SD v Birdish 2025 Crim 176
SD v Birdish [2025] Crim 176
| Date of judgment | 6th January 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Benbookworm |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] The prosecution brings three counts of election fraud against birdish152, and rigging the outcome of the 156th presidential election by asking Unnamed Conspirator 1 to vote late and change their SimDem Unique Identification Token (SUIT) with the Registry Commission, and by changing the rankings of several people’s ballots.
- [1.1] Despite the Registry Commission (RC) and Registry Commissioner having been established as an independent agency since 22 August 2025 with the passage of the Voter Registry Act 2025, there were sometimes references to the Department of Voter Registration (DoVR) and Secretary of Voter Registration (SoVR). This court does not believe that such a level of semantics changes the results of this trial, and also apologizes in advance if the same error is committed here at any point.
[2] Article 37 of the Criminal Code 2020 lays out the definition of election fraud:
“§1. Election fraud is the crime of unlawfully interfering in an election by the use of alternate accounts or other methods of producing illegitimate votes which are not cast legally by citizens of SimDemocracy, in order to influence election results.”
- [2.1] The use of alternate accounts has not been alleged; considerations will center on “other methods of producing illegitimate votes…”.
- [2.2] The interference in an election must have been done in order to influence election results.
Evaluation of evidence and witness testimony
[3] Much of the prosecution's intended evidence was rejected for incompleteness, leaving two screenshots and three witnesses. Owing to this, the court opts to review the evidence and testimony that was indeed admitted, and then present relevant arguments that did not rely on inadmissible evidence.
[4] The prosecution admitted screenshots to show the accused confessing to Confessor 1, saying that they had noticed Unnamed Conspirator 1 had voted with an invalid SUIT and that their preferred candidate would not win. The accused messaged Unnamed Conspirator 1 to fix their SUIT with the Registry Commission, and changed enough votes to affect the election results.
- [4.1] When called as a witness, Confessor 1 attested that the screenshots were not altered and related the same content.
- [4.2] No other testimony or evidence was introduced to corroborate that the accused had ever messaged Unnamed Conspirator 1, nor were they called as a witness.
- [4.2.1] On the eve of closing arguments, the prosecution attempted to request a recess to introduce new and vital evidence: an affidavit from Unnamed Conspirator 1 testifying that the accused had asked them to correct their SUIT. However, this was manifestly not evidence—even the affidavit itself had been written a week prior, let alone the underlying information being known to the prosecution since filing the criminal complaint. A mountain of case law including the binding Interlocutory Appeal of SD v Dragoncrxst [2025] SDCR 22 [12-12.1] led the court to unequivocally reject the motion.
[5] When called as a witness, an SDIOA contractor affirms they were hired to investigate the 156th presidential election, and had written EX 35/2025.
- [5.1] However, the admission of EX 35/2025 itself was successfully objected to. The SDIOA report is not relevant here to proving the elements of the crime, but just that the SDIOA did an investigation and the SDIOA believes wrongdoing occurred. It draws legal conclusions; in a trial, such conclusions are required to be made by a judge. The prosecution had been warned of such, and failed to adjust their strategy accordingly.
- [5.1.1] This reasoning has been applied analogously even to other judicial proceedings; more than just government reports. Unlike in SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117, the prosecution here at least attempted to admit some of the underlying evidence that the SDIOA relied on. But the conclusions of the SDIOA are not binding on criminal trials, not the least because of different standards of proof. This is not analogous to SD v Dick_head68 [2020] Crim 15 [2], as there is a difference between established facts and established conclusions.
- [5.2] Although the report contained tallies for the valid votes, the contents of the report were never admitted, and no other piece of evidence nor testimony provided those numbers.
[6] When called as a witness, the Supervisor of Elections responded in the affirmative that the accused tabulated the results, and that the voting results presented by the accused did not match the ballots submitted.
- [6.1] Under CPA 13§5(c), the court takes notice that the accused indeed held the office of Electoral Commissioner at the time of the alleged misconduct. The Supervisor’s testimony serves to show that the accused was the commissioner that tabulated the results of the 156th presidential election.
