Expanding on "Court Martial"

[Commishsleer]

And if an attorney in that position lied about their impartiality? Would that be fair to either side? Since they had to wait for the members of the court to travel to Starbase 11, they could have waited for a prosecutor without a conflict, too. Like I said, the legal aspects of the episode don't hold up to much scrutiny.

A prosecutor would need time to prepare the case. Those other guys just had to turn up. A jury doesn't need prep.

If they were trying to hide it under the carpet and thought they had an open and shut case and trusted Shaw why wait for a more 'impartial' attorney to turn up.

 

[J.T.B.]

A prosecutor would need time to prepare the case. Those other guys just had to turn up. A jury doesn't need prep.

If they were trying to hide it under the carpet and thought they had an open and shut case and trusted Shaw why wait for a more 'impartial' attorney to turn up.

Why would a prosecutor in a similar situation be replaced today? To preserve fairness in the justice system.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

I'm not clear on why anyone thinks having Shaw as prosecutor is unfair. Kirk was offered the option to have her replaced if he felt there was a problem. They offered him the option of replacing anyone on the panel too, including Stone.

It's clear that Stone had a lot of power to "sweep it all under the rug", or offer Kirk any kind of deal etc. Stone even tried to avoid putting him on trial altogether and it was Kirk that forced their hand. So there is some kind of closed military protocol in place.

Nobody tried to railroad Kirk, except Finney of course. The evidence was against Kirk, and no details about fairness, conflict of interest, etc. was going to save him because he was determined to plead "not guilty" and the evidence clearly showed he was guilty. Game over.

This is a situation where integrity is much more important than conflicts of interest. Integrity always trumps conflicts of interest. The only problem with the conflict of interest is from the prosecution office point of view. They might be worried that Shaw might not do her duty. Apparently some back room discussion (which we are not privy to) happened and Shaw's boss and Stone were convinced that Shaw had the integrity to prosecute appropriately.

It is not clear why Shaw would not recuse herself for personal reasons. We can only guess, but that is her business. Her main responsibility in this situation is to notify everyone that she is a friend of Kirk, and to decide if she is willing (to do the job) if everyone else ends up being satisfied.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

There is another point that I don't think in mentioned in this thread. Remember that Kirk "demands" a general court, "and right now!".

So, it seems that the law/rules allow him the right to an immediate trial, if he wishes it. His demand for an immediate trial may very well place the prosecutor's office in a bind. They have limited staff and many of them may be very busy. Shaw might be a logical choice because of many different constraints. Again, we don't know very much because no scenes are provided to give us details. We are asked to realize that the situation is very unusual, but that there are extenuating circumstances that drive the situation into an interesting plot.

 

[Timo]

...Which is why I think all the court personalities blatantly being at the bar from the get-go is not a problem. Kirk probably does have the right to demand immediate handling of his case, but nobody was expecting that to happen and nobody wanted that to happen. So naturally Stone would stall, perhaps insisting on getting an "impartial" board assembled solely because that would nicely consume some time - but then deciding there was no point in further stalling and just rounding up the random saps with the sufficient credentials, of whom SB11 never had any shortage.

It's not as if the station or its personnel were either

a) on top of the situation, or
b) short on resources to handle the situation.

It appears that no starship skipper has demanded a trial, like, ever. That either Stone or Kirk would even be aware of the proper procedure is nothing short of amazing. Surely they will both make some false starts there, out of incompetence, out of frustration on said, out of sheer malice towards the other party when feelings run hot. On the other hand, SB11 is a busy and versatile hub that can produce things like a celebrity lawyer at the snap of fingers. So again, false starts, because of the plethora of resources available and the difficulty of choosing. Things might have looked very different with weeks to prepare for the case, or in a true frontier setting with an actual shortage of options.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm not clear on why anyone thinks having Shaw as prosecutor is unfair. Kirk was offered the option to have her replaced if he felt there was a problem. They offered him the option of replacing anyone on the panel too, including Stone.

Why would a defendant object if he thought that acquaintance with the prosecutor would be to his benefit?

This is a situation where integrity is much more important than conflicts of interest. Integrity always trumps conflicts of interest.

That would be great if everyone could be hooked up to a perfectly accurate and reliable integrity-o-meter. As it is, safeguards have to be built into the system to mitigate the potential effects of individuals' integrity or lack thereof.

It is not clear why Shaw would not recuse herself for personal reasons. We can only guess, but that is her business.

If you think that the rights of all parties in the justice system would be safe if conflicts of interest were regularly ignored, I just disagree.

As it happens, I just finished a week on a criminal trial jury, so these kinds of things are at the front of my mind. Some people say that the Federation of TOS was basically America in Space, and most of the time its safe to assume that. But the legal process in "Court Martial," if the implications are thought through, is a little scary and would not be one I would want to be subject to.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

If you think that the rights of all parties in the justice system would be safe if conflicts of interest were regularly ignored, I just disagree.

I'm not sure why you would take my comments to mean such an extreme. Maybe I didn't explain as well as a more effective writer could, but I don't think my explanation failed to this degree.

