Superpowers in the Courthouse

[pinecone]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

I see no reason it would be hearsay evidence--its something directly observed by the witness' date=' using a natural sense. It's not repeating somethign he ws told by another observer that he didnt see himself, so the hearsay exclusion wouldn't apply.[/quote']

 

That particular exemption dates back to the fallout from the Salem witch trials, and it's why there have been none since...."I sensed great Evil!" became hearsay, and inadmissable...likewise with visions and dreams.

 

He says I hear him thinking, I say sez you. Even if he proves he can hear thoughts, that does not mean his testimony is real.(I claim I stole his girl, this is just payback) I bring in a nightclub mentalist and he wows the courtroom, then says it's all bunk.....etc....

 

Or if I am a Viper nest leader I bring in a real Telepath, who proves he is, then he says what I want him to.....

[OddHat]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Sure, the telepath himself may be lying. So could any witness. Information gathered by Telepathic probe only really starts to become overwhelming if you go for the Three Telepath System, with three acredited Telepaths checking the witness and one-another.

 

If telepaths aren't common enough for that in your setting, then their testimony should count about as much as that of a "normal" witness.

[Psylint]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Actually, the solution is fairly easy, and there is a lot of precedent for similar cases.

 

It first started with abused and molested minors. The minor called as a witness testified at a remote and secure location via closed circuit television. Several appellate courts ruled that such testimony did not infringe upon the defendant's right to "confront witnesses called against him."

 

Similarly, in cases where the witness has a highly dangerous and communicable conditions, such as T.B., they may also be required to give testimony using modern "tele-presence" technology.

 

If one wanted to be a stickler for the rules, there's no reason why the super powered individual could not similarly testify.

 

A more difficult question occurs if the super powered individual is the defendant. Unless one goes back to the relatively lawless days of Bush the Younger's administration, the Constitution clearly and explicitly protects the right of the accused to be present at trial, to confront each and every witness arrayed against him/her/it.

 

In the end, a super powered defendant would simply be a "special case" where the court deputies would most likely deputize one or more super powered individuals to act as guards for the super powered defendant.

 

Cheers

[sinanju]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

A more difficult question occurs if the super powered individual is the defendant. Unless one goes back to the relatively lawless days of Bush the Younger's administration...

 

...or the relatively lawless days of Barry Obama's administration, in which the rights of the accused are different in no significant detail, despite claims to the contrary...

 

...the Constitution clearly and explicitly protects the right of the accused to be present at trial, to confront each and every witness arrayed against him/her/it.

 

In the end, a super powered defendant would simply be a "special case" where the court deputies would most likely deputize one or more super powered individuals to act as guards for the super powered defendant.

 

Unnecessary political comments aside, I disagree. The right to confront one's accusers doesn't mean you have to allow a superpowered defendant capable of killing his accusers into the same courtroom. The law _now_ permits the courts to remove a defendant from the courtroom, giving him access to a closed-circuit camera view of the proceedings, if the defendant is too disruptive.

 

As for the "hearsay" rule--the telepath's unsupported words may not be enough to justify arresting someone, but they would certainly justify sending the police to stake out the location he claims he "heard" someone thinking about robbing. If he's reliable enough, it would probably be enough to justify a search warrant. They certainly use enough anonymous tips to justify searches for drugs in current day, real world police work.

[Ryjrunr]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

*Defined as "you might possibly' date=' theoretically hurt someone with that, if the officer who sees it can describe how it might happen and s/he says it's a weapon."[/quote']

 

this is the smartest thing anyone has said yet in this thread

 

the right is "to confront my accusers" not "to overhear what they're saying miles and miles and miles away" cctv in place of physical presence is a violation of a fundamental right

 

not that i expect the supreme court to do anything nor for 99% of the people to care "goose stepping poltroons" isn't the half of it, Mr. Mencken

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Yeah, I think having a telepath verify truthfulness or mine information in the courtroom would violate a defendant's right not to incriminate himself, but providing information to the authorities so they can gather evidence the old fashioned way seems much more workable.

[incrdbil]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Yeah' date=' I think having a telepath verify truthfulness or mine information [i']in[/i] the courtroom would violate a defendant's right not to incriminate himself, but providing information to the authorities so they can gather evidence the old fashioned way seems much more workable.

 

You know, the presence of a court mentalist might even be requested by either side--to check for possibel compulsion, alteration of memories, mental eavesdropping. If a HERO team had a telepath, a savvy defense attorney might request them be barred from the courtroom for that purpose.

 

I think the use of CCTV would sufffice for confronting an accuser, especially when it came to the most dangerous of villains. Thats if they get a trial. Certain villains might be so dangerous as to be threat to national security, and be handled by a military system..or simply vanish after capture.

 

Hmm, idea forming.......

