@LucasCunningham Unless @■■■■■■■ wishes otherwise, I am sure that desire can be accommodated. Right now, I am waiting for more documentation so as to get to work on the appeals process.
I wonder if Angel One would let Starfleet borrow their technology? They did have that device for enforcing their “moral imperative” that seemed to disintegrate vases well. 
Has a verdict already been passed?
Sorry, yes, I wrote the decision about a month ago and forgot that you had indicated your interest in knowing the decision. My apologies!
So, without further ado, here is the text of that decision:
Decision Regarding Sentence of Ensign Velsuvian Brok
Starfleet Court Martial Decision # 87321-2271
Date of Decision: 10-10-2271In the matter of the case regarding the conviction against Ensign Velsuvian Brok, there are
several questions that must be answered. Ensign Brok has brought forth this appeal on the basis of both the sentence and the conviction, so this court will examine both.The first question we will consider is whether the evidence of the nanite infection is fresh or
new. By legal definition, fresh evidence is considered to be additional evidence discovered after the trial that was not available at the time of trial despite reasonable diligence in discovery of pertinent facts. New evidence, in contrast, is evidence that was available at the time of trial but not discovered at that time.This court finds that the evidence of the nanite infection is fresh evidence because there was no reason for the defendant to be examined for the presence of nanites at the time and therefore they were discovered only after the trial during another medical procedure. Therefore, it is admissible whether this appeal is on the grounds of conviction or sentence.
Next, we must determine whether the nanites had negative effects on the Ensign in regard to the trial at Court Martial. As Ensign Brok pleaded guilty and refused her right to legal counsel
whereas a defendant of sound mind and body in a similar situation would most commonly have chosen differently, this court sees the nanites may have caused her to act against her best interests and therefore could be considered a reasonable explanation for either diminished capacity or automatism.To help decide this point, we need to look at Ensign Brok’s history. Up to the time of the
incident in question, she had demonstrated proper conduct as a Starfleet officer to the point of
earning numerous honors, thus showing a deep understanding of the chain of command, her
responsibilities as a junior officer in Starfleet, and her desire to support and practice the
discipline and skills she learned during her years at Starfleet Academy. The change in her
demeanor to become insubordinate, obstinate, and aggressive during the event in question was such a radical departure from her history that we must acknowledge that there was something influencing this change. Though Doctor Drake, during his examination of Ensign Brok, was unable to find any indication of when the nanites were introduced into her body, this is of lesser concern than when they might have been activated and to what end. It would be reasonable to conclude that the change in her actions and personality were caused by the activation of those nanites, especially considering that upon their removal, Brok’s personality changed back to her normal self and she did at that time seek advice from legal counsel.Given the fact that the change in demeanor came about just before this incident and said
demeanor reverted to her norm after the nanites were discovered and removed, this court finds that the nanites are a reasonable explanation for the arguments of diminished capacity and/or automatism. Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that the plea of guilty was not made by the Ensign while of sound mind and body and/or while free of coercion whether recognized or unrecognized by her at the time and therefore the plea is inadmissible. This fact disallows the sentence that has been imposed as it negates any conclusion of guilt as that has not yet been proven. Therefore, this fact effectively vacates the sentence from the court martial and satisfies one of the reviews requested in the Notice of Appeal.So, the matter now comes down to whether a retrial or acquittal would be more appropriate. Per legal standard, an Appellate Court needs to consider whether the admissible evidence given at the original trial was sufficient to justify a conviction. Further, the Court must take into account circumstances that render it unjust to require the defendant to stand trial again. In this second consideration, the Court must take into account the general public interest in the pursuit of justice as well as the interests of the defendant.
To argue for the prospect of a retrial, there is the fact that there was no original trial due to the
plea of guilty and that plea has now been invalidated. As such, the prosecution may seek its day in court to pursue justice for the alleged crimes. The Ensign did appear to commit numerous acts against the Starfleet Uniform Code of Justice and, if this case is sent to re-trial, Ensign Brok will be able to tell her side of the incident, a right guaranteed to her which she was denied by the foreign influence of the nanites and/or any external entity controlling them.However, arguments for the decision of acquittal include the fact that the incident was minor and had no lasting effects on Starfleet, diplomatic relations, or other such interests that would compel the continued pursuit of this case and therefore would seem to support a discontinuation of the costs of this case. Further, as the Ensign was not acting of her own accord, then it was not she who was committing these acts but the nanites and/or the one who infected her and thus was the one ultimately in control of the effects they had on her. This would be similar to the sentient android Lieutenant Commander Data being brought up on charges for actions taken while under the influence of his father’s recall circuit in 2367. Data was no more in control of his actions while commandeering the Enterprise-D and rerouting it to Terlina III while under the influence of this homing device implanted at the time of Data’s creation than Ensign Brok was for her actions while under the influence of the nanites regardless of when she was infected by them.
Another case of outside influence was that of the infestation of top Starfleet personnel at
Starfleet Command in 2364. In this incident, Admirals Aaron, Quinn, and Savar, Captain Scott,
and Lieutenant Commander Remmick were under the control of parasites that attached
themselves to the victims’ spines and directly controlled their thoughts and actions. Though
most of these victims were killed either by phaser fire from Captain Picard and Commander
Riker or by the parasites leaving the victims’ bodies, Captain Scott did survive and has not been brought up on charges for her violations of Starfleet laws and regulations during the time of her foreign influence.The parallels of these incidents seem quite clear to this court. It would be more appropriate for
the prosecution to seek out those who activated and directed the nanites infecting Ensign Brok at the time of the incident than to continue to press charges against her.Considering the evidence and the circumstances regarding the aforementioned incidents and how they parallel with the case against Ensign Brok, this court orders that an acquittal of all charges be entered into the record and that Ensign Brok be allowed to return to duty in Starfleet with the same clean record that she had prior to the vacated judgement from her original court martial. Any benefits–including time of honorable service–that she would have received during the time of her incarceration shall be provided her as if she had been in uninterrupted continual service.
This court also suggests that the prosecution and investigative arms of Starfleet pursue
appropriate avenues into who compromised Ensign Brok, when this was carried out, and ideally what the end goals were to be by conducting the crime of foreign control/automatism of one of its fine officers. While this may be a singular incident, it could also be only the tip of a much larger iceberg that has been uncovered. In the interest of Starfleet and potentially Federation security, it would behoove Starfleet to act on this without delay.
Wow.
If I ever need a board of appeals for my games, I will contact you.
Some folks have asked me why I didn’t bring up Picard/Locutus and the Borg in my decision and the reason is that I did not feel it was a good comparison. The Borg are a collective of innumerable minds flooding the thoughts of each drone, all of which are compelling the drone to act a certain way. As such, it is not a single biological entity who is in control but the entire hive. Therefore, the example of the Borg is far removed from what Ensign Brok suffered: the altering of her thoughts (by technological means) presumably by someone close at hand.
There was no mention made of unusual detected signals, so any control over the nanites had to be very low in transmission power and therefore would have had to be in very close proximity to exert any control over the nanites. Thus, the controller was most assuredly aboard the ship and, I would speculate, most likely very near to Ensign Brok on a regular basis so as to monitor her and modify the instructions given to the nanites as required to result in the preferred actions of Brok.
This was incredibly well done, and very close to what an appeals court would actually do.
The judge seemed to consider some facts not in evidence, and some evidence didn’t appear to have been entered into that probably would have been, but overall very nice.