NE: Northeast v. SomebodyWhoExists

[cinyc]

I don't think that I have any choice but to hear the case under the Northeast Constitution.

My first question to defendant SWE is if he has a lawyer (I will give him ample time to obtain one), how he pleads, and if he pleads not guilty, whether he prefers a bench or jury trial.

[cinyc]

Very well.  Before I go through the process of empaneling a jury, are there any pretrial motions?

[cinyc]

I'd like to hear the Special Prosecutor's argument as to why he thinks he can simultaneously be Special Prosecutor and Senator at the same time when Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Atlasian Constitution seems to ban such dual officeholding.

[cinyc]

Thank you for your arguments.

For the reasons specified by Oakvale in his last post, I find that it Special Prosecutor is an office in the Northeast, and Rpryor03 is therefore barred from being Special Prosecutor and Senator at the same time.  It would be strange for the Assembly to be required to confirm someone who is not considered an officer of the Northeast.

Therefore, unless Rpryor03 is willing to step down as Senator (which I doubt), I have no recourse but to temporarily dismiss the charges without prejudice.  A new Special Prosecutor who does not hold any other office may be named by the Northeast to prosecute SomebodyWhoExists if the Governor thinks it is prudent to do so.

I will give Rpryor03 a day to declare whether he will step down as Senator before charges are automatically temporarily dismissed.

[cinyc]

I'm currently looking for alternative options.

I would ask that you do so as soon as possible.   Justice delayed is justice denied.

[cinyc]

I'm currently looking for alternative options.

I would ask that you do so as soon as possible.   Justice delayed is justice denied.

I shall carry on the prosecution myself.

I suppose that is your prerogative as Governor.  Are the charges going to be the same as Rpryor03s?

Does the defense have any objection to this - or any other pretrial motions before I empanel a jury?  (Ideally, I would do so before I go on vacation next week.  I will have probably have Internet access intermittently, but will only be online sparingly.)

[cinyc]

According to the Registrar General's most recent list, there are 41 Northeasterners.  I've assigned a number from 1 to 41 to all Northeasterners, in the order in which they are presented in the Registrar General's list of residents by region.  This is not necessarily in alphabetical order.   Using the random number sequence generator at Random.org yielded the following numbers:

16 34 22 15 36

That corresponds to the following Northeasterners:
Juror 1: homelycooking
Juror 2: Dallasfan65
Juror 3: Alfred F. Jones
Juror 4: GM3PRP (a.k.a. Grumpy Gramps)
Juror 5: smoltchanov

I will alert the potential jurors that their service is requested. Are there any objections to these jurors?  I have saved the string sequence and will replace those who are unable, unwilling or disqualified from serving with the next person on the list.

[cinyc]

Your Honor,

My client publicly posted his "ignore list" recently, which included the name of the juror smoltchanov.

I believe that, since this list was publicly posted, the juror in question may have seen it and thus harbor an animosity against my client for his admittedly crass public display of disapproval. I also believe his very aggressive identification as a "moderate" opposed to extremists of all hues, which goes above and beyond simple self-labeling, may bias him against my client due to his staunch left-wing views. I humbly request that he be replaced with a juror whose impartiality is beyond reproach.

Your client has a number of Northeasterners on his ignore list, including at least one other prospective juror who has been asked to serve.  Thus, I don't want to go down the road of automatically disqualifying jurors because the defendant has them on ignore.  Not everyone on ignore is even aware that they are on ignore or harbors animus toward the person who placed them on their ignore list.

I'm considering your other argument.  I have a sense that smoltchanov will probably not agree to serve, anyway, so it may be moot.

[cinyc]

My Holiness does not often deign to dabble in secular matters, but if the ecclesiastical hand of the Most Holy Northeaster Catholic Church is required in the adjudication of this trial I shall serve as required.

Thank you for agreeing to serve.  I will inform you by PM when the trial begins or if I sustain an objection to your jury service.

[cinyc]

I have heard back from all of the prospective jurors except Dallasfan65 and Grumps.  I have sent a follow-up PM to those two.  I doubt we will hear back from Grumps, as he hasn't been online since about a month ago.  If I don't hear back by tomorrow night, I will contact their replacements.

The other three potential jurors - Alfred Jones, homelycooking and smoltchanov appear to be willing to serve.

