By: The Senatorial Committee for a Unified Legal System

Date: 48 AP

Context: The Peldak Senate commissioned a series of reports and tests to determine how best to integrate the legal systems of the many worlds and countries belonging to the Protectorate.

One such test was seeing if jury trials could work with peldaks, and this is the transcript of that test.

****

Judge Kalinowski: “Alright, let’s take a look at this speech they gave me. Everyone, we are gathered here today for the test jury trial of one Adrian Sazla. He stands accused of-

Defendant Sazla: “I’m sitting, sir.”

Judge: “Then stand up, dumbass… good. Now, members of the jury, he stands accused of murdering one of his fellow citizens, and beating two more into hospitalization, during a drunken bar brawl last week. Mr. Sazla, how do you plead?”

Defendant: “Plead?”

Judge: “Did you do it or did you not?”

Defendant: “Uh, well, I did, but he deserved it, so I’m not guilty of anything I wouldn’t do again.”

Judge: “Alright then! That means… according to this chart,  you plead not-guilty. Let’s go from there. So, Mrs. Monsoorai Prosecutor-Girl, tell the jury what Mr. Sazla did and why he should be punished for it.”

Prosecutor: “Thank you, your honor. I’ll admit I’ve never had to explain a case to a jury before, but I’m eager to get started. Now, esteemed members of the jury-“

Juror 5: “Excuse me… uh, why are you here? Why isn’t the prosecutor a peldak?”

Juror 8: “And what’s a prosecutor?”

Judge: “To replicate a relgan jury trial, we need a judge, a prosecutor, and a public defender. I’m the noble in charge of this land so I can work as a judge, but we need a prosecutor and a public defender. Hence inviting a monsoorai prosecutor.”

Juror 2: “Why not a relgi prosecutor for a relgi trial?”

Judge: “His voice was too boring.”

Juror 5: “Where’s the public defender?”

Judge: “Mr. Salza didn’t want a monsoorai defending him, so he decided to forgo the public defender.”

Prosecutor: “Hmph, fool. Esteemed members of the jury. Four days ago, this man, the defendant, decided to go drinking. At approximately 2300 hours, with a good bit of alcohol in his system, he got into a screaming match with a fellow patron at the bar, Mr. Florian Szpara. Ten minutes later, Mr. Szpara was dead; neck broken, skull fractured. The victim was eight hundred years old, he left behind a wife and a large web of children and grandchildren. Mr. Szpara’s two companions were hospitalized, thank God they didn’t perish under Mr. Sazla’s foolish actions as their friend did. They merely escaped with some shattered bones and a significant level of blood loss. Now, esteemed members of the jury, does that sound like the kind of man you’re comfortable letting back out on the street? Letting roam free? Who would Mr. Sazla hurt next? Who would he kill next? Your sons? Your brothers? Your fathers? A scary thought. This man, Mr. Sazla, admits to taking Mr. Szpara’s life, and he admits to feeling no remorse.”

Juror 1: “What were they arguing about?”

Defendant: “I think he made fun of my hat.”

Prosecutor: “A hat? He insulted an article of clothing and you killed him for it?”

Defendant: “Yeah! Dumb son of a bitch deserved it. He was a total weakling too, probably hadn’t joined the military in centuries. Just picked him up over my head and WHAM! Threw him down so hard I cracked the sidewalk with his neck.”

Prosecutor: “And there you have it, esteemed members of the jury, please, what more do we have to hear?”

Juror 2: “Haha!”

Juror 3: “He let you pick him up? Was he short or something?”

Defendant: “No! That’s the thing, he was like six inches taller than me! Skinny as hell though, no muscle.”

Juror 12: “What the heck…”

Juror 5: “Yet he was talking shit about your hat?”

Defendant: “Weak and stupid, what a waste of his height.”

Juror 3: “The boy must have been hiding in his home these last 800 years, haha. You were probably the first guy he ever actually fought!”

Prosecutor: “H-hey, hold on, everyone. We’re talking about a murder here. It’s unambiguous what the defendant did, but you’re speaking ill about the man who’s life he snuffed out.”

Juror 12: “Meh, was it really murder though?”

Juror 6: “Seems more like self-defense to me.”

Defendant: “That’s what I’m saying! I was just sitting there, enjoying my drink, but then he makes fun of my hat! So of course we fight, but then he’s weak and gets himself killed. Not my fault.”

Prosecutor: “But a man is dead now! Hey, hold on, why are you all nodding? This is awful! He’s an unrepentant killer!”

Juror 2: “But, I mean, is there anything to repent for?”

Prosecutor: “Yes! A man is dead! A father is dead, a husband!”

Juror 1: “Hey, judge, so we’re the deciders here, right? I think I’ve heard enough. This dude’s innocent.”

Judge: “That’s about what I figured would happen if we left this to you. Is everyone in agreement here? No punishment?”

*All jurors speak over each other in agreement.

Judge: “Then I guess we’re done here. For the record, Mr. Sazla, Mrs. Monsoorai Prosecutor, I looked it up in the Peldak Civil Law Code. When alcohol is involved, someone insults you, it starts a fight, and the fight results in you killing the one who insulted you, the punishment is anything upwards of 70 years of hard labor in the civil service corps. I could survive being thrown on the concrete that hard, I think most of us could, so I would probably have given you about 30, maybe 35 years. Though if the jury says no punishment, I guess that’s that.”

Juror 5: “Wait, so since we’re the supreme authority here, does that mean we can order you around?”

Judge: “Try it and your neck will be the next to undergo a concrete stress test. We’re done here, everyone. Court dismissed.”