Simple really (Or not). Is there any canon reference to magic being used in the courtroom? For example the likes of compel truth, Analyze truth, Mind probe??

What about Aura Reading, can you do any of the above as a member of the defence/ prosecution??

Are mages even allowed inside a courtroom?? (they would have to screen at the door if not)

Or is it simply a case of documented, opinions to be read over an vid feed??

Just something i'd like to know for background stroy stuff in a game i'm running.

I don't remember the book, but there was references to mind probe and the like being unusable in court in the UCAS, because it is effectively self incrimination, which isn't persmissable

Magic in the Shadows.

I don't imagine lawyer mages or adepts are well-regarded if they try and pull some slick ass magic moves on the judge or jury.

Social adept lawyers + uberhot deckers/hackers = The dream team of 2060/70.

There are several references througout canon that make it pretty clear that magic use for trial purposes is pretty much verboten.

OTOH, there's MitS, some stuff in SotA:2064, probably in LS (haven't read it in a while).

I think the evidence of a mind probe is inadmissable in the UCAS as a violation of the 5th Ammendment.

The testimony of spirits in inadmissable since they can be ordered to lie.

Mind probe evidence against the defendant is inadmisable as a 5th Amendment violation. Mind probe evidence from people other than the defendant are or may not be admissable. It would probably be considered both hearsay and a violation of the right to confont one's accuser. However, it may be allows in the case of a dying witness, just as a dying declaration is an exception to hearsay.

Evidence gained from assensing and astral signitures are perfectly admissable and are considered legitimate forensic evidence. Forensic magicians will be called to testify about magical crimes. Since one's aura is perfectly visible to anyone viewing astral, assensing isn't considered a search. Police magicians and astral adepts do not need a warrent to assense a suspect.

Compel Truth would be illegal in court as it has the potential to violate the Fifth Amendment. Analyze truth, I'm not so sure about. Logically, it would be evidence of perjury. However, it would be the spell subject's word against the witnesses, and it may be unduely prejudicial to the jury. The former problem could be remedied by casting the spell on several different people in the courtroom. The latter problem, is much more sensitive. Some would argue that giving the jury to know when someone is lying is not, in and of itself, predjdicial and it is, in fact, beneficial to the process. Others would disagree.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that the spell can fail with too few successes. If the spell fails but the jury thinks it is working, it will prejudice them. For the same reason, polygraphs are not admissable in court today.

Courtrooms probably mave strong magical security to prevent magical jury tampering. All it takes is one influance spell on one jurer to mess up an entire trial. I'd imagine that may courtrooms have Force 9 Elementals as bailiffs.

now, i'm not up to court law snuff i'm sure, but 5th ammendment was for self perjuring, correct? in which case, compel truth would ONLY be an issue if the defendant took the stand....

On the other hand, in the NAN nations they make it clear that most judges are shaman and are free to use whatever magic they want at their discression.

Pel

Compel truth would be an issue for any witness who may have something to hide. Ever watch Matlock or Perry Mason? The slick defense Attorney will get the real killer on the stand and force him or her into a corner where the witness has to confess or take the Fifth and then the case is dismissed or the jury votes Not Guilty.

There is also the issue of the accuracy of the spell. It can be resisted, meaning that lies can be takne for the absolute truth. If the spell is resisted then the jury would be prejudiced so severly that the trial cannot be considered valid. Since there is no way to be sure if the spell was resisted or not, any trial in which the spell is used must be considered invalid.

Control Thoughts: "Your bladder is really ... really ... REALLY full ...."

Lawyer: "Mr. Smith, you found the victim that night dead ... in the POOL, didn't you?"

Witness: "Yes, I did." *shifts uncomfortably*

Lawyer: "What you didn't mention to the police is that you had met her earlier that night at the bar for DRINKS - isn't that so?"

Witness: "Er, yes, that's right." *crosses and uncrosses legs*

Lawyer: "How much did you have to DRINK by then, Mr. Smith?"

Witness: "Er ... quite a bit." *grunts a little, shifts in seat*

Lawyer: "So you were PISS DRUNK when you tried to pick her up, weren't you?"

Witness: "Ah, yes. Ah, listen, do you think I could pay a visit to the -" *squeezing legs together*

Lawyer: "She told you to PISS OFF, didn't she?"

Witness: "Wha - ah, no - ah, look -" *groans*

Lawyer: "That made you mad, didn't it?!! You were seriously PISSED OFF!!!"

Witness: "Ughhh, ah - I mean, no, no - look, I really need to -" *looks strained*

Lawyer: "You don't look too well, Mr. Smith - do you need a DRINK of WATER?"

Witness: "Okay, okay, I did it, I did it! I killed her! Now let me go to the bathroom!"

On a more serious note, although there isn't much specific about the use of magic in the courtroom, I've simply applied the raison d'etre for the laws which we do have today. Given the privacy and hearsay laws (both in the US, the UK, and continental Europe) today, I have serious doubts spells like Compel Truth and Analyze Truth would have any place in cross-examination at trial.

Even before any indictment is made, confessions obtained during an interrogation or interview, for example, through the use of Compel Truth would be treated as suspect. I can, however, see magic being used to gather HARD evidence which points to the guilt of a perp. For example, during an interview, Compel Truth or Analyze Truth might lead detectives to a physical location where they find physical evidence (murder weapon, incriminating data, etc.) of the perp's guilt.

Compe Truth and Alalyze Truth on a suspect without consent would be treated as unlawfully gathered evidence and thus any hard evidence found against that suspect using information gained from the illegal magic use would be inadmissable.

