CoJ Case 017

This article is part of the series:

Chamber of Justice

Cases

001 DB vs. Blade 002 DB vs. Mirei 003 DB vs. Tiberius 004 DB vs. DarkWarchief 005 DB vs. Selket 006 DB vs. Gilkane 007 DB vs. Oberst 008 DB vs. Kromtal 009 DB vs. Halc 010 DB vs. Boba nil 011 DB vs. Dismal 012 DB vs. Tissaya 013 DB vs. Bane 014 DB vs. Ashura 015 DB vs. Tissaya 016 DB vs. Jaymz 017 DB vs. Cannabisia 018 DB vs. Khobai 019 DB vs. Ricco 020 DB vs. Ricco 021 DB vs. Cornix 022 DB vs. Drepo Mcarc 023 DB vs. Jason Hunter 024 DB vs. Raidoner 025 DB vs. Sashar 026 DB vs. Androc 027 DB vs. Krandon 028 DB vs. Braecen 029 DB vs. Jalek 030 DB vs. Arack 031 DB vs. Archangel 032 DB vs. Raidoner 033 DB vs. Robin Hawk 034 DB vs. Coop Ter-an 035 DB vs. Coop Ter-an 036 DB vs. Darkone 037 DB vs. Wuntila 038 DB vs. Fremoc Pepoi 039 DB vs. Solus Gar 040 DB vs. Arden Karn 041 DB vs. Ronovi Tavisaen 042 DB vs. Delak Krennel 043 DB vs. Rayna Krennel 044 DB vs. Darkblade 045 DB vs. Chizz 046 DB vs. Shorurra 047 DB vs. Turel Sorenn 048 DB vs. Nicolai "Rod" Rodell 049 DB vs. Seraphol Ceartas 050 DB vs. Calix Iberian 051 DB vs. Drake Starfire 052 DB vs. Tyron Kesh 053 DB vs. Corell Fedt 054 DB vs. JCT 055 DB vs. Vexatus 056 DB vs. Kadrol Hauen 057 DB vs. Xanos Zorrixor 058 DB vs. Arvalis Raith 059 DB vs. Kadrol Hauen 060 DB vs. Kromtal Bloodfyre Romanae 061 DB vs. Andrelious J. Mimosa-Inahj 062 DB vs. AnthonyH 063 DB vs. Hakatsuki 064 DB vs. Soren Leonis 065 DB vs. Magik 066 DB vs. Creon 067 DB vs. Hatchi Aso-Gui Sol-Corvo 068 DB vs. Andrelious J. Inahj 069 DB vs. Aru Law 070 DB vs. Esbelta Teresa Amaral 071 DB vs. Nora Olen di Plagia

DB vs Cannabisia was the seventeenth case tried by the Chamber of Justice. The sitting Justicar was Kir Katarn, the Left Hand of Justice was Raken, and the Right Hand of Justice was Dacien "BubbaX" Victae.

Basic Case Information

Defendants Name

• Cannabisia (aka Blade)

Charges

• Cheating

Verdict

• None, charges dropped

Sentence

• None

Case Summary

The Justicar received a complaint during the Eighth Great Jedi War from a member concerning several Jedi Academy matches between members Cannabisia and Khobai. During the war, the clans were all being very cautious and carefully watching the other clans for signs of cheating. In the complaint, the member showed the Justicar logs of Cannabisia/Khobai arranging the match, then screenshots showing that neither of them were on any of the Brotherhood's JA servers soon thereafter, and then screenshots of the matches being reported as played. The Justicar determined this serious accusation warranted further action, and initiated an investigation. The investigation showed that the matches in question had not occurred on any of the Brotherhood's servers, therefore the Chamber of Justice charged both Cannabisia and Khobai with Cheating, in separate trials. The defendant plead not guilty, and a Trial by Jury was initiated. The prosecution and defense presented their arguments to the jury, who then began their deliberations. While the jury was deliberating, the defendant approached the Justicar with new evidence in the form of a server log. It had been previously thought that JA did not log matches played on private servers, but the defendant discovered they did indeed log the matches - and provided the server log showing the matches in question were indeed played by the defendants. In light of this exculpatory evidence, the Justicar ended the trials and declared both Cannabisia and Khobai not guilty of cheating.

Related News Posts

• No news posts were made regarding this case.

Justicar's Opinion

Chamber of Justice Communique #019 Posted By Kir Katarn - 8/5/2007 DB vs Cannabisia and DB vs Khobai - Justicar's Opinion

The initial complaint was brought to the Chamber of Justice by a member who suspected the defendants of cheating. An investigation was completed, and sufficient evidence existed to support a case that the defendants may have reported two Jedi Academy missions for the Great Jedi War that were never actually played. The Chamber charged the defendants with Cheating and trials were put into motion to allow juries to decide the guilt or innocence of the members. Two separate trials were used because the Dark Covenant does not contain a provision for joint trials.

The trial process moved along smoothly, with the prosecution and defense writing their arguments as dictated, and finally all arguments were submitted to the two juries. The juries spent a day in deliberations, after which the defense submitted new, exculpatory evidence to the Justicar in the form of a server log not previously known to exist. This log showed proof that the JA matches did indeed occur. The Justicar reviewed the log, and after seeing it's contents could not in good faith continue the trial. Therefore the Chamber of Justice has dropped all charges against both Cannabisia Tarentae and Khobai Wrathraven Arconae.

Points of Interest

This trial directly led to several important additions to Chamber of Justice policies. During the trial, the defendant brought forth exculpatory evidence - which is evidence that is favorable to the defendant, which typically clears the defendant of guilt - as the jury was already in deliberations. After seeing the evidence, Justicar Kir Taldrya Katarn knew the defendants were not guilty, and thus ended the trial. However, there was no precedent for this action, nor any mention of it in the Covenant. Therefore post-trial, a new Chamber of Justice policy was enacted which states:

"Evidence that is clearly exculpatory in nature, as determined by the Justicar, may be presented at any time in the proceedings."

A second change was post-trial involving defense teams - however was more in reaction to a trend the Chamber had been witnessing than to anything specifically from this trial. Originally the Left Hand of Justice had served as the defense counsel for nearly every defendant, but as time went on defendants began to use their own private defense teams, often made of up clanmates. The Chamber permitted this, but noticed that these teams began to grow progressively larger, with multiple members constantly contacting the Chamber and sometimes dramatically stalling the trial process. Therefore a Chamber policy was added which states:

"Defendants may have as many people as they would like on a private defense team; however, only the Defendant and one person chosen as lead counsel can statements before the Chamber of Justice on behalf of the defendant."