Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Our Inquisitorial History
My previous post provided a (cursory) glance at broad changes in legal procedure that came about in response to fundamental changes in epistemology. In this post I want to narrow my focus to transformations that have taken place within the United States. My comments here draw heavily from Amalia Kessler's paper, Our Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial, 90 Cornell L Rev 1181 (2005).
[O]ne of the primary purposes of procedure in [the common law] tradition was to ensure simplicity and, thus, facilitate adjudication by a lay jury. …. [S]trict pleading devices served to frame a single, relatively easy factual question, thereby obviating much need for fact-finding. … Litigants at law thus had great freedom to control the evidence presented and the sequence and nature of the proceedings, but could only exercise this freedom within a very circumscribed sphere. This, in turn, meant that litigants had relatively limited opportunities and incentives to use the adversarial framework to undermine truth-seeking.
Posted by John Pfaff on June 9, 2009 at 09:52 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Our Inquisitorial History:
In Colorado, the most important inquisitorial part of the system is child custody determinations. These are now routinely based to a great extent on the report of a Child and Family Investigator (CFI) appointed by the court at the party's expense, who provides the bulk of the important evidence (which is hard to present in a reliable way with adversarial testimony out of context in the courtroom), and who makes recommendations that are very often followed. To a great extent, this happens because the scope of relevant facts is so broad and rich, while the guidance provided by substantive law is so shallow (the "best interests of the child" standard is only marginally more meaningful than "do the right thing.")
I've practiced before a special master with regard to non-custody domestic relations issues in a really fact intensive financial hearing, but this turns out to look very much like an adversarial hearing, with a somewhat less harried fact finder.
Another place where inquistorial processes are used heavily is in sentencing hearings, where a sentencing report by court system affiliated staffers is the dominant form of evidence at a sentencing hearing, particularly in the federal system.
A third area where you see this is where there is a partition action and physical partition (and boundary disputes) is a viable option, as opposed to sale and division of the proceeds. Someone in the field retained by the court usually draws the lines.
While personal injury cases are the classic example of adversarial procedure at the trial phase, at the settlement stage, the inadmissible hearsay of a police report is frequently taken as presumptively true, which gets those cases settled at the rates that they do.
A large share of all cases are fairly simple, document driven contract type cases that can work on an adversarial basis fairly well.
There are cases like civil rights cases, employment cases, and complex injury oriented (as opposed to accident fault oriented) tort cases where myriad witnesses from many points of view are needed and an inquisitor might be useful, but it isn't a huge share of the overall docket.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jun 9, 2009 4:48:26 PM
A once powerful inquisitorial type forum that now has nearly vanished in importance, is the grand jury, which used to serve a variety of purposes, serving as a "select committee" and investigatory body, as well as serving as a charge screening alternative to a preliminary hearing. Every now and then, the older style grand jury report does come out.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jun 9, 2009 4:50:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.