The Defendant Appeal For The 28/04/2016 Trial of super_enderman_3

The Lawyer Of the Defendant -

"Gentlemen of the jury, that this is an important case and will require your very serious consideration, there can be no shadow of doubt.

The duties which devolved upon those gentlemen who had the prosecution in hand, are ended. They have called their witnesses, and you have heard what they have had to say; in addition to that and this is the only case in which it is permitted you have heard from the mouth of the accused what he has to say.

The remainder of the case rests with yourselves and me. My duty is to show you, to place before you as well as I can, what the law is, to refresh your memory as to the evidence which has been given pro and con, and then leave the determination upon that evidence to yourselves.

Now, the charge against the prisoner is, as I told you, a very serious one. It is the most serious one in the whole criminal category. It is the charge of high treason. In order that I may not be mistaken, that I may not misplace any words, it will be right for me to read to you what high treason is. The charge of high treason, which is laid against the prisoner, is that of levying war against faction leaders in the realms in these territories. It is founded upon a very old English statute, one on which is based the whole law of treason, and which was passed in the reign of Edward III: 'When a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere and thereof he proveably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition, that this shall be one ground upon which the party accused of the offence and legally proved to have committed the offence, shall be held to be guilty of the crime of high treason.

Now, in order to constitute the crime of high treason by levying war, a standard authority lays down this: 'To constitute high treason by levying war, there must be insurrection, there must be force accompanying that insurrection, and it must be for the accomplishment of an object of a general nature. And if all these circumstances are found to concur in any individual case that is brought under investigation, that is quite sufficient to constitute a levying of war.' The charge upon which the prisoner is upon his trial is under that statute, that clause of the statute, and it charges him with levying war upon Kerkidan Emperor at the locality of the city of Verace. Having refreshed your memory as to the evidence which was supplied on the part of the trial, and which you have heard on the part of the defense, it will be your duty to say whether that has been proved or not. If it has not been proved, if the evidence has not brought it home conclusively to this man, he should be acquitted. If it has been brought home to the prisoner, then another question turns up which you will have most seriously to consider, is he answerable?

My intention now is to read the evidence which has been taken. I feel it my duty to do so, from the way it has been given, and after I have read it, to draw your attention to it and to make a few observations that occur to me, which may be useful to yourselves in arriving at a conclusion. Before I read the evidence, I may remark that before the prisoner can be convicted you must be satisfied that he was implicated in the acts charged against him. It must be brought home to him, otherwise he is entitled to be acquitted. If you are satisfied that he was implicated in the acts in which he is said to have been implicated, he must as completely satisfy you that he is not answer able by reason of unsoundness of mind.

You will recollect that there are two points which you must consider; first, was this man implicated, supposing him to be sane, in the acts charged against him? It is for the Jury to satisfy you upon that. If he was so implicated, are you satisfied, from what has been shown, that he is not answerable?

The first of these pieces of “evidence” are the accusations of Director Kurt to the defendant.

[Kurt presents his accusations]

Secondly of these is the defendant’s (super_enderman_3’s) report of the exchange.

[Defendant Ender reports the exchange]

The third of which is the witness reports of Arthur.

[Arthur reports his side]

Gentlemen of the Jury: In opening my remarks to you today, I explained to you that an important duty devolved upon us, one share of it upon myself and the other upon yourselves. My part of that duty being to see that you recollect the evidence placed before you, and that any salient points that struck me as important, and that might assist you in your deliberation, are brought to your notice, and also that the law as it relates to this case is laid fairly before you, and then I will leave it to you to determine upon the evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. I explained to you that the features of this case differ from ordinary cases, in that it presents for your consideration, first, the question whether or not (what is in legal phraseology) the 'overt acts' charged have been committed, and whether the prisoner was a participant in those acts. If that has not been brought home to the prisoner, if the Jury has not satisfied you conclusively upon that point, the prisoner should be acquitted out and out. If, on the other hand, you feel that he was so implicated, you have to determine the further question, whether it has been shown with equal conclusiveness that this man was not answerable for the commission of the acts charged against him.

Before proceeding with my remarks, I think I ought to digress for a few moments. Reference has been made to the question of jurisdiction. With that we have really nothing to do, we have simply to perform the duties imposed upon us by law. Still it may not be out of place to tell you how that duty comes to be imposed on us.

The line is drawn very distinctly, and where the line is drawn I will tell you shortly. Before doing so, and to assist you in your deliberations, let me draw your attention to some points suggested to my mind by the evidence. You recollect the statements as to the prisoner's appropriating property, and making prisoners of others simply because they, to his idea, opposed him in his movements. It has been suggested by the Jury, in reference to the charges, that it tends to show that this was all a scheme of the prisoner's to put money in his own pocket. Be that as it may, one of the witnesses, Arthur, and on that branch of his evidence we have his corroborated by the Jury. Witness after witness gave evidence as to what occurred in March, near the time of the commencement of this war. Some of them speak of the prisoner being very irritable when the subject of subjection was brought up. It appears, however, that his irritability had passed away when he was coming to this court, as we do not hear anything of it then. Does this show reasoning power?

If he was so implicated, are you satisfied, from what has been shown, that he is not answerable?

Thank you for your time, gentlemen of the Jury."

This Trial was held at 4:40 EST on 28/04/2016 in the court of Lorave just before the peace signing.