- [6.2] The underlying tabulation was not provided in any admitted evidence nor testimony. This testimony here merely serves to show that the Supervisor of Elections believes the voting results were incorrect, but the conclusions of the Supervisor are not legally equivalent to those of a judge. See [5] above and its subpoints.
Arguments
[7] Notwithstanding [3], the prosecution’s arguments are largely contained within the above discussion of the admitted evidence. Even in closing arguments, the prosecution frequently mentioned facts that were not admitted into evidence.
[8] The defense attempted to put forward a strained argument that this court must correct. Citing Article 1§3 of the Voter Registry Act 2025, they put forward that a vote is legitimate so long as it contains a ballot and a valid SUIT. Then, the defense made an inconceivable leap in logic that because any changes of the scores a voter gave to a candidate constitute neither, that such would not count as Election Fraud. This is farcical. Unlawfully changing the contents of a ballot absolutely renders it an illegitimate vote.
Considerations
[9] SD v Dick_head68 [2020] Crim 15 [5] is critical here: “A confession to a crime cannot by itself be taken as proof of the crime, unless the action of claiming itself is criminalised.” The confession must still be supported by evidence.
- [9.1] The cited case is reinforced by the more recent SD v Fatoldchops [2025] Crim 153 [12], which introduced to SimDemocracy case law that hearsay has lower probative value than a statement admitted in court under penalty of perjury.
- [9.2] On this reasoning, the court rejects references to contacting Unnamed Conspirator 1, as such has only been supported by the hearsay confession, and nothing else.
[10] Contrary to common belief, circumstantial evidence is not weak. Often, it is among the strongest evidence possible: eyewitness testimony placed a murder suspect near the place where a recently stabbed body was found, that suspect was found shortly thereafter with a bloody knife, and that suspect had motive to kill the victim. Circumstantial evidence gives rise to logical inferences: although nobody saw that suspect stab the victim, it is absolutely a logical conclusion to make.
- [10.1] In previous case law, judges have referred to using Occam’s Razor, but those conclusions are likely better interpreted as describing circumstantial evidence. See SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4 [18], SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54 [8], SD v bedshaped. [2025] Crim 89 [17.1], the final judgment in People of Minecraft v kingofoats [2025] MCrim 01 [5], and SD v Rabbit [2025] Crim 109 [16].
[11] Regarding the alleged changing of ballot contents, no evidence of the fact of the change was ever admitted:
- Confessor 1 presented hearsay testimony that the accused confessed to changing votes.
- The SDIOA contractor testified they wrote a report (and the inadmissible contents say the SDIOA concludes vote tampering happened).
- The Supervisor of Elections testified that the accused was responsible for tallying the results, and that they had concluded the presented results did not match the original results.
But the results were never admitted into evidence, only testimony that a few witnesses believed such had happened.
[12] Although circumstantial evidence can indeed be enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to admit such, and instead relied solely on a combination of inadmissible evidence, weak hearsay, and attempting to substitute witness conclusions for those of the trier of fact (in SimDemocracy, that is exclusively a judge, as juries are not used). As introduced in SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117, the trier of fact is the one responsible for making conclusions based on evidence, not the prosecution, not the defense, not any witnesses called.
- [12.1] This attempt to use witnesses to present conclusions is analogous to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nolan (Appellant) v Lucas (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 33 [5] that a witness cannot be called to give testimony on legal conclusions. In [7], the Supreme Court says that the judge (the trier of fact) applies the perspective of a reasonable person to the arguments presented.
Conclusion
[13] Despite having been warned to consider the effects of case law on their evidence, the prosecution failed to heed such. It is perhaps regrettable that the prosecution did not provide admissible evidence for such an evaluation to occur. They had the opportunity to improve their evidence before trial began, only to fully realize the consequences on the eve of closing arguments. The prosecution even failed to articulate the three separate counts alleged in the criminal complaint.
[14] The State failed to produce evidence to support their arguments, and now shall not have another chance, as double jeopardy is attached. The accused is not guilty of any counts of election fraud.