[OddHat]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

I think the use of CCTV would sufffice for confronting an accuser' date=' especially when it came to the most dangerous of villains. Thats if they get a trial. Certain villains might be so dangerous as to be threat to national security, and be handled by a military system..or simply vanish after capture.[/quote']

 

Bingo to that. Blow up a few blocks downtown, randomly kill a few dozen or more people, and the average citizen isn't going to give a damn about violations of your rights. Kill a few hundred or more, and the majority will be shouting for your blood. Of course, the first time the public learns of a high profile mistake in secret trials, opinion will swing against them. The legal system that will eventually emerge from the tension between fear and anger over acts of mass destruction by Super Criminals and distress over the mistreatment of innocent suspects doesn't have to look all that much like our current system.

[Psylint]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

.

 

Unnecessary political comments aside, I disagree. The right to confront one's accusers doesn't mean you have to allow a superpowered defendant capable of killing his accusers into the same courtroom. The law _now_ permits the courts to remove a defendant from the courtroom, giving him access to a closed-circuit camera view of the proceedings, if the defendant is too disruptive.

 

 

My political commentary was in reference to Gitmo, where there were no courts, or even filed charges. Most specifically the case of Jose Padilla. I am no apologist for the Obama administration, but to my knowledge, the current White House has not yet been accused of taking a United States citizen from United States territory, removed that citizen from the United States to territory nominally part of a foreign country, held such citizen without charge or access to counsel for indefinite periods of time.

 

As to your point, it is true that a defendant that proves disruptive may be removed from the courthouse, but the defendant in question always has the right to be present and confront witnesses directly, until they prove disruptive. No judge may order a defendant from the courtroom under the rationale that such defendant is likely or even certain to become disruptive. The law still requires that before any person is forcibly deprived of life, liberty or property that such person commit an act.

 

The original poster's point was, "How do you get super powered individuals into the courtroom" not as your post suggests, what to do with them after they've entered and proven disruptive.

[incrdbil]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Bingo to that. Blow up a few blocks downtown' date=' randomly kill a few dozen or more people, and the average citizen isn't going to give a damn about violations of your rights. Kill a few hundred or more, and the majority will be shouting for your blood. Of course, the first time the public learns of a high profile mistake in secret trials, opinion will swing against them. The legal system that will eventually emerge from the tension between fear and anger over acts of mass destruction by Super Criminals and distress over the mistreatment of innocent suspects doesn't have to look all that much like our current system.[/quote']

 

Agreed-it is almost certain that super-powered criminals would to have the right to be phyisicaly present in the Courtroom without having their powers somehow inhibited--even if it took a Consitituonal Amendment. You can't force the court members to risk their lives.

 

In the end, certain, more darker genres (or perhaps I should say realistic) might even turn a blind eye to summary executions of villains too dangerous to contain by heroes. Everyone just nods, winks, says self defense/protection of others, and they move on.

 

But for those that dont fit that bill, you could perhaps come up with a super-strong courtroom--a screen of transparent indestuctible material of choice, force screens, etc. I dont have the modules in front of me, but it seems that perhaps Stronghold would be the obvious place to build a super-court-room complex, letting it serve as pre and during trial detention facility if the CCTV option is allowed.

[Lucius]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

I agree' date=' unless 'magic' is involved. 'Magic' can happily steal someone's sense of balance or what have you... powers included.[/quote']

 

He stole my sense of balance!: (Total: 77 Active Cost, 19 Real Cost) Taking it Away : Change Environment 1" radius, -5 to DEX Roll or Acrobatic or Breakfall Roll (Or Fall), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Selective Target (+1/2) (38 Active Points); OAF Fragile (A small balance scale.; -1 1/4), Limited Power One Target Only (-1), Limited Power Target must be holding the balance; caster must take it away. (-1), No Range (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, Only to Activate, -1/4), Requires A Magic Skill Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 20 Active Points; -1/4) (Real Cost: 7)

plus Using it : +10 DEX (30 Active Points); OAF Fragile (A small balance scale.; -1 1/4), Linked (Taking it away; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -3/4), Extra Time (Full Phase, Only to Activate, -1/4) (Real Cost: 9)

plus Using it : +3 with Acrobatics, Breakfall, or DEX rolls (9 Active Points); OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Linked (Taking it away; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -3/4), Extra Time (Full Phase, Only to Activate, -1/4) (Real Cost: 3)

Total Real Cost: 19 END cost: 3

Notes: Using this spell requires handing a small set of balance scales to the target, and then snatching them back - unless the target just happens to be carrying one already (in which case it could possibly be done in a half phase.) The spell can be undone by taking the balance away from the caster, or by destroying it, or even by giving the target another set of scales. It seems unlikely that anyone will ever fall for this trick twice, unless the character also has some kind of super-persuasion to get someone to take the balance a second time. Effects: The target must make DEX (or Acrobatic or Breakfall) rolls each phase to stay upright. The caster gains +10 DEX and a bonus to DEX , Acrobatics, and Breakfall rolls.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary steals a level (just to make sure this floor is really horizontal...)

