Rule 7. Practice in the Territorial Court
The practice and procedure in the Territorial Court shall be governed by
the Rules of the Territorial Court and, to the extent not inconsistent
therewith, by the Rules of the District Court, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of
Evidence.--Amended Sept. 13, 1975; Oct. 14, 1994, eff. Nov. 16, 1994.
Case Notes
Generally
Arraignments
Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Motions
Speedy Trial Act
Time for appeal
Generally
This rule does not mandate verbatim adoption of the practice and
procedure of the District Court. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Quetel,
Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. 1982, 18 V.I. 145.
Arraignments
Section 26 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, 48 U.S.C.S.
'' 1541 et seq., 1616, remains in full force and effect; thus, in order to have
exercised his right to a jury trial in the Virgin Islands, defendant must have
demanded one; further, pursuant to V.I. Terr. Ct. R. 7 and LRCr 23.1, he must
have demanded one at the time of arraignment, which he failed to do. Government
of the Virgin Islands v. Boynes, 2003 V.I. LEXIS 5, 45 V.I. 195 (Terr. Ct. St.
T. and St. J. Apr. 9, 2003).
Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act
While Juvenile Proceedings in District Court under the Federal Juvenile
Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 5031 et seq., and those in Territorial Court under
local law are appropriately considered "like causes" under this rule,
which provides that practice and procedure in the Territorial Court conform as
nearly as may be to that in District Court in like causes, time limitation of
federal act applying to juvenile proceedings in District Court--a requirement
that juvenile in detention pending trial be brought to trial within thirty days
of beginning of detention, absent certain circumstances--would not apply to
juvenile proceedings in Territorial Court since juveniles processed in
Territorial Court are charged with violating only Virgin Islands statutes and
Plan for Disposition of Criminal Cases, under which federal act applies to
juvenile proceedings in District Court, expressly provides that the Act shall
not apply to juvenile being processed for offenses which are violations of
Virgin Islands statutes. In re Marvin A., Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. 1980, 17
V.I. 102.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Time limits contained in federal procedural rule applied to action in
Territorial Court, and therefore Court would not reconsider its denial, as
untimely, of plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under local statute. Kansas
Packing Co. v. Lavilla, Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. 1998, 39 V.I. 71.
Although territorial court is not a federal court it must conform to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where there is no local rule to the contrary.
Investigations Unlimited v. All American Holding Corp., Terr. Ct. St. T. and
St. J. 1979, 16 V.I. 524.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Federal rules of criminal procedure could not govern criminal proceedings
in Territorial Court, since its application would diminish substantive power of
executive branch to prosecute by requiring leave of Territorial Court in order
to dismiss a criminal prosecution; application of rule would also violate
constitutionally mandated doctrine of separation of powers. In re Richards,
D.C.V.I. 1999, 40 V.I. 161, 52 F. Supp. 2d 522.
Motions
Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's motion for summary judgment,
claiming that plaintiff failed to conform to Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules of
Civil Procedure by filing the original motion directly with the court instead
of filing only its notice of motion for summary judgment until defendants were
given the opportunity to reply, was denied because there has never been such a
filing requirement in the Territorial Court, and this rule does not mandate
verbatim adoption of the practice and procedure of the District Court.
Citibank, N.A. v. Chammah, 2001 V.I. LEXIS 40, 44 V.I. 85 (Terr. Ct. St. T. and
St. J. Oct. 2, 2001).
Although Territorial Court Rule 7 authorizes the court to deem as
conceded the defendant's motions because the plaintiff has not responded to the
defendant's motions, it is not alone a sufficient basis for the entry of
summary judgment; there must, in addition, be a finding that judgment for the
defendant is appropriate. Marcano v. Cowpet Beach Resort, Inc., Terr. Ct. St.
T. and St. J., (1995), 31 V.I. 99.
Speedy Trial Act
When an express provision of the Speedy Trial Act limits its application
to federal offenses, District Court plan adopting the maximum time limits of
the act within which a criminal trial must begin is not applicable to criminal
proceedings in the Territorial Court. Government of the Virgin Islands v.
Quetel, Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. 1982, 18 V.I. 145.
The adoption and application of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. '
4161 et seq., to local cases in the District Court of the Virgin Islands by the
Plan for the Disposition of Criminal Cases does not constitute practice and
procedure in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, so as to make it
applicable to the Territorial Court by virtue of this rule which requires that
practice and procedure in the Territorial Court conform as nearly as may be to
that in the District Court in like causes. In re Marvin A., Terr. Ct. St. T.
and St. J. 1980, 17 V.I. 102.
Time for appeal
The Territorial Court's practice of combining a memorandum opinion and
order into one document in effect, allows an unlimited time for an appeal of
that judgment to be filed. Government of V.I. v. Construction Technicians,
D.C.V.I. 1996, 35 V.I. 184, 948 F. Supp. 491.
The trial court's entry of a separate order or judgment required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 starts the 30-day time period within which
an appeal must be filed, and in the absence of such a separate judgment being
entered, an appellant is not bound by the 30-day limitation and may timely file
an appeal even one year after the separate order was entered. Government of
V.I. v. Construction Technicians, D.C.V.I. 1996, 35 V.I. 184, 948 F. Supp. 491.
Cited
Cited in Crowley Am. Transp., Inc. v. Bryan, D.C.V.I. 1999, 41 V.I. 194,
55 F. Supp. 2d 356; Towers Condominium Ass'n v. C.E. Brathwaite & Assocs.,
Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. 1999, 40 V.I. 33; Gov't of V.I. v. Williams, 2002
V.I. LEXIS 17, 44 V.I. 181 (Terr. Ct. St. C. 2002); Gov't of V.I. v. Joseph,
2002 V.I. LEXIS 26, 45 V.I. 15 (Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. Sept. 5, 2002);
Dysart v. Dysart, 2002 V.I. LEXIS 33, 45 V.I. 118 (Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J.
Dec. 17, 2002); Nickeo v. Atl. Tele-Network Co., 2003 V.I. LEXIS 1, 45 V.I. 149
(Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. Jan. 14, 2003); In re Horton, 2003 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3054, -- V.I. --, -- F. Supp. 2d -- (D.C.V.I. Feb. 5, 2003); Lee v.
Gruel, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3152, -- V.I. --, -- F. Supp. 2d -- (D.C.V.I. Feb.
26, 2003); Save Long Bay Coalition v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Land Use Appeals,
2003 V.I. LEXIS 15, 45 V.I. 312 (Terr. Ct. St. T. and St. J. Oct. 20, 2003).
Main - Table of Contents | Up one level
