Adversarial In
common law systems, an adversarial or accusatory approach is used to adjudicate
guilt or
innocence. The assumption is that the truth is more likely to emerge from the open contest between the
prosecution and the
defense in presenting the
evidence and opposing legal arguments, with a
judge acting as a neutral referee and as the arbiter of the law. In several jurisdictions in more serious cases, there is a
jury to determine the facts, although some common law jurisdictions have abolished the jury trial. This polarizes the issues, with each competitor acting in its own self-interest, and so presenting the facts and interpretations of the law in a deliberately biased way. The intention is that through a process of argument and counter-argument,
examination-in-chief and
cross-examination, each side will test the truthfulness, relevancy, and sufficiency of the opponent's evidence and arguments. To maintain fairness, there is a
presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Critics of the system argue that the desire to win is more important than the search for truth. Further, the results are likely to be affected by
structural inequalities. Those defendants with resources can afford to hire the best
lawyers. Some trials are—or were—of a more summary nature, as certain questions of evidence were taken as resolved (see
handhabend and backberend).
Inquisitorial In
civil law legal systems, the responsibility for supervising the investigation by the
police into whether a crime has been committed falls on an
examining magistrate or judge who then conducts the trial. The assumption is that the truth is more likely to emerge from an impartial and exhaustive investigation, both before and during the trial itself. The examining magistrate or judge acts as an inquisitor who directs the fact-gathering process by questioning
witnesses,
interrogating the suspect, and collecting other evidence. The lawyers who represent the interests of the state and the accused have a limited role to offer legal arguments and alternative interpretations to the facts that emerge during the process. All the interested parties are expected to cooperate in the investigation by answering the magistrate or judge's questions and, when asked, supplying all relevant evidence. The trial only takes place after all the evidence has been collected and the investigation is completed. Thus, most of the factual uncertainties will already be resolved, and the examining magistrate or judge will already have resolved that there is
prima facie of guilt. Critics argue that the examining magistrate or judge has too much power with the responsibilities of both investigating and adjudicating
on the merits of the case. Although
lay assessors do sit as a form of jury to offer advice to the magistrate or judge at the conclusion of the trial, their role is subordinate. Further, because a professional has been in charge of all aspects of the case to the conclusion of the trial, there are fewer opportunities to appeal the conviction alleging some procedural error. ==Mistrials==