User:Fosstar/Guide To Trials

From Space Station 13 Wiki
< User:Fosstar
Revision as of 18:58, 2 September 2021 by Fosstar (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

When the courtroom isn't being used to host cult meetings or public executions, it can commonly be found hosting the mockery of legal procedure that NT dares to call a trial. Should you be one of the unfortunate souls called upon to serve as a juror, prosecutor, defendant, or, god forbid, judge, this guide will help you understand your obligations before the inevitable bombing.

Introduction to law

The law is complicated and esoteric. Though you're not expected to understand all of this, a basic understanding is useful during a trial. Remember, your goal isn't to get an innocent person locked up, or to "win," it's to find the truth. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

Basic Concepts

A trial is a hearing with the goal of determining whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Each trial has a judge who makes sure people are following the rules and keeps the trial going, normally the captain/HOP, a jury who decides as a group on guilt or innocence based on a simple majority vote, generally just schmucks who walk in off the street, a prosecutor, who argues NT's case, generally either a security officer or the HOS, and a defendant, who argues their case for their innocence along with their lawyer. Every trial works off of a few basic rules:

  • The defendant is always innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty. This means the judge and jury should treat the defendant like a law abiding citizen and the prosecutor like a nerd spouting nonsense until they prove otherwise.
  • The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. This means that the judge should keep things moving and not let stuff get held up.
  • The defendant has a right not to be tried twice for the same crime. This means that if someone's found innocent of murder, they're innocent. Even if you find out they did it, tough luck, they get to ride to centcom a free spaceman.

Timetable

This timetable should keep a trial from lasting for the entire round, but it's not set in stone. Use whatever works best for the round you're in.

  • 1 minute - The Captain announces the trial and calls for a jury, HOP closes their line and gets their robes on to Judge, security moves the defendant to the courtroom, prosecutor and defendant introduce all their evidence and witnesses.
  • 3 minutes - Prosecutor and defendant present their opening statements. These statements explain what they will prove throughout the trial. No legal arguments are allowed in opening statements. Max time of 1:30 for each statement, should be timed by the judge.
  • 3 minutes - Physical evidence is introduced and explained to the jury.
  • 5 minutes - Witnesses testify about the crime. Each side should get a maximum of 3 witnesses, including a maximum of one character witness.
  • 3 minutes - Each side is allowed to cross examine the other's witnesses and ask them clarifying questions about their testimony.
  • 3 minutes - Prosecutor and defendant present their closing statements. These statements wrap up their arguments and may reference evidence/testimony. Jury is asked to render a verdict.
  • 1 minute - Sentencing.


Basic Terms

Guilty Act

Acus Reus or Guilty Act is a term that measures the responsibility for a crime the defendant has. Someone who tried to blow the captain's head off with a shotgun and failed miserably doesn't deserve the same punishment as someone who actually did it.


Guilt

Guilt is the state of being resposible for a crime. People can either be guilty, meaning they committed a crime and it wasn't an accident, or not guilty, meaning they didn't commit the crime, or it was an accident. Guilt requires two elements, which are listed as scales below along with examples: (Keep in mind much of this is modified and simplified)

Guilty Mind

Mens Rea or Guilty Mind is a term for the state of mind the defendant was in during the crime. The more Mens Rea someone has, the more they deserve punishment. Accidents deserve less punishment than planned crimes.

Guilty Act

Acus Reus or Guilty Act is a term that measures the responsibility for a crime the defendant has. Someone who tried to blow the captain's head off with a shotgun and failed miserably doesn't deserve the same punishment as someone who actually did it.


Evidence

Evidence is the combined materials that establish guilt or innocence in a trial. All evidence must be legally obtained, clear, and directly relevant to the trial. The most compelling evidence is either a direct confession or strong forensic links to a crime scene. The least compelling is hearsay or gossip. Examples of evidence for or against a murder is below: Evidence: Defense Example: Prosecution Example: Counters : Power

Direct (Confession) -- N/A -- John Spaceman confessed to the murder -- Unless you can prove sec beat him to get the confession, Nope -- Don't bother hosting a trial.

Physical (Caught in the Act) -- N/A -- John Spaceman is caught dragging the captain's dead body to an airlock while still stabbing it -- Nope -- Don't bother hosting a trial.

Physical (Item) -- John Spaceman is accused of murder, the murder knife is found with blood on it in Jim Spaceman's bag -- John Spaceman is accused of murder, the murder knife is in his bag -- Claim framing or that the suspect just picked it up to turn it in to security -- Damning

Physical (Forensics) -- John Spaceman is accused of murder, the murder knife is found with Jim Spaceman's prints on it in disposals-- John Spaceman is accused of murder, the murder knife with his prints on it in disposals -- Claim that the defendant was at the scene at an earlier time or that they simply touched the weapon -- Damning

Direct (Witness Testimony - Single) -- John Spaceman is accused of murder, the Botanist says he was smoking weed with him when it happened. -- John Spaceman is accused of murder, The Miner says he saw John stab the victim from space. -- Discredit the witness, impeach their credibility, claim personal gain from testimony, claim links to the defendant or prosecution. Bring in a counter witness to debunk their testimony. -- Damning

Direct (Documents/Messages) -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, he contacted the captain to resolve their disputes 5 minutes before the murder and had a productive PDA conversation. -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, he PDAed Jim Spaceman about wanting the captain dead 5 minutes before the murder -- Claim forgery. Argue that simple emotional expressions aren't proof of intent. -- Good

Direct (Interview Logs) -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, he is interviewed by sec after the fact and presents a strong alibi -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, he is interviewed by sec and admits to hating the captain. -- Very difficult to counter -- Good

Indirect (Character Testimony) -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, 5 people testify that he's a good guy and not the criminal type -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, the clown testifies that he's a good guy and not the criminal type -- Very difficult to counter due to subjectivity, good rethoric is the best way to handle this. -- Moderate

Indirect (Expert Testimony) -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, James Doctor testifies that the captain was murdered with Sarin and that John lacks the means to make Sarin as a Janitor. -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, James Doctor testifies that the captain was murdered with Sarin and that John, as the only scientist, is the only one who could have made sarin. -- Object whenever the expert strays outside of pure fact, prove bias. -- Moderate

Indirect (Hearsay) -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, the clown says he's innocent because he heard that he didn't do it. -- John Spaceman is accused of murdering the captain, the clown says he's guilty because the botanist said he was innocent -- Object if opposing council tries to call the clown, object to any clearly bullshit testimony or testimony on the opinions of others -- Weak

Evidentiary Objections

If evidence is obtained through security acting illegally, if it's weak, or if it could bias the jury, it can be excluded. Objection : Definition : Example

Prejudicial -- Evidence that makes the jury hate the defendant/victim more than it proves anything. Cannot be used to exclude character testimony after the defense "opens the door." -- John Spaceman is on trial for murder, the defense introduces evidence that the victim killed Heisenbee and Tanhony.

Irrelevant -- Evidence that doesn't prove or disprove guilt in a case. -- John Spaceman is on trial for murder, the prosecution introduces the Trial of Heisenbee as evidence.

Illegally Obtained -- Evidence that, though it may be relevant, was obtained through an illegal search or via shady means. Basically the "DON'T MEATGAME" objection -- John Spaceman is on trial for murder, the prosecution introduces evidence that a security officer got by searching him even though he wasn't a suspect.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree -- Evidence that, though it may be relevant, is somehow connected to illegal activities. -- John Spaceman is on trial for murder, the prosecution introduces evidence that a security officer got by following a note he had in his backpack after an illegal search that detailed where he hid the weapon. Defenses: [TODO]