Shireroth

Once again, a mere draft. Suggestions please!
---

PROCEDURES OF THE IMPERIAL JUDEX

RULE I - GENERAL INTERPRETATIONS
1. These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every proceeding in the Imperial Republic of Shireroth, and shall be liberally construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.
2. Where an accused or defendant is not represented by an Advocate (as registered and authenticated by the Mango Bar of Shireroth) but acts in person, anyting that these rules require or permit an Advocate to do shall be done by the accused or defandant.
3. "An Arbiter" shall be interpreted as anyone who is permitted to act as judge in context. This includes the Arbiter of the Imperial Judex, the Assistant Arbiter, any Duke (in their court), and the Kaiser.

RULE II - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES
1. An Arbiter of the Judex may only dispense with compliance with any rule where and to the extent it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

RULE III - PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
3.01 Any citizen of Shireroth may bring a case by filing a petition with the Arbiter, in accordance with this Rule 3.
3.02 Unless otherwise ordered by an Arbiter of the Judex, an applicant shall provide, upon the filing of a petition in the Imperial Judex, the following:
(a) the applicant´s full name and residence;
(b) the defendant´s (if there is one) full name and residence
(c) any background information which the applicant thinks relevant to the trial;
(d) an indication of which Shirithian law(s) has been broken;
(e) a copy of any evidence or affidavits that are relevant to the trial and to the law indicated in (d);
(f) a list of all relevant links to the evidence (if any) provided in (eical order;
(g) any other material that is necessary for the hearing of the application.
3.03 An Arbiter shall have 7 days to respond to the petition. If no Arbiter responds, the petition will be considered dismissed.
3.04 Once an Arbiter has ruled to hear a petition, both the applicant and the defendant shall have 72 hours to prepare any evidence or other materials they may require for the hearing.

RULE IV - TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
4.01 The Arbiter, upon beginning the trial, shall reiterate the following:
(a) the applicant;
(b) the defendant;
(c) the law(s) which has been allegedly broken
4.02 The Arbiter will allow the applicant to make an opening statement
4.03 The Arbiter will allow the defendant to make an opening statement
4.04 The Arbiter shall then ask the defendant to plead "guilty" or "not guilty".
4.05 Should the defendant plead guilty, the Arbiter may make a final ruling and adjourn the trial.
4.06 Should the defendant plead not guilty, the Arbiter must continue with the trial as outlined in this rule.
4.07 The Arbiter will then allow the applicant to call his/her witnesses.
4.08 All witnesses may be cross-examined by the Defense.
4.09 The Arbiter will then allow the defendant to call his/her witnesses.
4.10 All witnesses may be cross-examined by the applicant.
4.11 The Arbiter will allow both the applicant and the defendant to make closing statements.
4.12 The Arbiter may ask any additional questions he may have.
4.13 The Arbiter will rule (guilty or not guilty) on each of the alleged violations.
4.14 The Arbiter will impose sanctions and/or punishments for each violation that the defendant is found guilty of.
4.15 The Arbiter will inform the defendant that they may appeal the ruling of the Judex (or other court in context) within 5 days to the Kaiser (or next highest Arbiter) under one or more of the following conditions:
(a) A procedural error was committed that may have affected the outcome of the hearing,
(b) The disciplinary sanction ware for the gravity of the violation,
(c) The facts in the case were not sufficient to establish that there was a violation of the Charter/LawBook/DecreeBook, or
(d) New evidence has been discovered that might alter the outcome of the hearing and such evidence was not known to the accused at the time of the hearing.


4.16 All should address the Arbiter as "honourable Arbiter/Assistant Arbiter"
4.17 All should address the Advocate for the Defense as "Counsel"
4.18 All should address the Advocate for the applicant as "Inquisitor"

RULE V - POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

5.1 OBJECTIONS AND RULINGS
Objections to the admission of evidence will occur throughout the trial-in both the prosecution´s case and the defendant´s case.
In ruling on the objection, the judge should hear the full objection, hear a response from the non-objecting attorney, and then rule.
If the Judex concludes that the objection is without merit (that is, the evidence is admissible), the Judex will "overrule" the objection (and if applicable) tell the witness to answer.
If the Judex concludes that the objection is valid and that the evidence is inadmissible, the Judex will "sustain" the objection (and if applicable) tell the witness not to answer.
Note: Witnesses cannot object to questions, but can assert their right not to testify if their testimony would be self-incriminating or if otherwise privileged.
5.11 Where objection is taken to a question, the objector shall state briefly the reason for the objection, and the question and the brief statement concerning the objection shall be recorded.
5.12 A question to which objection is taken may be answered with the objector´s consent, and where the question is answered, a ruling shall be obtained from the ruling Arbiter before the evidence is used.
5.13 A ruling on the propriety of a question to which objection is made and an answer not given may be obtained from the ruling Arbiter.

