Ruling on The Crown v. Brandt & d'Emyth

[Disheartened 809]

RULING ON THE CROWN V. BRANDT & D’EMYTH

Providence Courthouse, 10th of Horen’s Calling, 1816.

 

---

 

Presiding Judge 

Elisa Reiss

 

Jury

Sir Erik Othaman

Zita

Ingrid von Braun

 

Plaintiff

Valent de Rosius (on behalf of the Crown)

 

Defendant

Brandt (represented by James Fisher) and Elijah d’Emyth (represented by Henrik Komnenos)

 

Witnesses / Evidence

Cosette de Falstaff (witness)

Edith Castington (witness)

Agnes de Frand (witness)

Testimonies collected by Arlo Cooper (evidence)

 

---

 

The Circuit Court, presided by the Right Honourable Elisa Reiss CCJ does hereby declare the trial of Crown v Brandt & d’Emyth a mistrial.

 

On the following grounds;

 

The conduct of one Arlo Cooper, who acted as lead investigator in the gathering of evidence for this trial was found to be biased due to a conflict between himself and the defendant Elijah d’Emyth and thus constitutes a mistrial.

 

It is important to note that following his discovery of the events which allegedly occurred in this case, Arlo Cooper took matters into his own hands and punched Mister d’Emyth in the face. This fact is concrete as he had been found guilty for his crime. Mister Cooper admits to this fact and there are two testimonies found in the books of evidence by members of the Ministry who issued a fine to him as punishment.

 

In consideration of;

 

1. In Accordance with the Judicial Reform Act, 1800; Section III.I,

III.II - It shall henceforth be within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to verdict on criminal laws within the area of infractions, misdemeanors, felonies and treason, as well as all imperial civil law. 

 

In taking an action of retaliation against the defense prior to taking on the leading investigatory role, Arlo Cooper issued a judgement upon the defendant which is not within his right. Not only this, but Arlo Cooper, in the submission of his evidence, added in writing that he found the defense to be guilty prior to the trial or even the preliminary hearing, thus admitting his bias on the case. 

 

2. In Accordance with the Orenian Revised Code, CH 204 - on Injury against the State and CH 206 - on injury against Morality.

204.011 - On Fraud 

204.011A - Where an individual intentionally or negligently fails to abide by the terms of a written or verbal contract, misleads regarding its terms, or provides insufficient consideration for its completion, to the detriment of another, and this detriment is of small or moderate amounts, this shall be fraud in the second degree, an infraction. 

206.03 - On Deviancy 

206.03A - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or unaccepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy, an infraction.

 

On the grounds that agents of the law are expected to be reliable, impartial members of our community who act based on facts alone. This fact is supported by a selection of the “Lawman’s Oath”, as described in the official Ministry of Justice information document, as penned by the previous Solicitor General, Ophelia van Wick. 

“I, [Name of individual], in the presence of GOD and these witnesses, do most solemnly and sincerely affirm, declare, promise and swear that I will ceaselessly uphold the laws, order and peace of Their Imperial Majesties”

Taking this oath would constitute the  “verbal” contract. Mister Cooper was found to neglect such a responsibility, and intentionally took on a case as a lawful professional to which he had already made his stance clear, making it impossible to maintain a fair, unbiased opinion. In "upholding the law", one is expected to abide by it themselves, which clearly was not the case here. This goes against accepted standards from a member in his position.  It is the opinion of the court that bias can skew investigatory evidence, whether it is intentional or not.

 

3. In Accordance with The Rights of Man; The Right to Trial, so no man will ever be wrongly accused.

 

The Court deems it in the best interest of the defendant, in order to preserve their GOD given right to fair trial, that the evidence collected by Arlo Cooper not be used against them. A trial cannot proceed with unreliable evidence and still be deemed fair and just in the eyes of GOD and our Emperor. Had the trial have proceeded, evidence and arguments from both sides would have needed to be deemed invalid, leaving only witness testimonies as the facts of the trial. The court feels that this leaves insufficient evidence for the jury to draw conclusions from.

 

 

---

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Justice of the Central Circuit Court

Elisa Reiss

[valecu 2128]

Valent frowned upon reading the ruling. "So... Medical Reports and Sworn Testimonies from dozen of people are considered unreliable evidence, as her honour states?"

[Disheartened 809]

50 minutes ago, Valecius said:

Valent frowned upon reading the ruling. "So... Medical Reports and Sworn Testimonies from dozen of people are considered unreliable evidence, as her honour states?"

"A mistrial does not indicate that all evidence is invalid. This specifically regards the testimonies as collected by Arlo as invalid, meaning that the whole picture would not have been able to be properly delivered to the jury. But of course, that'd be clear if you read it." The judge clarified, pointing out that this explanation was actually blatantly included in the ruling.