However, one thing to remember is that a defendant doesn't have the right to challange a violation of another person's constitutional rights. If I use analyze or compel truth on a reluctant but innocent witness then evidence gained from that would still be admissable. It wouldn't be used often, since if the magic should prove that the witness is, in fact, guilty then that witness would be almost unprosecutable.

There is the inevitable discovery exception to tainted evidence, but that requires that a different method of discovering the evidence actually exist. If a person wouldn't even be a suspect if not for illegal magic use, then it would be difficult to justify any discovery as inevitable.

A Note: This is all CAS/UCAS law. The NAN and various Awakened states have no problem using magic. And, of course, the people most interest ing capturing your shadowrunning arse are likely to have an entirely different perspective and guidelines...like Dr. What.

I would have even most Awakened nations consider Compel Truth and Analyze Truth as inadmissable evidence, because otherwise you create a situation where a high-grade initiate is virtually impossible to prosecute (submit to magical examination, throw up absurd Spell Defense and Masking...).

The NAN and Tirs may be magically inclined, but they aren't stupid. They know forensics technique and have the technology, they would logically pursue prosecution in a way that's very similar to the UCAS and any other first world nations. (This is excepting, potentially, one or two of the NAN nations like the Trans-Polar Aleut who might not be modern enough to reliably perform standard investigations.)

Now, as for how it goes down in third-world crapholes like Asamando or violently oppressive societies like Aztlan, that's a different matter...

As far as I know, Magic and the law in te UCAS don't really mix.

Pretty much well all magical information is inadmissible in UCAS court. They still use the good old fashion trial by jury with lawyers and all the trimmings.

Spells cannot be used to gather incriminating evidence, unless that evidence is physical and can be tested by non-magical means.
Any mind reading or truth saying is considers "one mans opinion"
Any assenscing is disregarded as it is a "psychic sense"

UCAS and magic don't work well in the legal system last time I checked.

NAN? That's a WHOLE different barrel of monkeys.

Kong

Assensing is certainly admissable. It is the only possible way to prosecute magical crimes. If I summon an elemental in the privcy of my home and order it to murder someone then the only evidence against me will be my Astral Signiture. Likewise, if I manabolt someone in broad daylight in a crowded public place in front of a trideo camera that is being broadcast live to an international audience then the only evidence against me will be my astral signiture and, possibly, an intense look of consentration that can easily be explainecd away, assuming that I have no geasa.

Astral Forensics are certainly admissable in the UCAS, otherwise magicians would opperate above the law. Then only Michael Knight could stop then and the citizens of the UCAS certainly don't want to rely on him.

Given how magic works mechanically though, I have a hard time seeing how it's going to meet the standards for admissible forensic evidence.

Especially considering how insanely easy it is to remove your signature from the corpse and surrounding area. You'd have a clean "crime scene" before anyone could show up to arrest you.

Well, that's also tampering with evidence, assuming it is evidence. I can't seem to wrap my head around how someone could defeat a Kumho-based Daubert motion or a challenge to admit expert witnesses in magic, especially astral space (which is what anyone giving testimony on magical evidence would be). Besides, it's not like the standard is getting any more lax. On the contrary, things that used to be admissible now aren't.

"Yes, well we found his astral signature, but no we couldn't record it, no we couldn't preserve it, no we cannot share our empirical findings with the defense, no it has degraded to nothingness in the three months between the crime and the indictment that we cannot let the defense conduct their own investigation because there is nothing to investigate, and no, neither of the mages who scanned the signature can provide identical impressions within a reliable margin of error, and no we can't provide any way for the defense to challenge our assertions. Oh, it may be hearsay? And it doesn't fall under a hearsay exception. Umm...."

I'm not buying it. Forensic magic is a virtual impossibility.

The Supreme Court responsible for the Daubert Standard nver existed in the SR universe. In its place is are the Supreme Courts that gave corporations powers normally reserved for nations and said that ethnic cleansing is permissible under the Constitution.
The Frye standard would still be used.

Besides, social pressures would force the recognition of forensic magic simply because people fear the awakened and, without forensic magic, the Awakened can get away with anything.

Well, considering how hostile a court like the Ordell Court would probably be to plaintiffs, Daubert could be too lax a standard compared to one they might mete out. Otherwise it's back to good old quackery under Frye.

Under Frye, magical evidence certainly would be admissable. After all, thematurgy is an accepted scientific field and forensic magic practices are accepted within the field of thematurgy.

Even if the Ordell Court set up more stringent standards, post-awakening Supreme Courts could reverse the decesion and return to the precidented Frye standard under pressure combined from Humanis and other anti-awakened ground, the thematurgical community at large, and normal people who are afraid of being buttraped by the invisible troll.

The restructuring of the law that would follow the merging of the UCAS and Canada provides ample opportuinity for changing standards of admissibility from judicial activism, legislation, and constitutional reform.

However, the Ordell court was more likely to use Soverign Immunity and similar tennents of international law to indemnify corporations.

Well, this only applies to the federal system. Like I mentioned above, there is nothing stopping the states from using magical evidence in ways which might violate the Constitution. I could slap you with a ham sandwich and call you guilty to get a conviction in, say, Nebraska for all intents and purposes.

You know, I completely forgot about astrally sensitive film.

If videotaped evidence can meet the Daubert standard then photographed evidence can, as well. The photographed astral signitures can be independant verified and they can be examined by the defense.


I there any referance to the UCAS Constitution lacking an Equal Protction clause? If so it seems like an extreme oversight.