5.2 DISRUPTION AND CONTEMPT OF JUDEX
5.21 The rticipant in the trial in contempt of Judex.
5.22 Contempt of Judex shall be punished by no more than removal of the guilty party from the trial.
5.23 Should the proceedings described in 5.22 take place, the trial may continue should the guilty party have an Advocate, or should the Arbiter allow the guilty party back into the Judex room.

Very good work. I'll have a look at this soon and get back to you. Thanks.

I like.

Some of my observations: All in all I now have a tendency to think this isn´t vague enough overall, doesn´t allow for enough error and interpretation in trials or hearings.

4.11 The Arbiter will allow both the applicant and the defendant to make closing statements.
4.12 The Arbiter may ask any additional questions he may have.

Why are there more questions after the closing statements?

4.14 The Arbiter will impose sanctions and/or punishments for eaiolation that the defendant is found guilty of.

Ordeals - ordeals is the Shirerothian way ... and law.

4.15 The Arbiter will inform the defendant that they may appeal the ruling of the Judex (or other court in context) within 5 days to the Kaiser (or next highest Arbiter) under one or more of the following conditions:

(a) A procedural error was committed that may have affected the outcome of the hearing,

Why isn´t the Arbiter suppose to get the court procedures in order during the trial? I mean if the Arbiter knows about something outside of proper procedure why wait to announce it after the sentence?

(b) The disciplinary sanction was too severe for the gravity of the violation,

Is this to say that an Arbiter pronounces a sanction and then says, "Hey that is a bit severe, but what the heck, if you don´t like it you can always make an appeal!"

(c) The facts in the case were not sufficient to establish that there was a violation of the Charter/LawBook/DecreeBook, or

Is this to say that an Arbiter would know the facts are not sufficient for a conviction but goes ahead and says "guilty" anyways?

(d) New evidence has been discovered that might alter the outcome of the hearing and such evidence was not known to the accused at the time of the hearing.

Considering this is right at the end of the hearing, why is such evidence not allowed to be heard or re-trial ordered?

5.1 OBJECTIONS AND RULINGS
Objections to the admission of evidence will occur throughout the trial-in both the prosecution´s case and the defendant´s case.

Objections will occur - is this a mandate to both the prosecution and defendant to object to something, at least once? What if there isn´t an objection?

In ruling on the objection, the judge should hear the full objection, heon-objecting attorney, and then rule.

Should ... you said should? So if the "judge" (Arbiter) doesn´t hear the full objection or the full response would that be a possible mistrial; or this for sure a "should" and not required?

Austi_Scot wrote:Some of my observations: All in all I now have a tendency to think this isn´t vague enough overall, doesn´t allow for enough error and interpretation in trials or hearings.

The point is not to restrict the trial procedure in any way, merely to offer guidance as to how an ideal trial would look. But when is anything ever ideal? Perhaps we will need to make it less "legal".

4.11 The Arbiter will allow both the applicant and the defendant to make closing statements.
4.12 The Arbiter may ask any additional questions he may have.

Why are there more questions after the closing statements?

It's a "may". If the Arbiter doesn't need to, then he doesn't have to. It's just to say that the opportunity is there if he needs it.

4.14 The Arbiter will impose sanctions and/or punishments for each violation that the defendant is found guilty of.
Ordeals - ordeals is the Shirerothian way ... and law.

S'aright. My mistake.

4.15 The Arbiter will inform the defendant that they may appeal the ruling of the Judex (or other court in context) within 5 days to the Kaiser (or next highest Arbiter) under one or more of the following conditions:

Pretty much for this entire section, it's IF the defendant THINKS that one of the following conditions is applicable, they may appeal. It's more a way of saying: "You don't like it? Well, if you can use one of these options, go for it."

[quote:1qerepS AND RULINGS
Objections to the admission of evidence will occur throughout the trial-in both the prosecution´s case and the defendant´s case.
Objections will occur - is this a mandate to both the prosecution and defendant to object to something, at least once? What if there isn´t an objection?[/quote]
No, that was a general assumption. It is not a mandate. Objections do not necessarily need to occur in any trial. Perhaps we need to reword this.

In ruling on the objection, the judge should hear the full objection, hear a response from the non-objecting attorney, and then rule.
Should ... you said should? So if the "judge" (Arbiter) doesn´t hear the full objection or the full response would that be a possible mistrial; or this for sure a "should" and not required?

I think in this and in everything else, we're reading into it a bit too much. These are guidelines. The Arbiter may dispense with any of these rules should he feel necessary. Perhaps a preamble is necessary to state that.

Thanks for the observations, they help a lot!

I will get back to you here with a revised version, a more laid-back version so to speak. The groundwork is very good, it just needs to be Shirerithitized.

Agreed, and thanks.