JURY IN THE NEW DSMN SYSTEM

Jury and a lot of victims

If we are talking about an attempt to convict such persons, who, for example, are suspected of committing fraud (where it is not fully clear whether there was fraud or not), allegedly deceiving 1,000 or even 10,000 people or more, for example, some tour operators, construction companies with equity participation and other organizations that allegedly promised and they signed a contract for ONE THING, but they finally gave a completely DIFFERENT one, according to the victims.

In this case, a jury is going to be held in the same way, and if everything is clear with the accused, as usual, 4 jurors are allocated from his the accused's autonomy, who will defend him rather than convict him, then everything becomes a little different with the prosecution.

Since there can be a lot of victims, and only 4 people on their side are needed for the jury, the selection of these 4 jurors also occurs randomly among all those who agreed to be on the jury at one time, BUT only from ALL those autonomies where there are victims live.

Thus, a jury trial can take place regardless of the number of victims, even in such ambiguous, not fully understood situations.

Jury and homeless person's case

How will the jury trial take place if the case concerns the homeless? After all, they do not have registration.

If a crime has been committed against a homeless person (direct harm and/or violence), then he has the right to apply to the first autonomy he finds for help - to the police, to the third-order executive (Judge), to the second-order executive (Prosecutor) of this autonomy.

When applying, a homeless person has the right to choose any autonomy of a city or region, if suddenly this locality where the crime occurred turns out to be one autonomy in the form of a small village, for example, and the homeless person does not want to have a jury from there.

Such an autonomy chosen by a homeless person has no right to refuse him and must fulfill its duty to help this person. Even if there is a judicial workload, this homeless man's case will still be a priority.

If necessary, the criminal suspect is taken to the holding cell of the autonomy where he is registered.

Next, the third-order executives (Judges) of the autonomies randomly select the 9th juror (who may not be needed) from the autonomies of the city or region, then there is an investigation and a trial follows, everything is as usual.

If, for some reason, the court and the investigation are delayed and any third-order executives (Judges) and second-order executives (Prosecutors) don't care about it and no one wants to decide anything, thinking that no one will stand up for the homeless person, then the homeless person can easily contact any mass media.

How will the court act if the crime was committed by a homeless person? If the person against whom the crime was committed (direct harm and/or violence) is not homeless, then almost everything is as usual, the case is transferred to the autonomy where the victim is registered, and the homeless person who commited a crime is taken to a holding cell, but the holding cell should be of any other autonomy that the homeless person chooses.

And if he refuses to choose, or does not understand, or cannot say or somehow explain where he wants to go and there is no way to understand this from him and get an answer, then he is taken to any holding cell, except for the one that is in the autonomy of the victim. And the third-order executive (Judge) decides this randomly, drawing lots, for example of the 3 most remote autonomies from the autonomy of the injured party.

From the same autonomy where the homeless person was brought to the holding cell or which he chose, he receives help in the form of a jury in court. The third-order executives (Judges) of both autonomies select a randomly selected 9th juror and then conduct an investigation and trial.

What happens if a crime (direct harm and/or violence) was committed by one homeless person against another homeless person?

The injured homeless person also applies to any nearest autonomy for help, then chooses any autonomy that wants to protect his interests in the form of a jury in court.

A homeless person who has committed a crime is caught and taken to a holding cell. So the criminal suspect chooses his own holding cell. Or a third-order executive (Judge) from the injured party does this by drawing lots, as already described above, if suddenly the criminal suspect cannot explain himself for any reason. Again, he cannot end up in a holding cell of the autonomy where the injured homeless person asked for help.

Further, the homeless criminal suspect receives help in the form of a jury in court from the autonomy in which he somehow ended up in the holding cell. Again, the 9th juror is randomly selected by the third-order executives (Judges) of both autonomies, and then the investigation and trial proceed. And of course, lawyers are involved in all cases.

Jury and foreigner's case

Foreigners will be sued as follows: if a foreigner wants to punish someone who has committed a crime against him, then he turns to the first autonomy he finds  - to the police, to a third-order executive (Judge) or a second-order executive (Prosecutor).

Then it turns out who the criminal suspect is and where he is registered. The third-order executive (Judge) of the autonomy where the possible criminal is registered refers the case to the third-order executive (Judge) of any neighboring autonomy. And this case is a priority and must be resolved as soon as possible.

The new third-order executive (Judge) launches an investigation, calls a detective, etc., then a jury is selected, and there is one point here - since the crime was against a foreigner, the jury will be selected in a different way.  

Namely, only two jurors are selected from the autonomy of the criminal suspect, the remaining seven will be selected from any of the nearest autonomies (even in the region, even in the city) by the foreigner himself, but no more than one juror from one autonomy. After the investigation, a court is appointed and the case is resolved.

If the criminal suspect is homeless, then two jurors are selected from the autonomies that the homeless person wants, the rest of the jurors are selected by a foreigner from any nearby autonomies, one juror from each autonomy, but not from those autonomies from where the homeless person chose them.

If the situation is reversed, that is, a foreigner is being criminal suspect, then: the victim goes to the police, to the third-order executive (Judge), to the second-order executive (Prosecutor) of the nearest autonomy where the foreigner is located. A foreigner is sent into custody, BUT only to a holding cell in any of the autonomies except the one from which the victim himself came from. Or except autonomy the homeless person chose.

The case is then referred to a third-order executive (Judge) of the autonomy that the victim came from or which one the homeless person chose. The third-order executive (Judge) appoints an investigation, and a jury is selected. And there is one distinctive point - all jurors are selected from any nearby autonomies, but only except for the one from which the victim himself came or which one the homeless person chose.

This is done so that the court is as impartial as possible. After that, an investigation and trial are finally conducted. If the victim is homeless, then he chooses the autonomy himself, which will carry out all the procedures mentioned above when a foreigner as criminal suspect.

If we have two foreigners and one foreigner has caused direct harm and/or violence to another foreigner, then the victim can also contact any nearest autonomy for help.

A third-order executive (Judge) of this particular autonomy, where the victim has applied, proceeds with the case (and this case has high priority), appoints an investigation and a jury is selected.

Both foreigners have the right to choose a jury from any autonomies of the region or city, but only with the exception of one, the ninth juror, who will still be randomly selected. Next, the third-order executive (Judge) appoints an investigation, after which the trial follows. And of course, lawyers are involved in all cases.

Jury actions in court

Regarding jury votes for guilty or not-guilty verdict. Jurors can vote only after they have listened to everyone they can and their claims against each other (detectives, lawyers, witnesses, specialists, etc.) and after viewing and listening to all possible video and audio materials for the trial.

As usual, the third-order executive (Judge) is the leader in the trial, he announces the speech of one or another person at his request or the request of the jury, as well as whom the third-order executive (Judge) or the jury just want to interview themselves according to their own understanding.

After everyone has been heard, the jury retires to a meeting, which can last up to 7 hours. After the meeting, the voting process begins. Voting is always done in secret. Thus, if the vote is NOT unanimous, then the secret remains about who voted and how.

Detectives, lawyers, and specialists are required to answer questions from the jury and the third-order executive (Judge). But witnesses can simply leave if they want, but in this case, the testimony in court would instantly lose its validity, even if it was known in advance to the third-order executive (Judge) and the jury, since the witness must testify using a polygraph, whether it is an online or offline trial mode.