Arbiters of the Conclave,
I come to you with a rather odd and peculiar question. Upon reviewing old TEP cases and TEP Law, I noticed that there are no provisions for pleading guilty. Am I as blind as a bat, or would pleading guilty be illegal under TEP Law? Or is it a case by case basis?
Thank you for your time and consideration,
SirShadow
You are correct that there isn’t really a system built for guilty pleas, as the rules for trials assume a defense intending to prove their innocence. However, I would consider this part of the Standing Orders of the Conclave:
— Begin quote from ____
2.3.7- The defense provides the counterargument, introducing evidence for their argument. Must be executed in the time allotted by the pre-trial. The Presiding Arbiter shall rule on the admissibility of evidence if it is objected to by an opposing party.
— End quote
A party wishing to effectively enter a guilty plea would use their trial argument to express an admission of guilt and likely argue for a lesser sentence (evidence would still be useful in that case).
This is certainly a strange oversight, and likely something that the Standing Orders should be changed to accommodate formally. I’ll depend on the other Arbiters to determine whether I’m going in the right direction here, but my interpretation seems the most likely legal situation to me.
What Wallenburg says is correct and I believe is the right interpretation of court procedures. However, there is one additional thing that changes that:
This was also a problem during the Fedele and Co. trials, so the Conclave [Review] On Guilty Pleas and Their Withdrawal - The East Pacific - Tapatalk to guide guilty plea processes.
While the Review is not precedent-based, it is still in effect as no formal guidelines have yet been established. Per the Review’s conditions, it will cease to be in effect once formal guidelines have been in place. It holds the will of the court, but it self-cancels after a certain point, unlike precedent. Ergo, it holds the same force of law like the Standing Orders of the Conclave, however it is up to the Presiding Arbiter whether they will follow these specific guidelines or not, unlike the SOC which must be followed at all times. Non-precedent and non-statutory means does not have to be followed.
So using this non-precedent Review as a base to answer your questions:
— Begin quote from ____
Am I as blind as a bat, or would pleading guilty be illegal under TEP Law? Or is it a case by case basis?
— End quote
According to the “temporary” provisions, one can submit a guilty plea, however once submitted it cannot be withdrawn. However, whether this is allowed remains up to the Presiding Arbiter.
Should one ignore the mentioned Review, Wallenburg’s opinion is correct. Although I do want to say that pleading guilty is not illegal under TEP law (so long as one is not speaking out of turn), but rather it has no legal effect.