Gemstone Gazette Transcript of Analysis of the Beginning of Leonid Volkin's Trial

Anchor Chris Tolmero: Good evening all, I'm Chris Tolmero and you are joining me for a special edition of the Gazette Newsroom. I am as usual joined by my co-host, Rachel O'Malley, but we are not the only two here today.

Rachel O'Malley: Thanks, Chris; as many of you are no doubt aware today marked the end, finally, of opening statements in the trial of former Baikalan Premier Leonid Volkin. Joining us to make comment on that event we have a returning expert on Baikala, former Bailakan correspondent for the Gazette Jennifer Chapman-

Jennifer Chapman: Hello!

RO: And then we have a first-time guest on the program. Professor Charle Montrescau has been teaching criminal law in Biggonia for more than twenty years now. He's joining us live from his office in Ivasburg. Say hello, Professor.

Charle Montrescau: Happy to be here.

CT: So, a bit of background for those who may be unaware or those who haven't been closely following this development. Some weeks ago, on the twenty-second of May, was the funeral of former Biggonian Emperor Josef III. While at that funeral, Leonid Volkin made a recording of a conversation between two Micalandian diplomats. Well, I supposed I should say "Allegedly" recorded, right?

Chuckles all around

CT: Anyhow, a couple days later, the Baikalan ambassador to the INTC played that footage in the General Assembly. Once he'd done that, well, people started asking questions. Now, Professor, Biggonia is a two-party consent state, yes?

CM: Yes, Chris, it is. Now for those who might not know, what that means is that, in order for a private individual to record a conversation in Biggonia, they have to get permission from all parties involved in that conversation.

RO: Jennifer, that's not the case in Baikala, correct?

JC: That is correct. Baikala only requires single-party consent in a conversation to record it and, more than that, Bailakan law states that citizens have an obligation to record any illicit activity they might come across.

RO: And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it. This recorded conversation involved a Micalandian representative confessing to, essentially, fraud at a national level. A representative, by the way, who appears to have vanished during the Micalandian governmental restructuring.

CT: What impact do you think that'll have had on the trial and suchlike, Professor?

CM: It seems likely to me that the prosecution was able to reach out and get a statement or at least found something to indicate that recording consent was not given, otherwise the defense would probably have been hammering on that point from the beginning. They do get to see the evidence beforehand so they do know some stuff we don't yet.

RO: Now, to shift the subject somewhat, we've seen three full days of opening statements, nearly every individual member of the defense council took an opportunity to speak to the jury, is that normal?

CM: Well, it isn't unheard of, but I wouldn't call it common. One of the interesting things of course is that Viktor Marshenkov, the Baikalan chief governmental lawyer, who is serving as an assistant to Anna Meier, he himself spent more than sixteen hours over the last several days personally speaking out. Notably he had... Let me check here... He had thirty-six different statements struck from the record at the request of the prosecution as irrelevant to the trial at hand, and the Prosecution finally got him stop speaking by asking the Judge to have him stop because they had had to strike the last four hours of his statement from the record in various bits and pieces.

CT: Jennifer, you're somewhat more familiar with Marshenkov, and professor, as well, do you think this is because he is not at all trained in Biggonian law? Or what do you think?

JC: Well, Marshenkov does come out of the Baikalan legal system, in which he in his capacity as government representative is very much not used to any sort of restrictions on what he is permitted to say. What I'm wondering, though, is why Meier isn't doing anything to rein him in.

CM: To answer the implied question there, she has made several attempts to get him to stand down and if you noticed, when the prosecution moved to stop Marshenkov's speaking, she nodded along with their reasoning. She is the chief defensive council, of course, but Marshenkov has appeared to outside observation to be the one who is really running the show. He was the one who contacted her firm and hired her, after all, and it's possible that if she tries to move against her he'll have her dismissed from the case.

JC: It is certainly in his character to do so, Viktor Marshenkov has something of a reputation as a control freak and somebody who does very much not like to be told what to do.

RO: So you think then that there might be some sort of tension or trouble within the defense counsel?

JC and CM, simultaneously: Yes.

CT: And do you think, then, that his Baikalan legal background has had some sort of impact on the fact that, in spite of evidence to the contrary having been presented live on international television, the defense continues to plead Not Guilty?

CM: Almost certainly. Meier has, historically, done a lot of work in such high-profile cases, where guilt is all-but assured; generally, though, her focus is on sentencing and not on the trial itself, she tends to regard them as something of a lost cause. If she is deviating from that it is almost definitely at the behest of wither Marsenkov or Volkin himself.

RO: Well then. I'm sure we'll have the two of you back in to discuss testimony later, and evidence and whatnot. Thanks for coming on Jennifer, Professor.

JC: Thanks for having me.

CM: Thanks indeed.

CT: Alright, well, that's interesting to hear.

RO: And it'll be interesting to continue to follow, so make sure you stay tuned for more Gazette special broadcasts. That's about all the time we've got, so, back to you, Sarah.