As to smoltchanov, I am not yet convinced of his alleged bias against SomebodyWhoExists, but will allow defense counsel Oakvale to question him about it, if he would prefer to do so.   I suppose I should allow Oakvale and pikachu to question any of the potential jurors if they have any objections, too.  Do either of you wish to do so?

[cinyc]

Smoltchanov -

Do you believe that you can in good conscience and impartially serve as a juror in this case?

[cinyc]

Counselor Oakdale, is smoltchanov's answer acceptable to you or do you still object to the witness?

[cinyc]

Your Honor,

I have nothing but respect for Mr. smoltchanov and commend his willingness to admit the question of impartiality. In the interests of an unimpeachable trial, and seeing that he is open to the prospect, I will regretfully ask that he be replaced.

Fine.  Thank you, smoltchanov, for your service.  You are dismissed.

Dallasfan65 and Grumps haven't responded to my PM.  The next four numbers are 14, 13, 41 and 18.  14 is me, and I'm ineligible to serve on the jury.  The next three potential jurors are bronz4141, polnut and Oakvale, who is inelgible to serve because he is defense counsel.  Oakvale will be replaced by 6, AutumnLeaf, if he is willing to serve. 

I will contact bronz4141, polnut and AutumnLeaf by PM to invite them to serve on the jury.  Does anyone have any objection to these potential jurors?

[cinyc]

Your Honor,

I regret being a pain on this topic, but I must note that AutumnLeaf displays a bias against the counsel for defense - er, me - that may prejudice him -

You are a bad guy, master oakvale TwT

Let's see if AutumnLeaf responds to my PM first.  He may not.  Then, you may question him about his alleged bias.  Bronze4141 has already responded to me that he is willing to serve.

[cinyc]

FYI - things may slow down a bit the next few days.  Like I said before, I am on vacation this week.  I may or may not have good Internet access in some places.  I will try to keep things on track to the best of my ability when I do.

[cinyc]

Polnut PMEd me that he is willing to serve.  Not surprisingly, AutumnLeaf hasn't responded to my PMs.  Given that and Oakvale's objection to him serving anyway, we will move on to the next potential juror.  The next number in the random sequence is 24, which corresponds to Clyde1998.  I will contact Clyde to see if he is willing to serve.  Are there any objections to Clyde serving?

[cinyc]

No objection, but last i heard, he was in Africa.

Yeah, he was last active about a month ago.  I'll give him until tomorrow to respond, then we'll move on to the next potential juror if he doesn't.

[cinyc]

Clyde hasn't responded.  He's in Africa.  So we will move on to our next potential juror, number 29.  That corresponds to HockeyDude.  I will contact him by PM. 

Are there any objections to HockeyDude serving on the jury?

[cinyc]

HockeyDude hasn't responded yet, but Clyde just got back from Africa and PMed me.  If Clyde is willing to serve, is he acceptable instead of HockeyDude or whomever is next if HockeyDude doesn't respond?  I'd rather seat a jury sooner than later.

[cinyc]

Very well.  The jury will be homelycooking, Alfred F. Jones, bronz4141, Polnut and Clyde1998. 

I will PM them and ask them to swear in on this thread.  The oath is as follows:

"I swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave"

Jurors can choose to swear or affirm, not both.

As far as I can tell, the Northeast doesn't have its own jury rules.  We will follow the federal law, which allows 3 of the 5 jurors to convict.

[cinyc]

All jurors have sworn in.  Prosecutor Gov. Pikachu, please call your first witness.

[cinyc]

Your honor, as I've posted in my office, I will not be available in any substantial capacity until Friday. I ask for a brief recess in the trial until then.

Okay.  The trial won't start until Friday, at the earliest.

[cinyc]

Very well.  I will PM SWE to get him to the witness stand.  I will also ask him to say "I swear (or affirm) to tell the truth and nothing but the truth(, so help me Dave)".  If he decides to affirm instead of swear, he need not say the so help me Dave part.  

[cinyc]

Objection, Your Honor. The question is misleading and based on a false premise that may confuse the jury.

The Senate did not "declare war" on the far-left organisation my client joined in the spirit of anarchic comedy, but on the illegal government set up by Mr. TNF in the Midwest -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- an entirely different matter.

Overruled.  I suspect the witness can answer the question without anything being misleading.  SWE, please answer the question.

[cinyc]

Your honor, I will be leaving for vacation tomorrow and will have limited (if any) internet access until September 7th. I ask for a recess until then.

Okay.  We will have a recess until September 7.