Federation Law

[Shamrock Holmes]

Fair enough, but he makes some excellent points here. For starters, why was Data allowed in Starfleet in the first place if the question of his sentience was never settled?

MADDOX: How have you been, Data?
DATA: My condition does not alter with the passage of time, Commander.
PICARD: The two of you are acquainted?
MADDOX: Yes, I evaluated Data when it first applied to the Academy.
DATA: And was the sole member of the committee to oppose my entrance on the grounds that I was not a sentient being.
PICARD: What exactly will this work entail?
MADDOX: I am going to disassemble Data.


This suggests to me that the rest of the committee was prepared to accept Data's "sentience" on faith, so Bruce was outvoted and made to drop the matter until he was able to leverage other (more senior?) contacts years later.

Moreover, the idea of Louvois summarily ruling against Data if Riker refuses to argue against him is ridiculous.

Agreed, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the de facto finding on any "appeal" would be to uphold any original finding.

On top of that, Riker rightly should not be arguing a case he so vocally opposes. (Maddox could've claimed that his case was hindered by Riker's bias against it). There was no "ticking clock" here, and therefore no "in universe" reason for them not to wait for counsel to arrive.

Absolutely not, particularly as Riker doesn't have any legal training, so using him is a dubious choice in the first place (logically the state case should have been given to Louvois' assistant) if it was somehow urgent (highly unlikely)

 

[JonnyQuest037]

For starters, why was Data allowed in Starfleet in the first place if the question of his sentience was never settled? Moreover, the idea of Louvois summarily ruling against Data if Riker refuses to argue against him is ridiculous. On top of that, Riker rightly should not be arguing a case he so vocally opposes. (Maddox could've claimed that his case was hindered by Riker's bias against it). There was no "ticking clock" here, and therefore no "in universe" reason for them not to wait for counsel to arrive.

These are all excellent points, I agree. (I didn't watch the Trek video because of my distaste for slickhaired lawyer dude. I just don't want to watch him again for however many minutes it is.)

And finally, witnesses on the stand do not just blurt out admissions of guilt, as Nicholson's character so stupidly does.

Well, that's been a thing since at least Perry Mason.

A thing I don't get about legal matters on Star Trek is how apparently lawyers no longer recuse themselves because they have a personal connection to the defendants. Areel Shaw is an ex-girlfriend of Kirk's, and she's prosecuting him in his court martial over the death of Ben Finney (TOS: "Court Martial"). Phillipa Louvois with Picard in the Stargazer court martial and Data's sentience hearing (TNG: "The Measure of a Man"), same thing. I realize that you want to up the stakes by giving people a personal history with each other, but neither one of those two should've been within a thousand parsecs of those cases.

Hell, Areel Shaw talks with Kirk outside of court and then recommends a defense attorney to him! A conflict of interest like that on a case she's prosecuting should've gotten her disbarred!

 

[Henoch]

Didn't post-WWIII "kill all the lawyers." Even after a couple of centuries, there is still a stigma against lawyers maybe accounting for a serious shortage of lawyers both on Earth and in Starfleet.

In any event, I get the feeling that there is a general shortage of all personnel in TOS Starfleet, especially those on station around the borders and colonies; lawyers being no exemption. Because of the shortage, Starfleet is willing to forgive most personnel deficiencies and even criminal acts to keep people in the field. Just look no farther than James T. Kirk...