion of the Chief Justice, but will not be granted short of extraordinary circumstances.
   
7. A period of time will then be allowed for the gathering of all witness testimony. This should be arranged via a means mutually agreeable to the Defence and the Prosecution, or failing this by a means determined by the Chief Justice. Should a witness prove hostile whilst testifying or refuse to testify then the matter should be reported to the Chief Justice. In such circumstances the Court Justices will collectively consider the matter, and may compel the witness to cooperate or should they refuse find them in contempt.
   
8. Once all witness testimony has been collected it must be submitted to the Chief Justice for review and approval. The Court Justices will collectively approve or object to each set of testimony or segments of such, and provide the reviewed version to both the Defence and the Prosecution.
   
9. The Defence and the Prosecution will then have a further 72 hours to review the provided versions of the witness testimony and lodge any objections. Objections will be considered at the discretion of the Chief Justice. Once this has been completed the case will move to trial.
   

Article 2: Trial

1. The Prosecution will have 72 hours to present their case, including all approved evidence and witness testimony.
   
2. The Defence will then have 72 hours to present their case, including all approved evidence and witness testimony.
   
3. The Prosecution will then have 72 hours to rebut the Defence’s case.
   
4. The Defence will then have 72 hours to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
   
5. The case will then proceed to verdict and sentencing.
   

Article 3: Verdict and Sentencing
Section 1: Verdict

1. The Court Justices will collectively reach a verdict amongst themselves.
   
2. The Defendant may either be found guilty or not guilty by a majority decision.
   
3. Should a guilty verdict be reached then the case will proceed to sentencing immediately.
   
4. Should a not guilty verdict be reached then jeopardy attaches to the complaint.
   
5. Should no majority decision be reached then a mistrial will be declared. The Defendant is found neither guilty nor not guilty, and jeopardy may be attached to the complaint at the discretion of the Court Justices.
   

Section 2: Sentencing

1. Immediately subsequent to reaching a guilty verdict the Court Justices will determine sentence, to be announced at the same time.
   
2. Should the Defendant fail to carry out their sentence, or an official prevent or refuse to enforce it, the Court Justices may find them in contempt.
   

Article 4: Other

1. All verdicts will be accompanied by an explanatory opinion explaining how and why the High Court reached the verdict, and why any particular sentence was imposed. When a Justice dissents from a majority verdict they may attach a dissenting opinion. In event of a mistrial then the Chief Justice is responsible for providing the explanatory opinion explaining how and why a mistrial occurred.
   
2. Should the Chief Justice be unavailable, absent, recused, or otherwise unable to preside over a case then another High Court Justice will act in his stead.
   
3. If a Justice is recused, the Non-Presiding Justice will act in their stead.
   
4. Should all Court Justices recuse themselves, the Chief Justice will select replacements from volunteering citizens.
   
5. These procedures may be deviated from as necessary at the discretion of the Chief Justice.
   

I request to serve as the non-presiding Justice for this trial as I am currently overseas, which will make administrating the trial difficult.

Awe: your request is accepted. You shall be the non-presiding Justice if this goes to trail.

I personally believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.

As for the remaining Justices: Do you feel there is sufficient pretrial evidence to warrant a trial?

Sorry about that, I believe we should go for it, this is just a mock trial after all. (...This is a mock trial, right?)

It is, yes. But Mock Trials are supposed to seem real!!

Llamas, what say you?

Awe, a little birdy told me that you were back. How do you feel about being a presiding justice, and moving Llamas to non-presiding as he has neglected to post?

Nope! I'm here! Sorry for slight inactivity earlier, I'm back. I move to prosecute Sal, which makes a majority.

Alright, I shall make the appropriate threads, and notify the appropriate parties.