GxOZxerd (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 15
GxOZxerd (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 15
| Date of judgment | 30th September 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice Danyo Justice Ivy Cactus Acting Justice LordDeadlyOwl |
| Held | An employer/employee relationship between the prosecutor and defendant is not a conflict of interest. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | An employer/employee relationship is not a conflict of interest, 8.1 It is unreasonable to assume judicial proceedings are prejudiced on the basis that a party in a case can not effectively make their case because the other will, or has threatened to commit an unlawful act, 9.1 |
==
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Chief Justice Danyo and Acting Justice LordDeadlyOwl agreeing)
Introduction
[1]. The appellant is seeking the declaration of a mistrial in SD v GxOZxerd 2020 Crim 10 on the grounds that the prosecutor, the Attorney General, was an employee of the president (who served as the legal counsel for the defendant). The appellant alleges this employer and employee relationship between the prosecution and defendant meant that the prosecutor had conflict of interest, thus invalidating the trial.
Summary of the petition
[2]. The appellant starts their petition by establishing that they were president at the time of their defense of GxOZxerd. He then goes on to say that because the Attorney General was his employee at the time, and hence subordinate, it was likely for them to have been lenient as to avoid angering his employer.
[3]. They go on to state that the Attorney General has the duty to prosecute to the best of their ability to serve the public interest of Simdemocracy.
[4]. They finish by stating any prosecutorial conflict of interest at all is enough to prejudice judicial proceedings and therefore should lead to a mistrial declaration.
Summary of the response
[5]. The respondent starts their response by stating that they recognize that the president shouldn’t have been the defendant and that they believe fears around conflict of interest are justified. However, they do not believe this is enough of a reason for a mistrial to be declared.
[6]. They go on to state that the Attorney General did in fact give the fullest effort they could in this case. They identify one piece of evidence where the Attorney General may not have given full effort, that being at one point where the Attorney General doesn’t argue against the defendants objection to a relatively minor piece of evidence.
[7]. The respondent rounds out their argument by stating that the defendant was found guilty, and therefore the Attorney General must have done a good job, or at least a good enough one that it didn’t affect judicial proceedings in any meaningful way.
Was there conflict of interest?
[8]. It is important in this case to examine other situations like this in our laws currently. One example of this is §13.1 of the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act which states “If no certified attorney volunteers a member of the Department of Justice is required to represent them instead.” This is the same relationship as in the case of SD v GxOZxerd 2020 Crim 10\. In both cases, they revolved around an employer and employee relationship.
8.1 In this case there is no conflict of interest. The defendant has always been able to appropriately defend their client, it’s just another part of their job that everyone fully accepts. There is no reason to believe the situation would be any different if the DoJ employee was replaced by the president.
[9]. Under the New Executive Reformation Act (“NERA”), the law that controlled the Attorney General's duty at the time, the Attorney General's job was to be the “main prosecutor … of the State of r/SimDemocracy” (§1). The president firing the Attorney General for doing their job very likely falls under the tort of wrongful dismissal, and the crime of abuse of discretion.
9.1 It is absurd for the defendant to imply that judicial proceedings were prejudiced because they could have committed a tort or a crime.
Verdict
[10]. The Attorney General being employed by the defendant’s legal counsel is not a conflict of interest. SD v GxOZxerd 2020 Crim 10 was held lawfully, and the appeal is dismissed.
