IV. Judicial

Eligibility for Jury

Only noble title holders are eligible to be members of the Jury. That means, only de jure (official) Crowned Kings, recognized as sitting members of The Council of the Crowned, de jure (official) Dukes, recognized as sitting members of the House of Dukes, and de jure Counts as recognized by their liege. During any Imperial Criminal Court proceedings, any active holder can opt to sit in as a jury member and cannot be denied this role if they request it. Should there be no jury, the judge will be the sole deliberator.

Appointing the Judge and Attorneys

Any active Council of the Crowned member, de jure (official) King, can volunteer to be a judge. Should there be no volunteers, the case will need to be adjourned until another time. Any active Council of the Crowned member, de jure (official) King, or active House of Dukes member, de jure (official) Duke, can volunteer to be the crown prosecutor, whose responsibility is to represent criminal cases brought against defendants. Anyone with a noble title can volunteer to represent the defendant should the defendant agree, or the defendant can represent themselves.

Deliberation and Adjudication

Cases are brought before the International Criminal Court, and the main participants gather before the case begins. The Judge will mediate affairs, and are entitled to unique styles and approaches, but all cases must give the jury, the defendant, the crown prosecutor, and judge fair and reasonable room for discussion, but the judge has the right to cut statements short if they become burdensome to the trial. If a jury is present, they are entitled to have the second-last word. The defendant is entitled to the third-last word should there be a jury, or second-last word if not. The Judge is entitled to the final word and sentence, but agree in mind, body and spirit to fully uphold their commitment to representing the case fairly and in the interest of the Empire, and our founding ideals. The word of the common-folk must be represented by the Judge, be it through the jury or not.

_________________
Lord Siden Rua of Fichina
House of Rua
Imperial Minister of Surveyors and Civil Engineers

In the earlier Modernization of the Historical Constitution thread, I offered a modified version of this section of the Indoles Carta. Only one substantive change has been made along with mild rewording of language to make it clearer and more accessible. The substantive change is highlighted in red.

IV. Judicial

Eligibility for Jury

Only noble title holders - sitting members of The Council of the Crowned, sitting members of the House of Dukes, and Counts - are eligible to be members of the Jury. Should there be no jury, the judge will be the sole deliberator.

Appointing the Judge and Attorneys

The sitting Minister for Justice of the Imperial Cabinet shall be designated as the preferred judge for any Imperial Court Case. If the Minister for Justice is unwilling or unable to act as judge, any sitting member of the Council of the Crowned can volunteer to act as judge. Should there be available judge, the case will be adjourned until a judge can be found. Any active sitting member of the Council of the Crowned, sitting member of the House of Dukes, or Count can volunteer to be the crown prosecutor, with the responsibility of represent criminal cases brought against defendants. The defendant(s) may represent him/themselves or alternatively may request a representative whose role may be assumed by any active sitting member of the Council of the Crowned, sitting member of the House of Dukes, or Count who volunteers.



Deliberation and Adjudication

Cases are brought before the Imperial Criminal Court, and the main participants gather before the case begins. The Judge will mediate affairs, and is entitled to unique styles and approaches, but all cases must give the jury, the defendant, the crown prosecutor, and judge fair and reasonable room for discussion. The judge reserves the right to cut statements short if they become burdensome or irrelevant to the trial. If a jury is present, they are entitled to have the second-last word. The defendant is entitled to the third-last word should there be a jury, or second-last word if not. The Judge is entitled to the final word and sentence, but agree in mind, body and spirit to fully uphold their commitment to representing the case fairly and in the interest of the Empire, and our founding ideals under the principles of organic law. The word of the peoples of the Empire must be represented by the Judge.

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

Agreed with the changes Nicholas has added.

_________________
Petra Ravnikaar of The Veil

Also agreed.

Agreed as well!

_________________
Scrios V
King of Perth, Brother of Valyria

Looks great.

I think we can solve our false cases problem here if we change a few things. My idea is that the case can be appealed as false or unnecessary beforehand and would require a Council vote to pass and void the case. This will prevent people from making meaningless and empty charges for the sake of wasting time and possibly falsely convicting someone.

I would assume the 60% council vote would be necessary to pass.

_________________
Lord Siden Rua of Fichina
House of Rua
Imperial Minister of Surveyors and Civil Engineers

Perhaps I should refrain from speaking to this directly as I was the other party involved in the in the incident that this has resulted from.

Nevertheless:

We're all familiar with the idea of 'probable cause' - that is, for a judicial action (in our case, the holding of a trial) to occur it must be determined via evidence that there is reasonable grounds for suspicion and laying of charges. If we are going to place restrictions on the holding of trials (not a bad idea at all given that the emergence of nee laws such as contractual law could see more civil cases in the future), I would say that this might be a good route to take. Evidence presented by the claimant in the initial laying of charges should be reviewed prior to any trial being held; if the evidence is deemed to be reasonable grounds for not just the fact that the crime occured but also that there is reasonable suspicion that the individual being charged comitted the crime of which they are accused, a trial may be scheduled. If the evidence presented does not satisfy either or both of these requirements, the charges are dismissed unless or until new evidence comes to light at which time charges may be resubmitted.

Now, the other factor here is, of course, who should make this determination. In a number of juridstictions irl, this responsability falls to a judge. I don't know if we want to have a single individual take on this responsability, but if we do then the Justice Minister is the obvious candidate. This method actually strikes me as preferable to having the Council pass a bill, though: we can't expect each or even most members of the Council to become acquainted with or invested in every case, and this opens the door to the bandwagon effect - something we must avoid in judicial cases. In fact, having the Justice Minister take on this role might potentially be better, as candidates for this position would know that a level of judicial objectivity and investment in (what should still be comparatively rare) judicial cases is required in a succesful applicant.

Thoughts?

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

I think leaving it up to the Minister of Justice to determine when a case meets the evidence requirements to be brought to trial is a good idea. In addition, we can draft laws that provide legal recourse to punish those who bring frivolous charges or suits against other people.

_________________
Ulrik Gunnarson
Duke of the Gathered Races of Hermertia Homeland (GRHH)
The Chairman of the GRHH Co.

I would prefer the justice minister assessment of cases over the council voting on things like that. The position of Justice Minister is there for a reason. if the defendant feels it's been throw out frivilously then they could make an appeal to the community ?

_________________
Petra Ravnikaar of The Veil