I think, with respect, that all this talk about legal proceedings, rights of the accused, and courtroom formalities misses the point. Nugget hit the nail right on the head. The judicial committee arrangement is there to determine if the sinner or wrongdoer is repentant of the actions they are accused or suspected of doing. Yes, a person can use the proceedings to clear his or her name if a false accusation has been made, and sometimes false charges are exposed and the accused is vindicated. But the real purpose behind this is "to keep the congregation clean" and to disfellowship "unrepentant wrongdoers", period.
All the talk about how to present a case, who can serve on a judicial committee, etc, is only window dressing to give the appearance of being honest, fair, and open. In effect, the WTS believes and teaches that a judicial committee is formed merely to affirm the decision that Jehovah and Jesus have already made with respect to the "sinner". That is how it was explained to the congregation I associated with and what I was told when I met with my judicial committee. Nobody accused me of wrongdoing in my case. I confessed and met with the committee to see what would be done. I was disfellowshipped because it was determined that I was a 'practicer of sin' and had to be kicked out for the good of the congregation despite the fact that I posed no danger spiritually or otherwise to anybody else. It is important to emphasize that any decision made by a judicial committee--disfellowshipping, public or private reproof, or dismissal of charges--is seen as confirmation of a divine edict. Holy spirit supposedly guides the elders to their decision.
That gives considerable latitude to the elders who sit on any judicial or appeals committee. It means that secular legal jurisprudence or law has no bearing on how a judicial case is to be handled. Oh, there may be some deference given them, but if anybody wants to use them as a basis for procedure, he will not have that opportunity. Since the Bible is also silent on such matters other than to say if someone is accused of wrongdoing that must be attested to by two or three witnesses, the WTS is free to make up its own procedures and move accordingly.
I haven't read the article yet but will do so. However, I thought I should make this point first. We are not talking about a judicial system that is subject to any review or sanction by a secular or higher authority. That is of the utmost importance to keep in mind. Any reform and/or change will come only because the Governing Body has decided to make it. Since those men are not answerable to anyone else, and because in many lands they enjoy a constitutional right to handle "internal affairs" as they see fit, I wouldn't look for the WTS judicial system to change.
Quendi