SD v JosephMemestar 2020 Crim 9
SD v JosephMemestar 2020 Crim 9
| Date of judgment | 9th September 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge SeaOtter |
| Charges | 1 charge of Treason (Article 44 of the Criminal Code) |
| Verdict | Not Guilty |
| Sentence | |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Committing crimes in jest is not a defence, 2 Reaffirms SD v NovaSM 2019 Crim 3 3 Partially overturns SD v. MrCynical6 2019 Crim 6 1[1] Both NovaSM and MrCynical6 cases are interpreted to deny jest as a defence, 2.1 A definition of conspiracy under Article 16 of the Criminal Code must be used to determine if one “conspired” if that were an element of an offence, 6 |
JUDGMENT by Judge SeaOtter
Introduction
[1]. The defendant, u/JosephMemestar allegedly conspired to overthrow the government of r/SimDemocracy by working with r/SimFacism to rig elections.
Irony
[2]. During presenting of the Prosecution’s Exhibit A, it was objected that the defendant was being ironic in saying a plot to rig the elections was “based” and replied “yes” when asked if the group should do it.
2.1 Common law persuasive precedent has established that committing crimes in jest or making statements as such is not a factor in guilt, so this will not play a role in this judgement. (SD v MrCynical6 2019 Crim 6 1, SD v NovaSM 2019 Crim 3 3)
[3]. It should also be noted that the defense provided no evidence to back up this claim.
Incomplete Evidence
[4]. In relation to the Prosecution’s third exhibit, it was argued that the screenshot was an incomplete part of the conversation. As the defendants statements in the screenshot were seemingly unrelated to other messages in the screenshot, the court sustained this objection, and struck the exhibit from the record.
Conspiracy as a part of Treason
[5]. The prosecution pursued a specific section of Article 44, that being section 1.3, in which an individual can be tried for “Conspiring or attempting to overthrow or undermine the government of SimDemocracy.”
[6]. To determine if the defendant conspired to overthrow the government, the court shall use the definition of Conspiracy contained in Article 16 of the Criminal Code. “A citizen shall be considered to engage in a conspiracy, when they order or request, or otherwise direct a person to commit a criminal offense; or to assist or offer material assistance in committing a crime.”
6.1 The prosecution provided no evidence whatsoever that the defendant ordered, requested, directed, or assisted the group alleged to be committing treason.
Conclusion
[7]. While it is correct that the defendant was present in the server, this does not automatically have them conspiring to overthrow the government.
[8]. The prosecution, in addition, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant indeed helped plan the operation, nor offered any assistance to the group.
8.1 The simple responding to a question of if the group should do it does not qualify as material assistance.
Verdict
[9]. The court finds the defendant not guilty of Treason under Article 44 of the Criminal Code.
[10]. The court will not be garnishing any of the defense counsel’s public defender wages under Article 1, section 14 of TAPPA2020.
Citations
- ↑ Whether ruling reaffirms or partially overturns SD v MrCynical6 [2019] Crim 6 is unclear and potentially up for debate. See point below for judge’s interpretation.