[Lucius]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

I've always hated this particular gimmick' date=' because it implies that superpowers are somehow different from the "powers" we've all developed through evolution, like eyesight, hearing, or prehensile grip. [/quote']

 

I've understood that my natural gift of vision is a superpower ever since a conversation in which I explained to someone blind from birth all the miraculous things it allowed me to percieve.

 

well intentioned citizen i think also isn't pshycic phenomena considered hearsay threrefore inadmissible evidence

 

The term is “spectral evidence” and you're right, it's inadmissible in court.

 

A tip from CI would still probably qualify as probable cause for a search.

 

Or at least constitutes a lead in an investigation.

 

*Defined as "you might possibly, theoretically hurt someone with that, if the officer who sees it can describe how it might happen and s/he says it's a weapon."

 

I've had items confiscated without even that much excuse. I think it's like a casino - “Don't take anything in that you're not willing to lose.”

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an unconfiscated palindromedary

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

The original poster's point was' date=' "How do you get super powered individuals into the courtroom" not as your post suggests, what to do with them after they've entered and proven disruptive.[/quote']Not quite right. My initial question was, "How to you prevent people with superpowers from causing damage should they become disruptive?" And, just to be clear, I made no distinction between whether the person in question was a defendant, victim, witness, family member, or random member of the public.

[OddHat]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

If we're concerned about violence from observers, defendants, and witnesses, the easiest solution seems to be keeping all of them separated. Second best is high security for everyone in the courthouse and separation of those that pose the highest risk.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

If we're concerned about violence from observers' date=' defendants, and witnesses, the easiest solution seems to be keeping all of them separated. Second best is high security for everyone in the courthouse and separation of those that pose the highest risk.[/quote']Of course, that option comes packed full of potential story conflict....

 

"You're treating me like a terrorist! I'm the victim here!"

 

[sinanju]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

My political commentary was in reference to Gitmo' date=' where there were no courts, or even filed charges. Most specifically the case of Jose Padilla. I am no apologist for the Obama administration, but to my knowledge, the current White House has not yet been accused of taking a United States citizen from United States territory, removed that citizen from the United States to territory nominally part of a foreign country, held such citizen without charge or access to counsel for indefinite periods of time.[/quote']

 

No, the Obama administration simply continues to follow the procedures established by the black hatted Bush administration (with a few cosmetic changes, at best). So much for hope and change.

 

As to your point, it is true that a defendant that proves disruptive may be removed from the courthouse, but the defendant in question always has the right to be present and confront witnesses directly, until they prove disruptive. No judge may order a defendant from the courtroom under the rationale that such defendant is likely or even certain to become disruptive. The law still requires that before any person is forcibly deprived of life, liberty or property that such person commit an act.

 

Okay, good point. Until the defendant proves disruptive he doesn't get removed from the courtroom, which is different from barring him from the trial because he _might_ prove disruptive. On the other hand, they prohibit citizens with CCW (who are provably law-abiding, given requirements for getting a CCW) from carrying firearms into the courthouse because they _might_ be a problem. And criminal defendants, of course, are not allowed access to arms.

 

I'm not sure they'd be any less careful with someone who is able to act as a human flamethrower or wrecking ball. If nothing else, jurors might be unwilling to participate in the system if they're afraid the defendant could kill them with a glance, or throw the bailiffs around like whiffle balls and break necks like twigs. Ditto for spectators known to possess deadly powers. A world where superpowers really exist is going to have to accommodate such things, possibly by making allowances for things we needn't concern ourselves with.

[OddHat]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

Okay, good point. Until the defendant proves disruptive he doesn't get removed from the courtroom, which is different from barring him from the trial because he _might_ prove disruptive. On the other hand, they prohibit citizens with CCW (who are provably law-abiding, given requirements for getting a CCW) from carrying firearms into the courthouse because they _might_ be a problem. And criminal defendants, of course, are not allowed access to arms.

 

I'm not sure they'd be any less careful with someone who is able to act as a human flamethrower or wrecking ball. If nothing else, jurors might be unwilling to participate in the system if they're afraid the defendant could kill them with a glance, or throw the bailiffs around like whiffle balls and break necks like twigs. Ditto for spectators known to possess deadly powers. A world where superpowers really exist is going to have to accommodate such things, possibly by making allowances for things we needn't concern ourselves with.

 

Agreed, especially with that last line. A legal system in a world with Superpowers must adjust. How it would adjust comes down to the take of an individual author or GM, but I can't see people stubornly sticking to forms that compromise the safety of the court past the first time a Super uses his powers violently at a trial.

[Zed-F]

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse

 

And if the means for adjusting to the appearance of superpowers proves too hard to obtain, the world will get rather darker in tone fairly quickly.

 

In fact, if you take a world very much like our own, and add single-source superpowers generated at random in a significant fraction of the population into the mix, without adding supertech or any other means for the government to establish control over these individuals, one entirely possible scenario is a reversion to the morality of the Old West where metahumans are concerned. Metahuman life becomes much cheaper when there does not exist the technology to reliably incarcerate them indefinitely at a relatively affordable price.