Crim256-1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=             King's Brief for the Prosecution of Wyden for Murder of Amandia =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In the year of 243, Paladin Wyden of Erosia and the ranger Zimri entered the establishment of Master Thief Amandia which has been approved by King Borgia and the City Council and is thus subject to the King's protection. According to the witness Jadera, they wanted to "shut down Amandia's establishment". An argument ensued. According to witness Jadera, Wyden started to antagonize Amandia. After a brief verbal exchange, Wyden killed Amandia.

Wyden does not deny that he killed Amandia. He claims that he was justified because "[he] could not ignore her barrage of insults to [him]self and more importantly, to [his] religion."

The Justicars could not without a doubt determine what the words were exactly that were exchanged between Wyden and Amandia, but according to the witnesses Wyden and Zimri, Amandia called Wyden "a has-been", "washed out" or a "decrepid old corpse". Witness Jadera reports that this "is nothing compared to what Wyden said to her" and recalls eponyms like "slut", "whore", "bitch", and "the trash of Sable" being used by Wyden in reference to Amandia. Witness Jadera furthermore recalls that "Amandia was being nothing but polite to Wyden and Zimri, until Wyden started on his cleansing Sable speech".

Even if the description of the defendant and his friend Zimri is true, the Justicars cannot see any justification along the lines of Rex v Bandle in the words that Amandia purportedly said to Wyden. The Court has clearly stated that "An insult to honor does not grant an unchallenged right to pursue and kill an individual (Rex v Mabelrode, Crim195-3)".

The Justicars believe that Wyden killed Amandia in an attempt to close down an establishment subject to the Court's protection without any justification. The Justicars would like to add that the defendant is involved in four different cases of murder or attempted murder at the time of the writing of this prosecution brief. His general disposition towards the Law is highly questionable and the Justicars see a danger for public safety and jurisdictional integrity of the realm in the defendant. They therefore ask the Judge for a harsh punishment.

The Justicars want to address the long period of time between the time of serving the arrest warrant (244) and the submission of the prosecution brief. This brief was actually written at the time of the arrest, and could have been submitted in the year 244. At the request of a Court official, the Justicar Office prepared several briefs at the same time. For this reason, the current brief's submission was postponed. All these years, Wyden had the right to request a Writ of Habeas Corpus as mentioned in Rex v Tharun (Crim214-2j). If Wyden had done this, the Justicar Office would have submitted the prosecution brief immediately. By not requesting the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Wyden waived his right of getting to Court as fast as possible. Therefore, the Justicars argue that the long time between the arrest and the submission of the prosecution brief should not affect the case against Wyden adversely.

No brief on record.

No judgment on record.