The Precedence in the Crown v. Corbish: Evidential Integrity

[Xarkly 17299]

ON THE PRECEDENCE IN THE CROWN V. CORBISH:
THE INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE

 

Spoiler

 

 

Penned by Konstantin Wick.

---

 

The Crown v. Corbish, for readers who are unaware, was the trial of Siegmund Corbish, wherein he was accused of eight charges ranging from trespassing to deviancy. The nature of these charges nor the outcome of the case are the subject of this missive; rather, I today seek to address a glaringly dangerous precedent that stands to pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the court procedure within the Holy Orenian Empire and her vassals.

 

This precedent, established by the Court, is that Counsel may, at their whim, alter, correct and manipulate the contents of their subpoenas and affidavits at will. During the case in question, the Prosecution incorrectly charged the Defendant with a count of Trespassing in relation to a property where no alleged wrongdoing occurred – put simply, the Prosecution listed the wrong property; a property that was a considerable distance from the property in question. The Defendant sought to have the charge thrown out on this basis. While laymen may roll their eyes at the bureaucratic nature of this concern, any lawman worth their salt must surely appreciate the threat posed by a judicial precedent that endorses what is, for all intents and purposes, the ability to alter their legal documentation during trial without the consent or forewarning of the opposing Counsel.

 

While in the exemplar case it was of only marginal consequence, it is this precedent’s application in future court proceedings that prompts concern. Consider this: were I to submit a subpoena and list my witnesses, opposing counsel may tailor their case around the testimony of these specific witnesses. Then, once in court, I could circumvent the rules of disclosure and call an entirely different witness, one that was not originally listed on my subpoena at all, in order to maliciously undermine the opposing counsel’s case. However, were I to cite the precedent in the Crown v. Corbish, this would be perfectly legal. And thus, we must consider how far this precedent could be stretched. Could I alter the charges listed in my subpoena mid-trial, citing a clerical error? The precedent in the Crown v. Corbish would allow it.

 

The point here is simple, and I need stress that no further. The precedent in the Crown v. Corbish is a clear breach of the integrity of our legal system, and its significance is not to be underestimated. This precedent poses the risk of undermining the entire way in which we conduct our trials. No longer shall the courtroom be an even battle ground between two respectful lawmen, but one where each lawyer’s primary weapon is manipulation and trickery, citing this precedent to alter evidence, charges, and facts during the proceedings itself.

 

I do not pen this as an appeal, nor do I contest the Court’s ruling in the Crown v. Corbish. Rather, I seek only to make it painfully clear that this precedent is a dangerous threat to the integrity of the courtroom, and needs to be distinguished in future proceedings.

 

Konstantin Wick,

Konstantin & Company Solicitors.