Of course I understand the importance of "conflicts of interest". They should never be ignored. My point is that conflicts of interest do not always need to result in total removal of the conflict via recusing. One would think that most of the time one should recuse oneself, but it need not be 100 percent of the time. I do know that in the real world people do not always recuse themselves. Of paramount importance is that the conflict of interest needs to be brought out into the open and discussed. Also, people should err on the side of caution. In some cases (perhaps rare) the parties involved could be deemed safe. The only mechanism that makes them safe is "integrity". Hence, all parties involved must be convinced that the person who has not recused himself has the integrity to act appropriately.

Like it or not, justice depends very heavily on integrity. We rely on witnesses under oath. We rely on judges and jury members to do their duty and put personal biases aside.

My point is simply to say that there are viewpoints from which we can try to salvage this "Court Martial" story/script. In fiction, and in the real world, extenuating circumstances and unusual events do happen.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Recusing is frequently called for when a case has a high public profile. Kirk's probably doesn't, or at the very least, won't be widely known of until various planets, starbases, ships, etc receive the latest (not live) dispatches. It's not like Kirk's trial was being streamed live on Starfleet Court TV.

 

[J.T.B.]

Of course I understand the importance of "conflicts of interest". They should never be ignored. My point is that conflicts of interest do not always need to result in total removal of the conflict via recusing. One would think that most of the time one should recuse oneself, but it need not be 100 percent of the time. I do know that in the real world people do not always recuse themselves. Of paramount importance is that the conflict of interest needs to be brought out into the open and discussed. Also, people should err on the side of caution. In some cases (perhaps rare) the parties involved could be deemed safe. The only mechanism that makes them safe is "integrity". Hence, all parties involved must be convinced that the person who has not recused himself has the integrity to act appropriately.

But what you seemed to be saying before was that as long as the prosecuting counsel says they can be impartial, that's good enough. At any rate, removing the names and personalities, if Prosecutor A disclosed that they had been in a romantic relationship with Defendant B, I really have a hard time believing that all parties to the case would agree that was OK.

But if you want to salvage "Court Martial," you also have to address the implications of the same person investigating the case, making the decision to prosecute and presiding over the court. I would hope the potential for abuse there would be obvious. As I said before, I can ignore all that and enjoy the episode, but it has some serious problems.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

But what you seemed to be saying before was that as long as the prosecuting counsel says they can be impartial, that's good enough.

I certainly was not trying to say that. Also, I don't believe I said that, but again, perhaps a better writer could have been clearer.

What I tried to do is break it down logically into three sections.

1. Kirk's point of view (is it fair to him?)
2. The prosecution's point of view (will justice be done, and will Shaw act with integrity?)
3. Shaw's point of view (can she put her personal feeling aside to do her duty and can she live with the idea of prosecuting her friend?)

I think in the part of my post that you quoted I was talking about Shaw not recusing herself for personal reasons. In other words, she might say, "I just don't want to prosecute my friend". That issue is independent of what her professional responsibilities where she needs to be sure she can put her personal feelings aside and prosecute.

Anyway, I tried to show that from all three perspectives, it could be viewed as fair. No one has to agree with my arguments, but please don't flip them over into an extreme where I appear to have no regard at all for "conflicts of interest".

At any rate, removing the names and personalities, if Prosecutor A disclosed that they had been in a romantic relationship with Defendant B, I really have a hard time believing that all parties to the case would agree that was OK.

I also would have a hard time with that. Generally, that would not fly. But, I tried to point out various extenuating circumstances that might result in this unusual case.

1. Kirk demands an immediate trial
2. Shaw discloses her conflict of interest (it's known anyway)
3. Prosecution office is in a bind with only Shaw not busy.
4. Kirk is told, "we prefer to bring in an impartial prosecutor, but your trial will be delayed".
5. Kirk reiterates his insistence for an immediate trial.
6. Shaw states her willingness to prosecute a friend and act with integrity.
7. A backroom discussion occurs where integrity wins over conflict of interest
8. Kirk is asked if Shaw is acceptable and he says yes.

I've read many works of fiction (some of them considered great) where similar "hard to believe" issues come together and create a situation people enjoy reading about.

To give an example from the news last night. I saw that a person was drunk and drove down the highway the wrong way, placing many people in danger. Now, 1 million people drove home last night and drove home in the right direction, and there was one exceptional case of a person who drove home in the wrong direction. Now, out of those million and one cases, which situation do you want me to write a story about?

 

[Steven P Bastien]

But if you want to salvage "Court Martial," you also have to address the implications of the same person investigating the case, making the decision to prosecute and presiding over the court.

I have done that to my own satisfaction. I won't try to convince others of it here. I can't even convince other people about my perspective of Shaw. Stone would be even harder to write about and clearly get my points across.

 

[Commishsleer]

I trust Shaw to recuse herself if there had been any pillow talk from Kirk about Finney.
I'm sure Kirk would have mentioned it if he was concerned about Shaw's insider knowledge.
Perhaps he was hopeful Shaw being prosecutor would actually help him.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I think if she'd known Finney rather than Kirk and had presented the same case, that would definitely be grounds for recusing/mistrial. The fact that she can argue against Kirk despite parting on good terms proves her ability to be impartial.