# \[AMENDMENT\] Trial Changes to the Concordat

**URL:** <https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-trial-changes-to-the-concordat/17982>\
**Category:** The Magisterium\
**Tags:** proposal, amendment\
**Created:** [April 23, 2024, 7:53pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-trial-changes-to-the-concordat/17982 "2024-04-23T19:53:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 2024, 7:57pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-trial-changes-to-the-concordat/17982/8 "2024-04-28T19:57:16Z")

</div>

I feel like it would be best to leave this up to Conclave. In pre-trial, they already have the power to decide if evidence is “compelling” enough to bring it to trial, and they [tend to](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/pre-trial-civil-suit-aivintis-vs-wallenburg/15729/4)[dismiss charges](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/pre-trial-civil-suit-the-fourth-imperium-v-the-citizenship-office/17786/8) if this bar is not cleared. Besides, if we want a legal standard for this, I think it would be better enshrined in the SOC than the Concordat.

Sure, nothing stops someone from immediately submitting a request for a new trial, but in the same way it would be denied on the basis of double jeopardy today, it would be denied for a lack of “new” and “compelling” evidence (with both words defined by Conclave for flexibility) after this amendment was passed.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-trial-changes-to-the-concordat/17982)._