Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
R v. Langford
#1
The 1st High Sheriff's Court in the case of 1:6-13, R v. Langford, has been issued a writ of certiorari.

Due to a disparity of timezones between most case parties and the court itself, the Supreme Court of Loquntia has issued a writ of certiorari to ensure a fair and speedy trial, and a judge that can be available to answer questions from both parties. This case is now in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Loquntia.

We have received several notices from parties claiming to be counsel for Langford. What I need now is communication from Langford confirming that one of those parties is his counsel. If I do not receive this notice, these people will not be permitted to serve as his counsel because they must have his permission.

Otherwise, if Langford wishes to have no part in this, he will be left alone.

All official communications should be directed to loquntia@gmail.com


After that confirmation, his counsel may enter his plea.

Below are some notes I've compiled to help defendants in Loquntian courts:

Before Arraignment.
- If the defendant will be enjoying counsel, they must deliver a Notice of Counsel to the Court, to prove that they gave permission to their solicitor to act as counsel.
- If they will be enjoying the rights of a trial by jury, discovery, their charges being read aloud, or other stipulations, they may deliver them to the court beforehand as a Notice of Enjoyment. These motions may also be raised in open court.
- Both the Procurator-Fiscal and the Defence may file a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment or Motion for Dismissal at this time.
Important Motions: Enjoyment, Notice of Counsel, Stipulation, Dismissal, Default Judgment

Arraignment.
- Arraignment can occur in a court other than the one that will be holding the trial
- The schedule for the discovery hearing and trial are decided at the arraignment hearing. Both parties may equally stipulate as to time, but any decisions about the schedule are at the court's discretion
- All motions filed before arraignment will be reviewed before or during arraignment, and they, and their respective Oppositions, will be sustained or overruled during Arraignment
- The defence is given their charges, which they also may have read aloud to them if they cannot read
- If the person will not be imprisoned before trial, they must be given a bond amount which must be paid in full—unless they cannot be imprisoned, then bond will be required if they fail to appear
- If the defence files a plea of Not Guilty, the judge must enter the default judgment of acquittal
- If, however, the defence pleads Guilty or No Contest, the judge may enter a default judgment of guilt
- Regardless, the judge must decide a default sentence, or agree with the recommendation imposed by the procurator-fiscal
Important Motions: Entry of Disposition, Entry/Amendment of Default Judgment, Entry/Amendment of Default Sentence, Entry/Amendment of Bond

Discovery.
- If the defence wishes to enjoy the right to discovery, they will be allowed to during one or more discovery hearings
- If the prosecution wishes to see evidence belonging to a defence, they may file a Motion for Discovery, but no defence shall be required to allow discovery of their evidence
- As for testimony, all questions asked during trial are discoverable and subject to stipulation
- Both parties may stipulate on points evidence
- Some testimony may be taken by affidavit or deposition, both of which, including both questions and answers, must be discoverable
Important Motions: Enjoyment, Stipulation, Objection

Trial.
- If all evidence is discovered and stipulations have successfully been dealt with, along with any other necessary preliminary hearings, evidence will be presented to the tribunal (consisting of either the judge or several persons)
- During Trial, both parties may object on the grounds of evidence validity, or if counsel instructs the tribunal on the law, & c.
- The Procurator-Fiscal is given floor time for trial, then the defence, and then each may make a closing statement
- If the tribunal convicts unanimously, they will be found Guilty, otherwise, they will be Acquitted,
- If found guilty, Sentencing may be postponed for a later hearing, if one or more parties had extensive stipulations as to sentencing
- The tribunal may also recommend a different sentence. If the tribunal is one or a panel of judges, they may impose the sentence.
Important Motions: Motion to Strike the Record, Objection,

Common Objections:
Irrelevant: Evidence or a question/answer during testimony is irrelevant
Asked and Answered: Question has already been asked and answered
Badgering Witness: Party asking questions is approaching a witness/person giving testimony in an intimidating, or otherwise influential manner
Counsel is Instructing the Tribunal on the Law: No one except for the judge may instruct the jury on the law
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Evidence was not attained by lawful means
Unresponsive: Testimony does not justify an intelligent response, or answers the wrong question
Calls for Speculation: Asks person giving testimony to guess or speculate
Hearsay: The testimony consists of hearsay
Confounds Tribunal: Confuses the judge or the jury
Improper Characterisation: Evidence or testimony is misidentified or misquoted by a party
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#2
If anyone wishes to observe the proceedings, please say so.
#3
I would be interested in doing so.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

President of the Amissopian Federation

#4
As a witness for the defense, the judge has testified (yes, in Loquntia they have their judges give testimony) that Dallin Langford had personally insulted and slandered him, and in light of this evidence of a conflict of interest (which the defense was not privy to and had not been mentioned by the prosecution) I moved for a substitute judge to preside over the case.

This was denied and in fact argued against by the judge-witness chimera.

I can now see why Mr. Langford refused to even answer the charges at first, Loquntia's court system is a joke.

Total sham.
#5
(21 Nov 2016, 20:13:04)Deelambs Wrote: As a witness for the defense, the judge has testified (yes, in Loquntia they have their judges give testimony) that Dallin Langford had personally insulted and slandered him, and in light of this evidence of a conflict of interest (which the defense was not privy to and had not been mentioned by the prosecution) I moved for a substitute judge to preside over the case.

This was denied and in fact argued against by the judge-witness chimera.  

I can now see why Mr. Langford refused to even answer the charges at first, Loquntia's court system is a joke.

Total sham.

Callahan is the attorney representing the defence, and he is not a witness.
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#6
I referenced you as the witness for the defense. I was a witness to the mockery of an impartial judiciary.
#7
(21 Nov 2016, 20:29:05)Deelambs Wrote: I referenced you as the witness for the defense.  I was a witness to the mockery of an impartial judiciary.


[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#8
Wasn't David Ross initially slated to be the judge for this case? What happened to that?
#9
(21 Nov 2016, 20:36:19)Deelambs Wrote: Wasn't David Ross initially slated to be the judge for this case?  What happened to that?

He was doing nothing, which was infringing upon the defendant's right for a speedy trial. It was taken up by writ of certiorari to my court.

If, because of a conflict of interest, a verdict could be unfair, one has to file an appeal. They don't get to knock a court case over because of how they feel—they have to go by the book.
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#10
The right to a speedy and patently unfair trial.

Only in Loquntia.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)